# Zimmerman Trial



## painterswife

I have not found anything about these statements any where else but these two things if proven true are not good for Zimmerman.

"Trayvon's DNA not on gun
No blood belonging to Zimmerman was found on Trayvon's hands"


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...oments-shot-Trayvon-Martin.html#ixzz2X9CmqH00 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


----------



## chickenista

I find it ....weird, disturbing .. that the defense lawyer opened with a knock knock joke.. 
_'Knock. Knock. Who's there? George Zimmerman. George Zimmerman who? Good. You're on the jury."_
Really?!
Very crass.


----------



## Ardie/WI

I have a feeling that the whole trial is going to be a fiasco.

Am not watching it.


----------



## TheMartianChick

I haven't been watching, but maybe I'll turn it on for a bit. I'm sure that hubby will want to watch when he gets home. He watches all of the big trials when they are aired on tv.


----------



## painterswife

I am listening to to it while I work. The defense attorney is still on his opening arguments. He is laying out his case. It is quite boring. No evidence just all supposition at this point.


----------



## painterswife

The defense is now blaming the evidence team for how they treated the crime scene and autopsy.


----------



## davel745

chickenista said:


> I find it ....weird, disturbing .. that the defense lawyer opened with a knock knock joke..
> _'Knock. Knock. Who's there? George Zimmerman. George Zimmerman who? Good. You're on the jury."_
> Really?!
> Very crass.


Zimmerman is done. 
I don't understand how this jerk of a lawyer could be so stupid. I thought Zimmerman may of been acquitted now he is going to jail. 
Megan Kelly and the detective guy Mark Furman didn't like the joke, neither did I.


----------



## painterswife

davel745 said:


> Zimmerman is done.
> I don't understand how this jerk of a lawyer could be so stupid. I thought Zimmerman may of been acquitted now he is going to jail.
> Megan Kelly and the detective guy Mark Furman didn't like the joke, neither did I.


He apologized for the joke after lunch but stated he still thought it was funny.


----------



## TheMartianChick

painterswife said:


> He apologized for the joke after lunch but stated he still thought it was funny.


Which speaks volumes about the lawyer's sense of humor and taste...


----------



## 7thswan

Zimmerman will be railroaded. Judges can keep out so much evidence nowdays , that the outcome is all up to the Judge. In the times we are living right now, every/any person that is upholding their own rights , don't have a chance. If the Truth about Travyon , Zimmerman might have a chance. We'll see.


----------



## painterswife

7thswan said:


> Zimmerman will be railroaded. Judges can keep out so much evidence nowdays , that the outcome is all up to the Judge. In the times we are living right now, every/any person that is upholding their own rights , don't have a chance. If the Truth about Travyon , Zimmerman might have a chance. We'll see.


Your post comes across as having already judged the system without even giving it a chance to work. You seem to have decided that he is not guilty and you have seen none of the actual evidence. In my opinion that seems like you are guilty of what you are accusing the system of. That is how it appears.


----------



## wannabechef

I'm pretty sure it will either be a mistrial or George will be free. There is no way in hell George could get a fair trial in this country by the way the media handled the story from the beginning. They had him pinned as a gun happy racist from the beginning...and Obama "if I had a son...", stay out of it Mr President, not your place to speak about this case...but I know it fits his agenda.


----------



## TheMartianChick

I was surprised to hear about how little Trayvon weighed. He was somewhere in the 150-160 range and he was 5'11". 

A photo on tv doesn't provide much perspective. My stepson is in his 30's, is one inch taller and weighs about the same. When my stepson visits, I'm always trying to push food on him because he is painfully thin. He's never been able to gain any weight.


----------



## manfred

I've yet to see a black person that has not decided that George must die.


----------



## vicker

I've always heard how they stick together, and that you have to fight them all if you fight one. I was also taught that you should kick then in the heel, as that would pretty much incapacitate them.  lol! I always have wondered how many black men wondered, "why did that idiot kick me in the heel right before I knocked him out?". Hahaha!


----------



## TheMartianChick

Nice to meet you Manfred! 

I don't feel that George Zimmerman must die. I don't consider this to be a case that would qualify for capital murder charges. I'd like to see him get a fair trial. I don't think that I'm impartial enough to serve on the jury, though. I can guarantee that I'd feel the same way if Trayvon had been a white teen walking home in the rain carrying a a can of Arizona fruit juice and some Skittles. 

I'm a mom and a grandmom...I find it hard to understand how this situation warranted a call to the police. I cannot fathom how it escalated into something so awful and I feel deep sadness for a family that will never see their son again. Never is a long time...I have a great deal of empathy for parents who have lost children. Those are the things that would make me unfit to be a juror on any trial like this. I do hope that George Zimmerman gets a fair trial. Everyone deserves that.


----------



## CesumPec

I'm guessing that GZ is a little man who wanted to be a hero, went looking for trouble and found more than he could really handle, but his was a justified shooting. He might be a racist, he might have profiled, he might be a jerk, but if he was attacked, he was justified to use deadly force. 

But the only thing I'm sure of is that the media didn't get the whole story, what parts of it they got wasn't told fully or right, and that there is more to be learned during the trial. So I'll withhold judgment.


----------



## davel745

TheMartianChick said:


> Which speaks volumes about the lawyer's sense of humor and taste...


I wonder what kind of a defense Zimmerman will get from this guy.


----------



## TheMartianChick

davel745 said:


> I wonder what kind of a defense Zimmerman will get from this guy.


I wondered if it was some kind of strategy so that (if convicted) George Zimmerman could use it as an excuse for why his defense was inadequate. It was a very odd moment...


----------



## vicker

It would be an interesting trial to watch. I'd love to see the whole thing. I have to say, I like the stand your ground laws, but it bothers me that it seems to give you power to kill someone to avoid a whooping that you might well deserve.


----------



## CesumPec

vicker said:


> It would be an interesting trial to watch. I'd love to see the whole thing. I have to say, I like the stand your ground laws, but it bothers me that it seems to give you power to kill someone to avoid a whooping that you might well deserve.


The hard part is determining if the whooping was deserved or not when it was only 2 people there. But the law specifically exempts stand your ground protections from the confrontation instigator when

*Use of force by aggressor.â*


The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1)&#8195;Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2)&#8195;*Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself,* unless:
(a)&#8195;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)&#8195;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.


----------



## mmoetc

The unfortunate part is only one person knows the truth of what happened that night and he likely won't testify.


----------



## wannabechef

TheMartianChick said:


> I was surprised to hear about how little Trayvon weighed. He was somewhere in the 150-160 range and he was 5'11".
> 
> A photo on tv doesn't provide much perspective. My stepson is in his 30's, is one inch taller and weighs about the same. When my stepson visits, I'm always trying to push food on him because he is painfully thin. He's never been able to gain any weight.


Mainly because the photos you saw of Trayvon were when he was 9...if that the latest photo of their son the family had its no wonder Trayvon was so messed up.


----------



## Raymond James

I think I will wait for the verdict and not go around stopping people legally walking down the street minding their own business. 


Zimmerman may not be found guilty in a Florida court but I think he will burn in hell for taking that young mans life. His actions directly led to the confrontation and the death. I think St Peter will have a dim view of his actions even if they are deemed legal.


----------



## wannabechef

vicker said:


> I've always heard how they stick together, and that you have to fight them all if you fight one. I was also taught that you should kick then in the heel, as that would pretty much incapacitate them.  lol! I always have wondered how many black men wondered, "why did that idiot kick me in the heel right before I knocked him out?". Hahaha!


I've actually been in a situation where I was jumped by 7 black fellas...well actually after I tried my best to diffuse the situation I ended up getting out of the car (had no choice, car was stalled and I was blocked in), I took an ass whooping' but I stood up to seven guys and they must have thought I was one crazy honky.


----------



## Oggie

Well, when the time comes, the prosecutor will need to be a bit careful when he questions George Zimmerman.

Because, if Zimmerman feels threatened, there's no telling what will happen.


----------



## copperkid3

mmoetc said:


> The unfortunate part is only one person knows the truth of what happened that night and he likely won't testify.


* * * * * * *
of the truth. And the 'fortunate' part, is that he doesn't have to testify

if he doesn't want to. Even more importantly, he's innocent until proven

guilty IN A COURT OF LAW; not the court of public opinion and the media!




Raymond James said:


> I think I will wait for the verdict and not go around stopping people legally walking down the street minding their own business.
> 
> 
> Zimmerman may not be found guilty in a Florida court but I think he will burn in hell for taking that young mans life. His actions directly led to the confrontation and the death. I think St Peter will have a dim view of his actions even if they are deemed legal.


* * * * * * * * * * *
No one burns in hell for the reason(s) you mentioned 

and St. Pete has no say in 

the matter either.



Oggie said:


> Well, when the time comes, the prosecutor will need to be a bit careful when he questions George Zimmerman.
> 
> Because, if Zimmerman feels threatened, there's no telling what will happen.


* * * * * * *
Extremely doubtful that the prosecutor will ever get into a dialog with Zimmerman

(if he has competent counsel), then your worry regarding threatening is unfounded.

But then you knew that already . . .


----------



## unregistered353870

TheMartianChick said:


> I wondered if it was some kind of strategy so that (if convicted) George Zimmerman could use it as an excuse for why his defense was inadequate. It was a very odd moment...


Supposedly he is quite brilliant. The possibility you mentioned did cross my mind. It could also be some kind of psychological trick to make the jury think of the lawyer as the bad guy so Zimmerman doesn't look so bad or even to make the jury feel sorry for him because his lawyer is stupid. He might just know what he's doing.


----------



## unregistered353870

painterswife said:


> I have not found anything about these statements any where else but these two things if proven true are not good for Zimmerman.
> 
> "Trayvon's DNA not on gun
> No blood belonging to Zimmerman was found on Trayvon's hands"
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...oments-shot-Trayvon-Martin.html#ixzz2X9CmqH00
> Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


May not be good for him, but they shouldn't be all that bad for him either. There's plenty of room for valid explanations of those two statements.


----------



## Pearl B

With that particular lawyer I dont think GZ has much of a chance.


----------



## Pugnacious

I have my doubts about this whole thing. The fact that the local DA refused to prosecute him initially makes me think this is a witch hunt. There can't be an untainted outcome. The media needs to learn to report news and not make news.


----------



## 7thswan

painterswife said:


> Your post comes across as having already judged the system without even giving it a chance to work. You seem to have decided that he is not guilty and you have seen none of the actual evidence. In my opinion that seems like you are guilty of what you are accusing the system of. That is how it appears.


You are right, I haven't seen the evidence that WILL BE ALLOWED.(The Point of my post) There was plenty of evidence comeing out when the incident took place.


----------



## mmoetc

copperkid3 said:


> * * * * * * *
> of the truth. And the 'fortunate' part, is that he doesn't have to testify
> 
> if he doesn't want to. Even more importantly, he's innocent until proven
> 
> guilty IN A COURT OF LAW; not the court of public opinion and the media!
> 
> 
> 
> * * * * * * * * * * *
> No one burns in hell for the reason(s) you mentioned
> 
> and St. Pete has no say in
> 
> the matter either.
> 
> 
> * * * * * * *
> Extremely doubtful that the prosecutor will ever get into a dialog with Zimmerman
> 
> (if he has competent counsel), then your worry regarding threatening is unfounded.
> 
> But then you knew that already . . .


The jury is charged with finding the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. That may, or may not, have anything to do with the truth of what happened and more to do with either sides shaping of the evidence to fit their version of events. I have no problem with Mr. Zimmerman exercising his right not to testify. It is his constitutional right and should not be held against him by the jury. The only thing I am sure of relating to this case is that no matter the verdict people will be angry.


----------



## painterswife

7thswan said:


> You are right, I haven't seen the evidence that WILL BE ALLOWED.(The Point of my post) There was plenty of evidence comeing out when the incident took place.


How can you make any kind of judgement when you have not seen or studied any evidence other than what is floating around the news and internet? It does not really matter at this point what will be allowed or not. You have no real idea what is true or not but are judging it as fact.


----------



## 7thswan

painterswife said:


> How can you make any kind of judgement when you have not seen or studied any evidence other than what is floating around the news and internet? It does not really matter at this point what will be allowed or not. You have no real idea what is true or not but are judging it as fact.


Still doesn't change anything. Even the truth can be kept out of a trial. If it makes the victim look bad it will be kept out-even if it's the truth. Haven't you ever seen Jurors interviewed a few weeks after a big trial,they hear evidence that was not allowed- on Tv and in questions from journalists, you will almost always hear them say they regret not having All of the evidence presented to them in court, before the deliberations.


----------



## Lazaryss

7thswan said:


> You are right, I haven't seen the evidence that WILL BE ALLOWED.(The Point of my post) There was plenty of evidence comeing out when the incident took place.


yup, and how much of it was spoon fed by the media to make Mr. Zimmerman look like a racist lunatic. They couldn't even get his race right in the beginning.


----------



## 7thswan

wannabechef said:


> Mainly because the photos you saw of Trayvon were when he was 9...if that the latest photo of their son the family had its no wonder Trayvon was so messed up.


I wonder if the atopsy report will have his weight and height redacted. I can't imagine that would be proper, but if it is,the defense needs to get his true size in to the jurors.


----------



## wannabechef

7thswan said:


> I wonder if the atopsy report will have his weight and height redacted. I can't imagine that would be proper, but if it is,the defense needs to get his true size in to the jurors.


Not sure, but I'd imagine this info would be available to the jurors.

This is the medias portrayal of Trayvon and Zimmerman: 

View attachment 11407


----------



## watcher

The devil is going to be in the details. 

The problem is the will never be able to convict him for the charge they brought and have it stand up under appeal. Months ago when this started I posed the requirements for conviction under FL law for, IIRC, 2nd degree murder. There is NO way a judge can allow a conviction for that to stand based in the legal requirements.

I forget just what is says but in general one part of the law says that to be convicted the state must prove that the person specifically intended to kill the person by his actions. Even if you think Zimmerman went 'after' him there's no way you could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman specifically intended to kill him when he fired the shot.

They MIGHT have been able to get him and make something like manslaughter or deprived interference for life stick but murder 2 isn't going to hold up on appeal. And, IMO, the appeal court will dismiss it "with prejudice" which means the state will not be able to retry him.

The medical reports and pictures of Zimmerman's injuries would put reasonable doubt in anyone's mind about if he had reasonable cause to fear grievous bodily harm at the time he resorted to deadly force.


----------



## CesumPec

watcher said:


> The devil is going to be in the details.
> 
> The problem is the will never be able to convict him for the charge they brought and have it stand up under appeal. Months ago when this started I posed the requirements for conviction under FL law for, IIRC, 2nd degree murder. There is NO way a judge can allow a conviction for that to stand based in the legal requirements.
> 
> I forget just what is says but in general one part of the law says that to be convicted the state must prove that the person specifically intended to kill the person by his actions. Even if you think Zimmerman went 'after' him there's no way you could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman specifically intended to kill him when he fired the shot.
> 
> They MIGHT have been able to get him and make something like manslaughter or deprived interference for life stick but murder 2 isn't going to hold up on appeal. And, IMO, the appeal court will dismiss it "with prejudice" which means the state will not be able to retry him.
> 
> The medical reports and pictures of Zimmerman's injuries would put reasonable doubt in anyone's mind about if he had reasonable cause to fear grievous bodily harm at the time he resorted to deadly force.


this is no time to get all legal on us. let's just hang him to make us feel better. 

sarc off


----------



## 7thswan

Good ol "Intent". From everything I've read it was T. that went after Z. This may be part of why the phone tape of the screaming was kept out. Why would T scream for help when he was the attacker. Leaves too much to speculation that will make a juror have to use their head.


----------



## farmrbrown

painterswife said:


> Your post comes across as having already judged the system without even giving it a chance to work. You seem to have decided that he is not guilty and you have seen none of the actual evidence. In my opinion that seems like you are guilty of what you are accusing the system of. That is how it appears.



Or maybe it IS the way it is supposed to work.
To "*presume* innocence until *proven* guilty"?


----------



## painterswife

farmrbrown said:


> Or maybe it IS the way it is supposed to work.
> To "*presume* innocence until *proven* guilty"?


Thanks for proving my point. The poster judged the system guilty without evidence and also decided the accused was innocent, not presumed not innocent before seeing any evidence. The system does not like you making a decision without actually hearing and seeing the evidence on both sides.


----------



## farmrbrown

painterswife said:


> Thanks for proving my point. The poster judged the system guilty without evidence and also *decided the accused was innocent,*........_ not presumed not innocent_....... before seeing any evidence. The system does not like you making a decision without actually hearing and seeing the evidence on both sides.



I'm not sure I understood this correctly or not.

The accused IS innocent.......unless he/she is convicted.
Unfortunately, the way it usually works is what I put in italics.
_presumed NOT innocent_


----------



## painterswife

farmrbrown said:


> I'm not sure I understood this correctly or not.
> 
> The accused IS innocent.......unless he/she is convicted.
> Unfortunately, the way it usually works is what I put in italics.
> _presumed NOT innocent_


Presumed innocent in a court of law does not mean that the person is innocent. It means that in a court of law you must prove guilt.


----------



## unregistered353870

7thswan said:


> Good ol "Intent". From everything I've read it was T. that went after Z. This may be part of why the phone tape of the screaming was kept out. Why would T scream for help when he was the attacker. Leaves too much to speculation that will make a juror have to use their head.


The tape is not being kept out. The ruling regarding the tapes is that the prosecution's witnesses will not be allowed to testify that the screaming is Martin. That ruling is beneficial to Zimmerman.


----------



## poppy

Raymond James said:


> I think I will wait for the verdict and not go around stopping people legally walking down the street minding their own business.
> 
> 
> Zimmerman may not be found guilty in a Florida court but I think he will burn in hell for taking that young mans life. His actions directly led to the confrontation and the death. I think St Peter will have a dim view of his actions even if they are deemed legal.


Nonsense. Who are you to judge him? You always have a right to self defense.


----------



## poppy

Raymond James said:


> I think I will wait for the verdict and not go around stopping people legally walking down the street minding their own business.
> 
> 
> Zimmerman may not be found guilty in a Florida court but I think he will burn in hell for taking that young mans life. His actions directly led to the confrontation and the death. I think St Peter will have a dim view of his actions even if they are deemed legal.


If you are a security guard, even a volunteer one, it is your job to check out suspicious people in the area. My brother is night guard at a small local airport. The area is flat and you can see a car coming 2 miles away at night. His job is to get in his truck and go see who it is and what they want. They've had break ins in the past. Most of the time it is kids out drinking beer or couples looking for a place to park but he has to check them out.


----------



## JeffreyD

A jury can do things even the president can't do. They can end a man's life if they so choose. A well informed jury is vital to the justice system and the justice systems hates them for it. There's no excuse for keeping any information from them, if they do, it's not a fair trial.


----------



## vicker

I hope I never face a jury, but I've been on a few, and we have a good system. It's not perfect, but its pretty good. I'll go with the jury.


----------



## siberian

Let the jury decide. Personally I say set him free he has suffered enough


----------



## farmrbrown

painterswife said:


> Presumed innocent in a court of law does not mean that the person is innocent. It means that in a court of law you must prove guilt.


Yes, I know what presumed means.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/presumed
preÂ·sume (pr-zm)
v. preÂ·sumed, preÂ·sumÂ·ing, preÂ·sumes
v.tr.
1. To take for granted as being true in the absence of proof to the contrary: We presumed she was innocent.
2. To constitute reasonable evidence for assuming; appear to prove: A signed hotel bill presumes occupancy of a room.
3. To venture without authority or permission; dare: He presumed to invite himself to dinner.
v.intr.
1. To act overconfidently; take liberties.
2. To take unwarranted advantage of something; go beyond the proper limits: Don't presume on their hospitality.
3. To take for granted that something is true or factual; suppose: That's the new assistant, I presume.

I wasn't sure from your previous post, the one with too many "nots", that you did.

In order to truly presume innocence, you actually have to believe it in your heart, not just say it with the mouth.


----------



## painterswife

farmrbrown said:


> Yes, I know what presumed means.
> 
> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/presumed
> preÂ·sume (pr-zm)
> v. preÂ·sumed, preÂ·sumÂ·ing, preÂ·sumes
> v.tr.
> 1. To take for granted as being true in the absence of proof to the contrary: We presumed she was innocent.
> 2. To constitute reasonable evidence for assuming; appear to prove: A signed hotel bill presumes occupancy of a room.
> 3. To venture without authority or permission; dare: He presumed to invite himself to dinner.
> v.intr.
> 1. To act overconfidently; take liberties.
> 2. To take unwarranted advantage of something; go beyond the proper limits: Don't presume on their hospitality.
> 3. To take for granted that something is true or factual; suppose: That's the new assistant, I presume.
> 
> I wasn't sure from your previous post, the one with too many "nots", that you did.
> 
> In order to truly presume innocence, you actually have to believe it in your heart, not just say it with the mouth.


Actually you don't have to believe it in your heart. They will dismiss you from the jury for that. You have to commit to the idea that you will not judge either way until you have heard all the evidence not just what you think you know because what you have read or heard before the trial.


----------



## farmrbrown

Hmmmm.......I've sat on a couple juries and never heard that one before.
I guess my first instinct was right....we don't agree on the definition of "presume."

While the entire concept is fairly new, there are a number of court cases about it.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Innocent+until+proven+guilty


----------



## Nevada

The girlfriend is one terrible witness. She's going to help Zimmerman's case for sure.


----------



## unregistered353870

Saw that coming back when the case was developing last spring.


----------



## unregistered353870

Zimmerman has gotten fat. He should have stayed small for the trial. It would make him look more like the victim.


----------



## Nevada

jtbrandt said:


> Saw that coming back when the case was developing last spring.


She can't remember, she can't read, she can't understand questions, and she doesn't speak in a way that she can be understood. She also has admitted to lying during interviews for a variety of reasons, and is leaving the impression that she can't keep her lies straight.

The defense lawyer was toying with the issue of whether she was really his girlfriend a few times during questioning. She denies it, but it's clear that there's something we don't know about it. My guess is that since she was 18 at the time she's afraid of being accused of having sex with a minor, since the defense lawyer spoke of hundreds of intimate text messages between them. She testified that her friends send the intimate texts using her phone, but I'm skeptical. While an 18 year-old would never be convicted for having sex with a 17 year-old, I doubt she understands that.

But she's contradicting herself to the point where her testimony isn't worth much.


----------



## joseph97297

wannabechef said:


> Not sure, but I'd imagine this info would be available to the jurors.
> 
> This is the medias portrayal of Trayvon and Zimmerman:
> 
> View attachment 11407


I agree, there is always portraying done, I remember when folks on this here very site were all angry and throwing up this 'poster':










and some even posted photos of this guy as the kid in question:










So as sad as it is, it happens on both sides. Which ever way you think or lean, you are more apt it seems to believe that story.


----------



## FeralFemale

vicker said:


> I hope I never face a jury, but I've been on a few, and we have a good system. It's not perfect, but its pretty good. I'll go with the jury.


I was on a jury in a rape trial. The most important evidence was the victim's testimony and a note to the victim from the defendant where he at one point said 'I am sorry for what I did to you.' (they were sort of dating at the time of the rape) 

And the judge was very, very biased toward the prosecution. I'm not sure if anyone else on the jury caught that, but with my legal background I could tell that she wanted a conviction by what she allowed and didn't allow into evidence/testimony and the way she ruled against all the defense's objections and sustained all the prosecution's. She even postponed the trial for almost a day when I was stuck in traffic for hours due to a very bad accident on the freeway because she didn't want to put an alternate juror on -- a man who in voir dire said that he didn't believe a rape could occur without the woman being physically injured. She assumed that I, because I am a woman, would be more likely to prosecute. I was so disgusted by that judge and her blatant prejudice. 

Even with all that going on, the jury really took the case seriously and found the defendent not guilty. The first vote was split right down the middle, but we really worked at getting to the bottom of the evidence.

We discussed how her story changed *four* times between her statements to the police, what she told the nurse who did the rape kit, what she told her rape counselor/rape crisis support group, and what she said on the stand. After that three of the guilty votes went not guilty. 

There was also no real evidence that the note meant what the prosecution said or meant anything more than what the defendent claimed -- he went to see her, they had sex, then he wanted to leave right after instead of spend the night and she got very angry, so he was apologizing to her for that and for hurting her feelings. After that discussion, another guilty vote went not guilty.

What really turned even the couple of bigots (i know this because they broke the rules and talked to me and, yes, they were bigots) on the jury to a not guilty verdict was our physical reenactment of the vicitms description how he held her down during the rape. A female juror about the victims size layed on the conference table while a male juror about the defendant's size tried to hold her like the victim said was done to her. What the victim described was absolutely physically impossible.

I will never forget the look on that kid's face when we came back not guilty for each charge. He was so scared, and when the last not guilty was read his face was just disbelief. I'm sure he thought that, as a young black man, he had no chance. He cried from relief. I noted that even the 'victim' looked relieved as all her friends from the rape crisis group were crying and hugging her. Her reaction confirmed my suspicion that she was something of a jilted lover whose lie went further than she expected it would. I felt badly for her, too. She got in over her head. 

The judge was visibly angry. She made some sort of statement about how she could 'tell that many on the jury are upset that they had to give a not guilty verdict,' even though I saw my fellow jurors were all very happy with how we came to the decision. There was talk of polling the jury, but that did not happen. I wanted to slap the judge for being so biased and incompetent.

So, to make a very, very, very long story short, yes, you can trust jurors to make the right decision most of the time even when the system tries to stack the deck against the defendant.


----------



## FeralFemale

farmrbrown:

During that rape trial, I knew my duty and tried really, really, really, really hard to presume the defendant not guilty. 

During the opening arguments, I thought he was guilty but I shoved that thought away.

During the prosecution's case -- they go first -- I thought he was guilty, but I shoved that thought away again. 

I knew that my duty was to presume he was innocent. I took it seriously. Anytime I started thinking he was guilty, I shoved it away.

My first vote in the jury room wasn't because I was 100% sure he was not guilty (though I was definitely leaning that way). It was because there is a presumption of innocence. I wasn't going to throw out that presumption without discussing the evidence with the rest of the jury.

There actually isn't supposed to be an 'first vote', it's not technically allowed without deliberation, but I'm sure all juries do it. If juries were following the law and constitution, then all 'first votes' should be not guilty, right? 

As a side note, it always troubles me that people try to 'get out of' jury duty. My experience showed me that it is one of the most important duties a citizen can do. The power is immense. And the symbolism of our Country and what our Founding Fathers envisioned is inherent right there in that jury room.

Anyone who tries to get out of that duty is a bad American, in my opinion.


----------



## Darren

vicker said:


> I've always heard how they stick together, and that you have to fight them all if you fight one. I was also taught that you should kick then in the heel, as that would pretty much incapacitate them.  lol! I always have wondered how many black men wondered, "why did that idiot kick me in the heel right before I knocked him out?". Hahaha!


I remember being shocked when the shore patrol chief told us not to hit them in the head but smash their kneecaps with our night sticks.


----------



## farmrbrown

Excellent post.
What you did, was simply, your duty, your job. If EVERYone did that, things would be the way they are supposed to be.
My last stint on a jury was interesting, but short. I was the 13th, an alternate.
The case involved battery on a woman.
During my questioning by both sides, I admitted that I knew a battered victim (my wife), had LEO's in the family and had been on trial myself before. I was acquitted in a case involving the very same police department that was in this one.
I guess both sides figured I could go either way!, lol. 
After opening statements, the guy pled out to a lesser charge.
I wasn't sure how I was going to decide a he said/she said case, but the responsibility of the decision over other people was a heavy weight, to be sure.


----------



## wannabechef

Darren said:


> I remember being shocked when the shore patrol chief told us not to hit them in the head but smash their kneecaps with our night sticks.


The knees are better, keeps them from running.


----------



## kasilofhome

FeralFemale said:


> farmrbrown:
> 
> As a side note, it always troubles me that people try to 'get out of' jury duty. My experience showed me that it is one of the most important duties a citizen can do. The power is immense. And the symbolism of our Country and what our Founding Fathers envisioned is inherent right there in that jury room.
> 
> Anyone who tries to get out of that duty is a bad American, in my opinion.


 



Agreed--Thank you- I get bent when people joke about skipping out of Jury duty. Yeah often it is not a money make but it is a freedom maker. I am NOT quiet when they brag. Why should I let something a so selfish become the norn by being "PC" letting it slide.


----------



## 7thswan

I saw clips today of the "friend" of T. Horrible witness. Here is a link If you'd like to watch,today,she'll be back on(she tried to refuse yesterday). 
http://theconservativetreehouse.com...-3-zimmerman-trial-witness-discussion-thread/


----------



## painterswife

I am finding the cross examination of the friend who is a girl witness fascinating. The defense attorney is trying his hardest to get the witness to phrase or agree to phrase answers the way he wants but she is holding her ground and not backing down. They are both exasperated with each other and make no effort to hide it. She may not speak well or clearly but she is getting her story across and he does not like it one bit.

I think the attorney is not really doing his case any good with the way he appears to be badgering the witness.


----------



## Nevada

painterswife said:


> I am finding the cross examination of the friend who is a girl witness fascinating. The defense attorney is trying his hardest to get the witness to phrase or agree to phrase answers the way he wants but she is holding her ground and not backing down. They are both exasperated with each other and make no effort to hide it. She may not speak well or clearly but she is getting her story across and he does not like it one bit.
> 
> I think the attorney is not really doing his case any good with the way he appears to be badgering the witness.


I agree, but that's a large part of why there are two lawyers defending this case. It's like the old 'good cop-bad cop' thing. O'Mara is soft-spoken and will relate to the all female jury well, so they let this guy grill difficult witnesses.

She's a terrible witness. She not sure what she said before, and she doesn't understand the questions.


----------



## Wanderer0101

painterswife said:


> I am finding the cross examination of the friend who is a girl witness fascinating. The defense attorney is trying his hardest to get the witness to phrase or agree to phrase answers the way he wants but she is holding her ground and not backing down. They are both exasperated with each other and make no effort to hide it. She may not speak well or clearly but she is getting her story across and he does not like it one bit.
> 
> I think the attorney is not really doing his case any good with the way he appears to be badgering the witness.


I guess that's what happens when you look at the world through a leftist lense. The pathetic creature has repeatedly demonstrated that she's a serial liar, is only loosely connected to reality and has the IQ of a brick. And you think that's a good thing?


----------



## painterswife

Wanderer0101 said:


> I guess that's what happens when you look at the world through a leftist lense. The pathetic creature has repeatedly demonstrated that she's a serial liar, is only loosely connected to reality and has the IQ of a brick. And you think that's a good thing?


Actually I am looking at it like a juror ( or trying to). You seem to want to just judge everyone and everything in a negative fashion by placing labels and deciding you know it all when you have half the information.


----------



## 7thswan

It is fascinating. I can't find words to describe what I'm supposed to call a "girl" at the age of 19???? Apparently coached, must have taken what at least a year of that... The poor defense can't question her without it looking like he is badgering her. Her language skills are ripe for being able to twist words around after she mumbles them out. What a mess. Comes across as a racist.


----------



## 7thswan

I guess this witness has a twitter acct. It was so bad that most of it was deleted prior to trial.


----------



## Nevada

Wanderer0101 said:


> I guess that's what happens when you look at the world through a leftist lense. The pathetic creature has repeatedly demonstrated that she's a serial liar, is only loosely connected to reality and has the IQ of a brick. And you think that's a good thing?


Leftist view or not, she's a terrible witness. I don't think she's lying deliberately, she just can't remember what she said before. On top of that she can't understand the questions and she doesn't project her voice or speak clearly. She's obviously a reluctant witness. As I said, she's a terrible witness.


----------



## Wanderer0101

Nevada said:


> Leftist view or not, she's a terrible witness. I don't think she's lying deliberately, she just can't remember what she said before. On top of that she can't understand the questions and she doesn't project her voice or speak clearly. She's obviously a reluctant witness. As I said, she's a terrible witness.


For once we agree on something.


----------



## 7thswan

She doesn't think that calling someone a "creepy ----- cracker" is racist. Some letter she supposedly sent to TM family, we are finding out was a lie, someone else wrote it, this girl can't even read it.


----------



## Wanderer0101

painterswife said:


> Actually I am looking at it like a juror ( or trying to). You seem to want to just judge everyone and everything in a negative fashion by placing labels and deciding you know it all when you have half the information.


I have a very negative view of racists, race baiters, leftists and morons. If that strikes those near and dear to you then so be it. In this particular case I have way more information than I need, as does anyone that's not desperately seeking an ideological victory based on an assumption of black vicitimization.

If I were a juror in this case I would have already strung up the judge and most of the witnesses.


----------



## 7thswan

Same here Wanderer. I tried to watch the Jodi Aris trial, I couldn't stand the media on the HLN network. I did watch every minuet of the OJ trial. I was dumfounded at the verdict. I'm reading a book right now about the trial.


----------



## Nevada

Thank God they're done with her. I really hope they don't call her again.

I look at this from the standpoint of how the altercation started. I don't think that any reasonable person can say she contributed any useful information to answering that question.


----------



## 7thswan

Ok, "creepy a** cracker" is her "culture" meens TM thought Z was a Gay White Guy. Maybe that is why TM attacked Z.


----------



## vicker

She is certainly a real person  I think she stood up to cross pretty well. I think the defense should have got her down from there a lot faster.


----------



## 7thswan

storm has tv down. Did they play tape of witness(state ) to compair all her lies on the stand?


----------



## painterswife

vicker said:


> She is certainly a real person  I think she stood up to cross pretty well. I think the defense should have got her down from there a lot faster.


I agree. He tried to rattle her but she stood strong. It will really come down to whether her testimony ties in with some other evidence that is important. Her lack of speaking skills did not change the fact that she was honest about her belief in what she heard.


----------



## Nevada

7thswan said:


> Ok, "creepy a** cracker" is her "culture" meens TM thought Z was a Gay White Guy. Maybe that is why TM attacked Z.


My idea of a southern cracker is someone who might enjoy subjugating blacks. I had thought that the origin was the man who cracked a whip on a plantation to encourage productivity. Someone might refer to the KKK as a bunch of crackers. I never heard the term used in a gay context.


----------



## unregistered353870

Nevada said:


> My idea of a southern cracker is someone who might enjoy subjugating blacks. I had thought that the origin was the man who cracked a whip on a plantation to encourage productivity. Someone might refer to the KKK as a bunch of crackers. I never heard the term used in a gay context.


I highly doubt this girl was looking at the phrase in its historical context. The "creepy ---" part might be where the gay part comes in. I didn't see any of the testimony today so I'm just speculating. Did the girl actually explain the term that way or is that from someone else just commenting on her testimony?


----------



## vicker

Historically, I think "cracker" is just a another term for ******* or white trash. I was not able to watch the trial after noon today, so didn't see all of her testimony.


----------



## Nevada

vicker said:


> Historically, I think "cracker" is just a another term for ******* or white trash.


Yes, the term "cracker" has evolved into that. She argued that the term isn't racist, but I would question that. She might not use the term as a racist slur, but it unquestionably has racist underpinnings.

To Trayvon Martins defense, that region of Florida has more than its share of racist whites. A black man in that part of the state would have to be crazy to not take the racist threat seriously.


----------



## vicker

I agree. I would have felt very threatened if I thought someone was following me for no reason. I would feel extremely threatened if I knew they were.


----------



## farmrbrown

Nevada said:


> Yes, the term "cracker" has evolved into that. She argued that the term isn't racist, but I would question that. She might not use the term as a racist slur, but it unquestionably has racist underpinnings.
> 
> To Trayvon Martins defense, that region of Florida has more than its share of racist whites. A black man in that part of the state would have to be crazy to not take the racist threat seriously.


Thanks.
I'll let my mom know. :bored:
She lives a few miles from the incident and been in that region most of her 75+ years.
There WAS a time that I wouldn't have disagreed much with your statement.......on BOTH sides......about 4O years ago.
Not a true statement today.

Haven't heard "cracker" but a few times since school.........brings back memories.


BTW, she has views that are about 2 clicks to left of *you.*


----------



## Nevada

farmrbrown said:


> Thanks.
> I'll let my mom know. :bored:
> She lives a few miles from the incident and been in that region most of her 75+ years.


Interestingly, so does my mother. She lives in Deltona, right across the lake from Sanford.


----------



## 7thswan

Does anyone here know about the "high" that comes from a few ingredients includeing Skittles?
Anyone know about TM's marshell arts fighting?
TM's crimes?


----------



## mmoetc

7thswan said:


> Does anyone here know about the "high" that comes from a few ingredients includeing Skittles?
> Anyone know about TM's marshell arts fighting?
> TM's crimes?


"Skittles" is a slang term for the cold medicine Coriciden. Take enough of them and one will get some sort of reaction. Martin had a bag of candy. Not the same thing.


----------



## Txsteader

Well, the fact that she has lied......not just about her age or going to TM's funeral, but about how her story changed to defense attys........hurts the prosecution in terms of her credibility IMO. Knowing that, if I were a juror, I'd have a hard time believing anything she said. 

I'm still trying to understand how someone can go to high school w/o the ability to read cursive writing. Did her teachers print everything? How does that happen????


----------



## mmoetc

Txsteader said:


> Well, the fact that she has lied......not just about her age or going to TM's funeral, but about how her story changed to defense attys........hurts the prosecution in terms of her credibility IMO. Knowing that, if I were a juror, I'd have a hard time believing anything she said.
> 
> I'm still trying to understand how someone can go to high school w/o the ability to read cursive writing. Did her teachers print everything? How does that happen????


Much school work today is done on computers and tablets. There are suggestions floating around academia that teaching cursive in schools is unnecessary. I can't decide if she has some learning disabilities or just failed to learn what was taught to her.


----------



## farmrbrown

Nevada said:


> Interestingly, so does my mother. She lives in Deltona, right across the lake from Sanford.


Small world.
I remember when Deltona didn't really exist, just a few old houses and swampland. Not much earlier than that decade, Sanford didn't have any paved roads, just dirt.

As far as race problems today, I think there may be more between blacks and Hispanics. Quite a large exodus from South Florida is now in Central Florida, and still growing.
If there is an undercurrent of racial tension, it may lie there.


----------



## wannabechef

7thswan said:


> Does anyone here know about the "high" that comes from a few ingredients includeing Skittles?
> Anyone know about TM's marshell arts fighting?
> TM's crimes?


Marshall arts vs gun...lol, bang you're dead.


----------



## Nevada

farmrbrown said:


> Small world.
> I remember when Deltona didn't really exist, just a few old houses and swampland. Not much earlier than that decade, Sanford didn't have any paved roads, just dirt.


She actually started RVing near Sanford during the winter around 1980, then built a home in Deltona during the mid 1980s. She been there full time for nearly 30 years. She 84 now, so I'm not sure how much longer she'll be able to live alone and manage her own affairs.


----------



## Lazaryss

mmoetc said:


> "Skittles" is a slang term for the cold medicine Coriciden. Take enough of them and one will get some sort of reaction. Martin had a bag of candy. Not the same thing.


He had Arizona watermelon and skittles. Those are two ingredients in purple lean. When combined with cough medicine the concoction is complete. 

http://theconservativetreehouse.com...-drug-use-culminates-in-predictable-violence/


----------



## wannabechef

farmrbrown said:


> Thanks.
> I'll let my mom know. :bored:
> She lives a few miles from the incident and been in that region most of her 75+ years.
> There WAS a time that I wouldn't have disagreed much with your statement.......on BOTH sides......about 4O years ago.
> Not a true statement today.
> 
> Haven't heard "cracker" but a few times since school.........brings back memories.
> 
> 
> BTW, she has views that are about 2 clicks to left of *you.*


I'm a cracker...I just so happen to be white and from FL.


----------



## mmoetc

Lazaryss said:


> He had Arizona watermelon and skittles. Those are two ingredients in purple lean. When combined with cough medicine the concoction is complete.
> 
> http://theconservativetreehouse.com...-drug-use-culminates-in-predictable-violence/


The cough medicine would be the active ingredient, no? I have coca-cola and limes in my fridge. No rum in the house but you can jump to your own conclusions.


----------



## Lazaryss

mmoetc said:


> The cough medicine would be the active ingredient, no? I have coca-cola and limes in my fridge. No rum in the house but you can jump to your own conclusions.


the same as jumping to the conclusion that it was a complete coincidence that he had those two ingredients on his person considering his past.

You know, several of my patients are heroin addicts that carry around hypodermic needles. I suppose since they don't have heroin on them at the time, we can conclude that they have those needles by sheer coincidence.


----------



## vicker

Lazaryss said:


> He had Arizona watermelon and skittles. Those are two ingredients in purple lean. When combined with cough medicine the concoction is complete.
> 
> http://theconservativetreehouse.com...-drug-use-culminates-in-predictable-violence/


I'm not following your line of thinking. What is it?


----------



## wannabechef

mmoetc said:


> The cough medicine would be the active ingredient, no? I have coca-cola and limes in my fridge. No rum in the house but you can jump to your own conclusions.


Did someone say rum? Having a rum and coke right now...


----------



## TheMartianChick

7thswan said:


> Ok, "creepy a** cracker" is her "culture" meens TM thought Z was a Gay White Guy. Maybe that is why TM attacked Z.


That isn't what that means at all... It means that he likened Zimmerman to being some kind of a creeper or a stalker. It has no homosexual context whatsoever.


----------



## TheMartianChick

Txsteader said:


> Well, the fact that she has lied......not just about her age or going to TM's funeral, but about how her story changed to defense attys........hurts the prosecution in terms of her credibility IMO. Knowing that, if I were a juror, I'd have a hard time believing anything she said.
> 
> I'm still trying to understand how someone can go to high school w/o the ability to read cursive writing. Did her teachers print everything? How does that happen????


Many schools no longer teach cursive writing. Some of the schools in my area stopped teaching it a few years ago.


----------



## TheMartianChick

mmoetc said:


> "Skittles" is a slang term for the cold medicine Coriciden. Take enough of them and one will get some sort of reaction. Martin had a bag of candy. Not the same thing.


A Skittles party refers to kids who clean out the medicine cabinets at home (including prescription drugs) and bring the contents to a party. The pills are all mixed in a bowl (pills are colorful and resemble the candy Skittles) The kids then grab several pills and take them not really knowing what they are ingesting.


----------



## watcher

7thswan said:


> Good ol "Intent". From everything I've read it was T. that went after Z. This may be part of why the phone tape of the screaming was kept out. Why would T scream for help when he was the attacker. Leaves too much to speculation that will make a juror have to use their head.


The tape was excluded because there was only something like 3 seconds spread out over a couple of minutes where there no one was talking over the screams. Even the FBI said there just was not enough data to try to match it to anyone.


----------



## wannabechef

TheMartianChick said:


> A Skittles party refers to kids who clean out the medicine cabinets at home (including prescription drugs) and bring the contents to a party. The pills are all mixed in a bowl (pills are colorful and resemble the candy Skittles) The kids then grab several pills and take them not really knowing what they are ingesting.


Sounds a bit risky...


----------



## Txsteader

TheMartianChick said:


> Many schools no longer teach cursive writing. Some of the schools in my area stopped teaching it a few years ago.


Boy, I'm showing my age. That blows my mind.


TheMartianChick said:


> A Skittles party refers to kids who clean out the medicine cabinets at home (including prescription drugs) and bring the contents to a party. The pills are all mixed in a bowl (pills are colorful and resemble the candy Skittles) The kids then grab several pills and take them not really knowing what they are ingesting.


And so does this. It's a wonder there aren't more dead kids. That's awful.


----------



## mmoetc

Lazaryss said:


> the same as jumping to the conclusion that it was a complete coincidence that he had those two ingredients on his person considering his past.
> 
> You know, several of my patients are heroin addicts that carry around hypodermic needles. I suppose since they don't have heroin on them at the time, we can conclude that they have those needles by sheer coincidence.


I'll stipulate that Martin was no angel. He was probably headed down some wrong path. I'm just not sure what that has to do with him getting shot that particular night. He had traces of marijuana in his system also. None of these things really help to explain the events of that night, which is all that is really important.


----------



## Nevada

mmoetc said:


> I'll stipulate that Martin was no angel. He was probably headed down some wrong path. I'm just not sure what that has to do with him getting shot that particular night. He had traces of marijuana in his system also. None of these things really help to explain the events of that night, which is all that is really important.


This case is about Zimmerman's judgment, not whether Martin might have deserved it.


----------



## mmoetc

Nevada said:


> This case is about Zimmerman's judgment, not whether Martin might have deserved it.


Thanks for clarifying my point.


----------



## modineg44

Many schools no longer teach cursive writing. Our school does not. 

Nancy


----------



## plowjockey

davel745 said:


> Zimmerman is done.
> I don't understand how this jerk of a lawyer could be so stupid. I thought Zimmerman may of been acquitted now he is going to jail.
> Megan Kelly and the detective guy Mark Furman didn't like the joke, neither did I.



LOL

Ok, let's pretend we're on on the jury.

Anybody remember anything about the _prosecutions_ opening statements? Of course not.

This guy is a veteran superstar defense lawyer.

He didn't tell the "joke" to get a laugh, because he knew it was not funny.. He told the "joke" to get attention completely away from the prosecution.

The media are just clueless.


----------



## Nevada

plowjockey said:


> LOL
> 
> Ok, let's pretend we're on on the jury.
> 
> Anybody remember anything about the _prosecutions_ opening statements? Of course not.
> 
> This guy is a veteran superstar defense lawyer.
> 
> He didn't tell the "joke" to get a laugh, because he knew it was not funny.. He told the "joke" to get attention completely away from the prosecution.
> 
> The media are just clueless.


The joke wasn't the best idea, but the trial is going pretty well for the defense so far. It seems that each time the prosecution puts on a witness to make a point, the defense also lands a good point of their own from the same witness. I don't think Zimmerman is finished at all.


----------



## GarlicGirl

plowjockey said:


> LOL
> 
> Ok, let's pretend we're on on the jury.
> 
> Anybody remember anything about the _prosecutions_ opening statements? Of course not.
> 
> This guy is a veteran superstar defense lawyer.
> 
> He didn't tell the "joke" to get a laugh, because he knew it was not funny.. He told the "joke" to get attention completely away from the prosecution.
> 
> The media are just clueless.


I totally remember the prosecution opening statements.


----------



## 7thswan

TheMartianChick said:


> That isn't what that means at all... It means that he likened Zimmerman to being some kind of a creeper or a stalker. It has no homosexual context whatsoever.


Testifying in the Geoge Zimmerman trial, prosecution witness Rachel Jeantel, 19, who says she was on the phone with Trayvon Martin before he was shot, explained that Martin told her that a &#8220;creepy ass cracker&#8221; was following him. According to Jeantel, Martin was worried that Zimmerman was a rapist, and said to &#8220;stop playing with him like that.&#8221; He also told Jeantel, she said, that the &#8220;n----- is now following him.&#8221;
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/26/Prosecution-witness-Trayvon


----------



## 7thswan

TheMartianChick said:


> Many schools no longer teach cursive writing. Some of the schools in my area stopped teaching it a few years ago.


They don't teach them to READ it eather.???


----------



## mmoetc

7thswan said:


> They don't teach them to READ it eather.???


Exactly how many things do you see on a daily basis that are presented in cursive? Books, email, govt forms, business communication? Anything beyond the odd personal letter? They don't teach slide rules anymore, either.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> I'll stipulate that Martin was no angel. He was probably headed down some wrong path. I'm just not sure what that has to do with him getting shot that particular night. He had traces of marijuana in his system also. None of these things really help to explain the events of that night, which is all that is really important.


Teenaged boys who are "headed down some wrong path" tend to be a bit more aggressive than those who aren't. I don't know anything about him other than what I've read but from that I don't think he's the kind who would have ran to daddy's house and hid in the closet if he thought some "creepy <expletive deleted> cracker" was following him.

Sounds to me more like the type who would try to use his gansta style to scare the poop out of the "cracker".


----------



## watcher

plowjockey said:


> LOL
> 
> Ok, let's pretend we're on on the jury.
> 
> Anybody remember anything about the _prosecutions_ opening statements? Of course not.
> 
> This guy is a veteran superstar defense lawyer.
> 
> He didn't tell the "joke" to get a laugh, because he knew it was not funny.. He told the "joke" to get attention completely away from the prosecution.
> 
> The media are just clueless.


I've been on juries and IMO, opening statements are a waste of time for the jury. Its like two kids talking to a teacher. One stands up points his finger at the other and says; "He did it!" Then the other looks at the teacher and says. "I didn't do it."

Closing statements are what matter. They are what the jury carries into the jury room.


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> Teenaged boys who are "headed down some wrong path" tend to be a bit more aggressive than those who aren't. I don't know anything about him other than what I've read but from that I don't think he's the kind who would have ran to daddy's house and hid in the closet if he thought some "creepy <expletive deleted> cracker" was following him.
> 
> Sounds to me more like the type who would try to use his gansta style to scare the poop out of the "cracker".


You mean the "cracker" who ignored the
police dispatcher who told him not to keep following. Two sides to every conflict.


----------



## poppy

mmoetc said:


> You mean the "cracker" who ignored the
> police dispatcher who told him not to keep following. Two sides to every conflict.


Dispatchers ALWAYS tell you to do nothing until the cops arrive but they are not the ones in a real situation. Ever heard a dispatcher tell someone who calls in about someone trying to break into his house to get his gun and shoot him if he makes it inside? There was NOTHING wrong with Zimmerman following following Martin to see where he was going. It was his job. Do you not think cops seeing someone walking around houses late at night won't follow him to see what he is up too? Heck, most of us would do the same thing if we saw someone around our property at night.


----------



## TheMartianChick

7thswan said:


> Testifying in the Geoge Zimmerman trial, prosecution witness Rachel Jeantel, 19, who says she was on the phone with Trayvon Martin before he was shot, explained that Martin told her that a âcreepy ass crackerâ was following him. According to Jeantel, Martin was worried that Zimmerman was a rapist, and said to âstop playing with him like that.â He also told Jeantel, she said, that the ân----- is now following him.â
> http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/26/Prosecution-witness-Trayvon


Actually, I believe that Jeantel implied that Zimmerman could be a rapist and Trayvon told her to 'stop playing with him like that.' The context is different. If Trayvon was trying to imply that Zimmerman was a rapist, he would have used a different phrase. Male-on-male rape is generally not on the radar of an African American teen unless the topic is prison rape. On the street, they fear physical violence and rightly so.


----------



## TheMartianChick

7thswan said:


> They don't teach them to READ it eather.???


No... they don't teach the kids to read cursive writing because it is no longer used at all in a school setting. It is sort of like the use of Calligraphy. Use of a calligraphy pen is reserved to art classes only. It is entirely obsolete.


----------



## TheMartianChick

poppy said:


> Dispatchers ALWAYS tell you to do nothing until the cops arrive but they are not the ones in a real situation. Ever heard a dispatcher tell someone who calls in about someone trying to break into his house to get his gun and shoot him if he makes it inside? There was NOTHING wrong with Zimmerman following following Martin to see where he was going. It was his job. Do you not think cops seeing someone walking around houses late at night won't follow him to see what he is up too? Heck, most of us would do the same thing if we saw someone around our property at night.


I disagree that this was Zimmerman's job. He was a member of Neighborhood Watch, but he wasn't on watch duty. If he was on duty, then he should not have had his gun on him because it violates the practices of the organization.

He was not on watch. He did have his gun on his person and he followed Trayvon, even though that violates another practice of Neighborhood Watch.

Once he was told by the dispatcher that it wasn't necessary to follow Trayvon, he continued to do so.

One troubling aspect of this case (to me) is that near the end of the emergency call, Zimmerman is asked if he wants to meet with the officers at the clubhouse. He says that he will, then changes his mind and tells the dispatcher that he wants the police to call him so that he can tell them where he (Zimmerman) is.

It seems as though Zimmerman had no intention of waiting for police at the clubhouse and planned to continue following Trayvon Martin.


----------



## mmoetc

poppy said:


> Dispatchers ALWAYS tell you to do nothing until the cops arrive but they are not the ones in a real situation. Ever heard a dispatcher tell someone who calls in about someone trying to break into his house to get his gun and shoot him if he makes it inside? There was NOTHING wrong with Zimmerman following following Martin to see where he was going. It was his job. Do you not think cops seeing someone walking around houses late at night won't follow him to see what he is up too? Heck, most of us would do the same thing if we saw someone around our property at night.


According to your logic Martin was equally within his rights to stop and confront Zimmerman as to why he was being followed. It was shortly after 7 pm(hardly late at night) and Martin was walking in a public area. I don't know what happened. Only Zimmerman does. I do know that had Zimmerman quit following Martin when the dispatcher suggested he wouldn't have had to shoot him shortly thereafter.


----------



## Wanderer0101

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/2...rills-witness-for-second-day/?test=latestnews

I'd say John Good's testimony vindicates Zimmerman's actions. Time to acquit and prepare for the riots.


----------



## Wanderer0101

mmoetc said:


> You mean the "cracker" who ignored the
> police dispatcher who told him not to keep following. Two sides to every conflict.


No obligation to follow the direction of some low rent non-sworn telephone operator. This is a red herring issue that only makes sense to leftists that believe the vast bulk of the population should be sheep.


----------



## painterswife

Wanderer0101 said:


> http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/2...rills-witness-for-second-day/?test=latestnews
> 
> I'd say John Good's testimony vindicates Zimmerman's actions. Time to acquit and prepare for the riots.


Yes, there does seem to be this rush to judgement. The jury is supposed to here the entire case and then deliberate. Maybe we should as well.


----------



## TheMartianChick

As I mentioned, I can't get past the fact that all of this escalated into a police call in the first place. Some kids cut through my fully fenced yard the other day... I didn't call the police. I told the kids to stay out of my yard. 

I really hope that Zimmerman takes the stand because I really want to know what was so odd about Trayvon Martin's behavior that evening. I don't call the police when I see someone (of any color) walk by and I am a member of a group that is similar to Neighborhood Watch. 

My particular neighborhood doesn't have many Asian people in it (as an example), but I wouldn't assume that an Asian person in my neighborhood was 'up to no good'. In the call, he never really told the dispatcher what piqued his interest. He talks about him looking around as he walked and then later mentioned that he was looking at him (Zimmerman) and checking him out. Eyeballing someone isn't a crime.

Edited to add: If Zimmerman thought that Trayvon was a burglar... Why did he feel that way? The fact that there had been break-ins before and that the perpetrators had been black does not mean that every black person is a thief. That particular gated community is populated with people of all ethnic backgrounds, including black people. Why would he assume that Trayvon had to be a burglar and not that he might be related to (or visiting) someone in the community?


----------



## Wanderer0101

painterswife said:


> Yes, there does seem to be this rush to judgement. The jury is supposed to here the entire case and then deliberate. Maybe we should as well.


You mean like the "rush to judgement" by 99% of the media and nearly the entirely of the left wing population of this country who shamelessly lied and distorted the facts of the case from the beginning? Who have consistently paraded pictures of the poor victim when he was 12 years old instead of as the hulking, thug that he had grown into. Hypocrisy is the middle name of the left. This only appears to be a rush to judgement to a certain section of society because it's not going the way they want it to.


----------



## Wanderer0101

TheMartianChick said:


> My particular neighborhood doesn't have many Asian people in it (as an example), but I wouldn't assume that an Asian person in my neighborhood was 'up to no good'.


That completletely ignores the fact that the incidence of crimes commited by Asians is about 1% of the incidence of crimes by blacks. Of course we're all supposed to pretend that isn't the case even though every set of numbers available shows that it is. Having been the victim of crimes committed by blacks myself you can bet I look at young, black men with a jaundiced eye. I don't appreciate having a gun stuck in my face or a knife waved in my direction so if I see a young, black man in a hoodie wandering around the neighborhood after dark, in the rain I get real suspicious. The last one I ran into turned out to have a ski mask and a .45.

You should just admit that the only verdict you will accept is guilty and Zimmerman thrown in jail for 20 years.


----------



## painterswife

Wanderer0101 said:


> You mean like the "rush to judgement" by 99% of the media and nearly the entirely of the left wing population of this country who shamelessly lied and distorted the facts of the case from the beginning? Who have consistently paraded pictures of the poor victim when he was 12 years old instead of as the hulking, thug that he had grown into. Hypocrisy is the middle name of the left. This only appears to be a rush to judgement to a certain section of society because it's not going the way they want it to.


There is an rush to judgement on both sides. You seem to be reveling in it.


----------



## Nevada

Wanderer0101 said:


> You should just admit that the only verdict you will accept is guilty and Zimmerman thrown in jail for 20 years.


Speaking for myself, I admit nothing of the kind. I'll accept whatever verdict gets handed down.

What I'll say at this point is that the case seems to be going better for the defense than I anticipated. Potentially, the strongest witness could have been his girlfriend describing the last call, but she discredited herself through poor testimony. That was an unexpected gift to the defense.


----------



## 7thswan

TheMartianChick said:


> No... they don't teach the kids to read cursive writing because it is no longer used at all in a school setting. It is sort of like the use of Calligraphy. Use of a calligraphy pen is reserved to art classes only. It is entirely obsolete.


Do they teach them to do math without a calculator ? They don't teach cursive, why does it matter if it's used in a school setting, it's used all the time in public. Writeing checks , signatures on documents,a note to your childs teacher, ect...


----------



## Wanderer0101

TheMartianChick said:


> No... they don't teach the kids to read cursive writing because it is no longer used at all in a school setting. It is sort of like the use of Calligraphy. Use of a calligraphy pen is reserved to art classes only. It is entirely obsolete.


You seem to be missing the point that she was supposed to have written this letter. Obviously this was a falsehood, putting another nail into the coffin of her testimony.


----------



## Wanderer0101

painterswife said:


> There is an rush to judgement on both sides. You seem to be reveling in it.


I revel in the race baiting, leftist house of cards being exposed to the whirl wind.


----------



## mmoetc

Writing checks is rapidly becoming an old folks thing and printing is perfectly acceptable anyway. Most signatures( mine included) barely qualify as handwriting , let alone classical cursive. I hope my kids aren't writing their own notes.


----------



## painterswife

Wanderer0101 said:


> You seem to be missing the point that she was supposed to have written this letter. Obviously this was a falsehood, putting another nail into the coffin of her testimony.


Get the facts right. The words were hers, the writing was a friends.


----------



## painterswife

Wanderer0101 said:


> I revel in the race baiting, leftist house of cards being exposed to the whirl wind.


So that is what you are attempting to do.


----------



## watcher

TheMartianChick said:


> I disagree that this was Zimmerman's job. He was a member of Neighborhood Watch, but he wasn't on watch duty. If he was on duty, then he should not have had his gun on him because it violates the practices of the organization.
> 
> He was not on watch. He did have his gun on his person and he followed Trayvon, even though that violates another practice of Neighborhood Watch.


At what point does a person's duty (not job) to his friends, neighbors and society end?




TheMartianChick said:


> Once he was told by the dispatcher that it wasn't necessary to follow Trayvon, he continued to do so.


If you see a man pull a screaming child into a car and take off and call 911 they will tell you NOT to follow the car. Its called lawyer proofing. If the dispatcher had not told Zimmerman this everyone involved could sue the city.


----------



## watcher

TheMartianChick said:


> As I mentioned, I can't get past the fact that all of this escalated into a police call in the first place. Some kids cut through my fully fenced yard the other day... I didn't call the police. I told the kids to stay out of my yard.


Think about this there had been problems (burglaries say) in your neighborhood. You are driving home one evening and see someone you don't recognize walking down the street. Do you just roll down you window and tell him to get out of the neighborhood?




TheMartianChick said:


> I really hope that Zimmerman takes the stand because I really want to know what was so odd about Trayvon Martin's behavior that evening. I don't call the police when I see someone (of any color) walk by and I am a member of a group that is similar to Neighborhood Watch.


If he does at least one member of his defense team is stupid.





TheMartianChick said:


> Edited to add: If Zimmerman thought that Trayvon was a burglar... Why did he feel that way? The fact that there had been break-ins before and that the perpetrators had been black does not mean that every black person is a thief. That particular gated community is populated with people of all ethnic backgrounds, including black people. Why would he assume that Trayvon had to be a burglar and not that he might be related to (or visiting) someone in the community?


Say there was a series of car break ins in your neighborhood and the people caught doing them was white. You looked out your window and see a white kid walking down the street toward where your car is parked. Are you or are you not going to watch him until he passes your car?


----------



## TheMartianChick

7thswan said:


> Do they teach them to do math without a calculator ? They don't teach cursive, why does it matter if it's used in a school setting, it's used all the time in public. Writeing checks , signatures on documents,a note to your childs teacher, ect...


Check-writing is almost as obsolete as cursive writing is in modern society. I used to work for Deluxe Checks many years ago and the writing (pun intended) was already on the wall back then.

Lots of documents are signed with digital signatures that either resemble a signature or are just check marks in a box. With all of the different types of things that I do and places that I go, I rarely come across things that are handwritten, let alone in cursive.


----------



## TheMartianChick

watcher said:


> Think about this there had been problems (burglaries say) in your neighborhood. You are driving home one evening and see someone you don't recognize walking down the street. Do you just roll down you window and tell him to get out of the neighborhood?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If he does at least one member of his defense team is stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Say there was a series of car break ins in your neighborhood and the people caught doing them was white. You looked out your window and see a white kid walking down the street toward where your car is parked. Are you or are you not going to watch him until he passes your car?


To answer your first question... If I saw someone that I didn't recognize in the neighborhood, I probably wouldn't say anything except hello. If that sparked a conversation, then I might identify myself as being a part of the local association, depending on the direction of our comments. Someone new to the neighborhood would definitely get that information because we try to encourage participation by people of all ages.

For the second question... I might watch someone who I didn't know due to the break ins. This wouldn't be due to the person's color, but because the break ins might still be fresh in my mind. However, I wouldn't call the police unless I saw the kid do something wrong. If he broke a car window with a rock, or threatened me with bodily harm, then I would call the police. If I saw him make a drug deal, then I would call the police. I don't call the police because someone is looking around as they walk down the sidewalk.


----------



## farmrbrown

TheMartianChick said:


> Edited to add: If Zimmerman thought that Trayvon was a burglar... Why did he feel that way? The fact that there had been break-ins before and that the perpetrators had been black does not mean that every black person is a thief. That particular gated community is populated with people of all ethnic backgrounds, including black people. Why would he assume that Trayvon had to be a burglar and not that he might be related to (or visiting) someone in the community?



This.
http://spotcrime.com/fl/seminole+county

The area is in the NW part of this map.
My mom, SIL, DIL, and many friends live there. I used to.
It's tapered off a little but crime is pretty bad still. Sad to say, that making the wrong assumption about someone can end badly.
I guess in light of this case, that goes without saying.


----------



## Nevada

farmrbrown said:


> This.
> http://spotcrime.com/fl/seminole+county
> 
> The area is in the NW part of this map.
> My mom, SIL, DIL, and many friends live there. I used to.
> It's tapered off a little but crime is pretty bad still. Sad to say, that making the wrong assumption about someone can end badly.
> I guess in light of this case, that goes without saying.


That's an interesting map. I zoomed in to the neighborhood were Zimmerman lived, but there are no incidents at all over the past 2 months.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22059150/neighborhood.jpg

In fact, there were none over the past 6 months. I thought that neighborhood was a high-crime area where a lot of break-ins occurred.


----------



## TheMartianChick

Wanderer0101 said:


> You seem to be missing the point that she was supposed to have written this letter. Obviously this was a falsehood, putting another nail into the coffin of her testimony.


I have had clients ask me to write letters for them because they don't feel that they have the skill to do so. This is quite common among people with learning disabilities, uneducated people, people with a poor grasp of the English language, or a poor grasp of the type of information that is being requested. They usually tell me the gist of the situation and I determine the best way in which to commit it to paper.

I don't sign the letters. If they agree with the sentiment of the completed letter, then they sign it. I never sign the letters and they mail them themselves. If someone asked them if they wrote the letter, they would say that they did. They wouldn't bother to explain that someone else pulled it together for them. The letter came from them and their signatures endorsed the content.

In this case, the letter had her nickname on it, so she endorsed the contents. Watching Jeantel's testimony, I would guess that she is functionally illiterate in English. It isn't her first language and she even fumbled that question on the stand. She speaks Haitian Creole and Spanish in addition to southern ebonics. She likely got a friend to write it. Jeantel doesn't seem to do well in school since she was a few grades behind. She probably knew that it would be a hot mess to read, if she penned it herself.

As a side note...Once Jeantel took the stand and began to speak, I didn't expect to relate to her at all. Her speech patterns and poor manners made me cringe. Surprisingly though, I learned that I had something in common with her that I don't generally share: 

While I don't like to lie about anything, I have lied in the past when funerals are involved. It was easier for me (and kinder) than telling the truth to an emotionally overwrought family. 

I attended my first calling hours when I was 13 and found it so overwhelming that I never attended a funeral until 2000. There were ample opportunities in between, but I opted out and lied to keep from offending others. I attended my 2nd, 6 years ago when my husband expressed concern about my ability to attend impending funerals of aging family members and the impact that it would have on our children. I am now able to attend funerals. They are still rough and I cry like a baby, even if I barely knew the deceased. 

I'm not surprised that she would opt not to tell the Martin family the real reason why she was not attending the funeral. I would imagine that she has some sort of survivor's guilt stemming from this event. What she probably didn't realize is that not attending a funeral can also create another type of guilty burden.


----------



## Nevada

TheMartianChick said:


> I'm not surprised that she would opt not to tell the Martin family the real reason why she was not attending the funeral.


It's completely understandable that she lied about why she didn't attend the funeral. Unfortunately, pointing out that a witness has lied in the past is never a good thing for credibility.


----------



## farmrbrown

Nevada said:


> That's an interesting map. I zoomed in to the neighborhood were Zimmerman lived, but there are no incidents at all over the past 2 months.
> 
> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22059150/neighborhood.jpg
> 
> In fact, there were none over the past 6 months. I thought that neighborhood was a high-crime area where a lot of break-ins occurred.


No not right exactly in that few blocks. My wife and I are amazed when someone will give us directions, and when we say, "Oh I know where that is, it's down town" they insist it isn't. 
We get there, and "downtown" is exactly one block to the west of where we are, lol.

No, you have to go a mile or two east of his neighborhood to start seeing all those dots on the Sheriff's site.
And those are the reported crimes......


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> Speaking for myself, I admit nothing of the kind. I'll accept whatever verdict gets handed down.
> 
> What I'll say at this point is that the case seems to be going better for the defense than I anticipated. Potentially, the strongest witness could have been his girlfriend describing the last call, but she discredited herself through poor testimony. That was an unexpected gift to the defense.


She wasn't Martin's girlfriend. That was part of the crap put out by the publicist Crump hired. The so-called girlfriend is a minefield for the prosecution. The stuff she had out on the internet pretty much shanked the prosecution and Crump's position. The coaching alone discredited her. Crump apparently never checked her out before his eureka moment. The woman did have a boyfriend only it wasn't Martin.

The man should be disbarred.


----------



## Lazaryss

mmoetc said:


> I'll stipulate that Martin was no angel. He was probably headed down some wrong path. I'm just not sure what that has to do with him getting shot that particular night. He had traces of marijuana in his system also. None of these things really help to explain the events of that night, which is all that is really important.


Its about establishing patterns of behaviour that can lead to outcomes.


----------



## Nevada

Darren said:


> She wasn't Martin's girlfriend. That was part of the crap put out by the publicist Crump hired. The so-called girlfriend is a minefield for the prosecution. The stuff she had out on the internet pretty much shanked the prosecution and Crump's position. The coaching alone discredited her. Crump apparently never checked her out before his eureka moment. The woman did have a boyfriend only it wasn't Martin.


Why does it matter how intimate they might have been?


----------



## TraderBob

mmoetc said:


> You mean the "cracker" who ignored the
> police dispatcher who told him not to keep following. Two sides to every conflict.


Two sides? Then at least get it right. She did NOT tell him to stop following,she said "we don't need you to do that". Not quite the same, is it? 

"Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah.
Dispatcher: Okay, we don't need you to do that."

There was no order to stop.

Unfortunately, Zimmerman isn't a cracker either...he is Hispanic.

If Zimmerman isn't cleared, it's because they want to appease certain people, not because he is guilty.


----------



## Nevada

TraderBob said:


> Two sides? Then at least get it right. She did NOT tell him to stop following,she said "we don't need you to do that". Not quite the same, is it?
> 
> "Dispatcher: Are you following him?
> Zimmerman: Yeah.
> Dispatcher: Okay, we don't need you to do that."
> 
> There was no order to stop.
> 
> Unfortunately, Zimmerman isn't a cracker either...he is Hispanic.
> 
> If Zimmerman isn't cleared, it's because they want to appease certain people, not because he is guilty.


The dispatcher explained that on the stand. He said they have no authority to give orders to people, so they're trained to say "we don't need you to do that."


----------



## poppy

mmoetc said:


> According to your logic Martin was equally within his rights to stop and confront Zimmerman as to why he was being followed. It was shortly after 7 pm(hardly late at night) and Martin was walking in a public area. I don't know what happened. Only Zimmerman does. I do know that had Zimmerman quit following Martin when the dispatcher suggested he wouldn't have had to shoot him shortly thereafter.


Certainly Martin had every right to ask why he was being followed. Asking in a belligerent way will not work out well no matter who you are asking. He no doubt had his "creepy azz cracker" attitude when he asked. Do you think he said, "Excuse me sir, but are you following me?" If he had, Zimmerman would have told him they had had some break ins and he was security for the area. If Martin had simply told him he was going to his father's house and the number, none of this would have happened. Any resident of the community would be happy someone was looking out for them.


----------



## TraderBob

TheMartianChick said:


> Edited to add: If Zimmerman thought that Trayvon was a burglar... Why did he feel that way? The fact that there had been break-ins before and that the perpetrators had been black does not mean that every black person is a thief. That particular gated community is populated with people of all ethnic backgrounds, including black people. Why would he assume that Trayvon had to be a burglar and not that he might be related to (or visiting) someone in the community?


Well, I guess if all the break ins in my area had been done by purple people eaters, and I saw a purple people eater wandering around my neighborhood at night, I'd assume it was up to no good, based on previous experience.

It is what is. Your experiences in your area may be different. In my area, most crime is committed by white meth heads..if I see someone stumbling around at night, or looking suspicious, know that I ALWAYS ask if I can help them find who or what they are looking for. 8 times out of 10, they mumble something about looking for a friend, who doesn't live on my street.


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> Why does it matter how intimate they might have been?


It matters because the PR release by Crump made it seem like they had an unimpeachable witness when in fact she didn't go to the funeral because she had better things to do that day. Her internet postings showed she wasn't upset at Martin's death.

All of that happened before Crump was recommended as the primo hired gun by someone the family consulted. The Martin's have always been about the money. They wouldn't have retained Crump otherwise. Crunp amd his publicist played the media and the media jumped on the bandwagon. 

The media's verbal gymnastics after it was revealed Zimmerman was Hispanic, their modifying of the photo and tape show the media was all in for Crump's game plan which was to portray a young upwardly bound all American wholesome black kid denied justice afer being murdered by a white racist, cop wannabe.

The key fact people are deliberately overlooking or ignoring because of underestimating its importance is that Zimmerman is on tape with the dispatcher saying he's lost sight of Martin. Anyone looking at a plan of the commons area has to wonder why Zimmerman couldn't see Martin. That is the $64,000 question. What did Martin do before Zimmerman turned the corner into the commons area to disappear? He certainly didn't head straight to the place he was staying. Zimmerman would have still seen him.

That and the malfunction of the firearm, Martin's participation in fights documented on the internet, and the question of why Martin's father's girlfriend's son's story didn't concern him paint a very different story than the one made up by Crump.

The so-called girlfriend was the most obvious loose string. Crump's atempts to exclude himself from questioning and his behavior with regard to her reek.

I still haven't seen the test report on the KelTec.


----------



## Pugnacious

Nevada said:


> In fact, there were none over the past 6 months. I thought that neighborhood was a high-crime area where a lot of break-ins occurred.


Hmmm. Maybe they caught the perp? Deductive reasoning suggests that maybe Martin was up to no good and possibly was causing the trouble. Maybe it was Zimmerman. He's been in jail for a while.......


You don't think there is a higher police presence there now?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## tarbe

mmoetc said:


> The cough medicine would be the active ingredient, no? I have coca-cola and limes in my fridge. No rum in the house but you can jump to your own conclusions.


I don't think we have posts of you talking about mixing up the stuff to make yourself high (like we do TM)...so not a good analogy.


----------



## mmoetc

poppy said:


> Certainly Martin had every right to ask why he was being followed. Asking in a belligerent way will not work out well no matter who you are asking. He no doubt had his "creepy azz cracker" attitude when he asked. Do you think he said, "Excuse me sir, but are you following me?" If he had, Zimmerman would have told him they had had some break ins and he was security for the area. If Martin had simply told him he was going to his father's house and the number, none of this would have happened. Any resident of the community would be happy someone was looking out for them.


I'm glad you know exactly what happened. When do you testify?


----------



## 7thswan

TheMartianChick said:


> Check-writing is almost as obsolete as cursive writing is in modern society. I used to work for Deluxe Checks many years ago and the writing (pun intended) was already on the wall back then.
> 
> Lots of documents are signed with digital signatures that either resemble a signature or are just check marks in a box. With all of the different types of things that I do and places that I go, I rarely come across things that are handwritten, let alone in cursive.


No, Older people still use checks all of the time.All people in the school system should be learning to have a life/job in the public sector.
This witness was exploited, there is no way she should have been used by the prosecution. If she can't read or whatever, something is wrong , I don't belive she can even know what "I swear to tell the WHOLE TRUTH and NOTHING BUT the TRUTH" meens . There is a reason that young children and adults that had/have issues with drugs and questionable past are not good/crediable witness.


----------



## TheMartianChick

TraderBob said:


> Two sides? Then at least get it right. She did NOT tell him to stop following,she said "we don't need you to do that". Not quite the same, is it?
> 
> "Dispatcher: Are you following him?
> Zimmerman: Yeah.
> Dispatcher: Okay, we don't need you to do that."
> 
> There was no order to stop.
> 
> Unfortunately, Zimmerman isn't a cracker either...he is Hispanic.
> 
> If Zimmerman isn't cleared, it's because they want to appease certain people, not because he is guilty.


Actually, according to the paperwork filled out by Zimmerman at his doctor's office, he self-identifed as being white, not Hispanic. The Physician's Assistant went through a detailed list of items in Zimmerman's records. One thing mentioned was that he had selected "white". I was surprised that the prosecution didn't call attention to that fact.


----------



## TheMartianChick

TraderBob said:


> Two sides? Then at least get it right. She did NOT tell him to stop following,she said "we don't need you to do that". Not quite the same, is it?
> 
> "Dispatcher: Are you following him?
> Zimmerman: Yeah.
> Dispatcher: Okay, we don't need you to do that."
> 
> There was no order to stop.
> 
> Unfortunately, Zimmerman isn't a cracker either...he is Hispanic.
> 
> If Zimmerman isn't cleared, it's because they want to appease certain people, not because he is guilty.


 The dispatcher was a male, not a female.


----------



## farmrbrown

Nevada said:


> That's an interesting map. I zoomed in to the neighborhood were Zimmerman lived, but there are no incidents at all over the past 2 months.
> 
> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22059150/neighborhood.jpg
> 
> In fact, there were none over the past 6 months. I thought that neighborhood was a high-crime area where a lot of break-ins occurred.


Interesting.
It doesn't look like the same place I looked at, but hard to tell.
There's no large lake there, Lake Ada, and the bottom of that shot says Lake County Florida. Seminole County is due east about 2O miles.
He was actually closer to the crime "dots" than I originally thought. I thought he was closer to I 4 & SR 46 than what his address showed, but I was judging from the first reports of the area and my memory of of where I thought they were talking about.


----------



## unregistered353870

TheMartianChick said:


> Actually, according to the paperwork filled out by Zimmerman at his doctor's office, he self-identifed as being white, not Hispanic. The Physician's Assistant went through a detailed list of items in Zimmerman's records. One thing mentioned was that he had selected "white". I was surprised that the prosecution didn't call attention to that fact.


Why would they? How is it relevant?


----------



## Nevada

Darren said:


> It matters because the PR release by Crump made it seem like they had an unimpeachable witness when in fact she didn't go to the funeral because she had better things to do that day. Her internet postings showed she wasn't upset at Martin's death.
> 
> All of that happened before Crump was recommended as the primo hired gun by someone the family consulted. The Martin's have always been about the money. They wouldn't have retained Crump otherwise. Crunp amd his publicist played the media and the media jumped on the bandwagon.
> 
> The media's verbal gymnastics after it was revealed Zimmerman was Hispanic, their modifying of the photo and tape show the media was all in for Crump's game plan which was to portray a young upwardly bound all American wholesome black kid denied justice afer being murdered by a white racist, cop wannabe.
> 
> The key fact people are deliberately overlooking or ignoring because of underestimating its importance is that Zimmerman is on tape with the dispatcher saying he's lost sight of Martin. Anyone looking at a plan of the commons area has to wonder why Zimmerman couldn't see Martin. That is the $64,000 question. What did Martin do before Zimmerman turned the corner into the commons area to disappear? He certainly didn't head straight to the place he was staying. Zimmerman would have still seen him.
> 
> That and the malfunction of the firearm, Martin's participation in fights documented on the internet, and the question of why Martin's father's girlfriend's son's story didn't concern him paint a very different story than the one made up by Crump.
> 
> The so-called girlfriend was the most obvious loose string. Crump's atempts to exclude himself from questioning and his behavior with regard to her reek.
> 
> I still haven't seen the test report on the KelTec.


And none of that has anything to do with the facts of the case.


----------



## poppy

mmoetc said:


> I'm glad you know exactly what happened. When do you testify?


I'm just waiting for their call as I type. How about you? You seem to know Zimmerman was at fault and is guilty. Maybe they should have had you testify instead of Martin's loony girlfriend.


----------



## TheMartianChick

poppy said:


> Certainly Martin had every right to ask why he was being followed. Asking in a belligerent way will not work out well no matter who you are asking. He no doubt had his "creepy azz cracker" attitude when he asked. Do you think he said, "Excuse me sir, but are you following me?" If he had, Zimmerman would have told him they had had some break ins and he was security for the area. If Martin had simply told him he was going to his father's house and the number, none of this would have happened. Any resident of the community would be happy someone was looking out for them.


Even if Zimmerman had said that he was with Neighborhood Watch, Trayvon Martin had no obligation to tell him anything about where he was going. Since when do we encourage children to give out their addresses to a stranger?

Also, being a member of Neighborhood Watch does not make you part of Security. You are no more than a citizen who keeps an eye out for crime. What crime was Trayvon committing?


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> And none of that has anything to do with the facts of the case.


There was no case before Crump made up his version of events and shopped it to the media. There still isn't any case.


----------



## 7thswan

Nevada said:


> And none of that has anything to do with the facts of the case.


 Because Z turned and walked to back to his vehicle, he could nolonger see where TM was, TM had run , circled back around and attacked Z. It was played out on a station I watched. Z was going back down the path to his vehicle approaching a T intersection in the pathway and he did not know the name of the road to give it to dispatch. This is when TM confronted Z and attacked him-at the T in the pathway.


----------



## TheMartianChick

jtbrandt said:


> Why would they? How is it relevant?


It goes to show that he made a choice to not check the Hispanic box at all and to not check the two boxes that identify his racial background. It is a small piece to demonstrate that he might have a bias against minorities. There is such a thing to have a sort of loathing about one's own ethnicity.

We see it the black community in the light-skinned versus dark-skinned thing and it also exists among some Hispanic people. We were on a plane a few years ago and the flight attendant was chatting with another passenger. She was from one Spanish speaking country and told him about a vacation that she had taken. The passenger had a friend in the same South American Country (don't remember which one) and mentioned that fact. She immediately said, 'Is he dark and dirty looking?' 

My daughters and I exchanged looks. We didn't have to say a word... We were all thinking, "Did she really just say that?"


----------



## Darren

7thswan said:


> Because Z turned and walked to back to his vehicle, he could nolonger see where TM was, TM had run , circled back around and attacked Z. It was played out on a station I watched. Z was going back down the path to his vehicle approaching a T intersection in the pathway and he did not know the name of the road to give it to dispatch. This is when TM confronted Z and attacked him-at the T in the pathway.


That's the only version that ties every thing together when you look at the layout, the locations of the witnesses to the beating, Zimmerman's wounds and possibly the malfunction of the firearm. Martin was out to impress someone that night. The sad thing is she really didn't give a crap about him.


----------



## Darren

poppy said:


> I'm just waiting for their call as I type. How about you? You seem to know Zimmerman was at fault and is guilty. Maybe they should have had you testify instead of Martin's loony girlfriend.


For the umpteenth time, Poppy, the woman WAS NOT Martin's girlfriend.


----------



## unregistered353870

> It goes to show that he made a choice to not check the Hispanic box at all and to not check the two boxes that identify his racial background. It is a small piece to demonstrate that he might have a bias against minorities. There is such a thing to have a sort of loathing about one's own ethnicity.


I guess it could be interpreted that way, but I think for the prosecution to jump on such a thing would look desperate. They can bring it up later if they feel the need.


----------



## mmoetc

poppy said:


> I'm just waiting for their call as I type. How about you? You seem to know Zimmerman was at fault and is guilty. Maybe they should have had you testify instead of Martin's loony girlfriend.


Actually, all I know is that Zimmerman shot Martin. I also know that he was advised that he needn't follow him. My conclusion is that had he taken that advise he wouldn't have shot Martin that night. As to any other events- I haven't a clue what was said or not said between the two. I have no knowledge of who the aggressor was. Zimmerman will likely be aquited and based on the evidence I've seen and read about so far that is the proper outcome. Whether it is the truth of the situation we will never know for certain.


----------



## TheMartianChick

TraderBob said:


> Well, I guess if all the break ins in my area had been done by purple people eaters, and I saw a purple people eater wandering around my neighborhood at night, I'd assume it was up to no good, based on previous experience.
> 
> It is what is. Your experiences in your area may be different. In my area, most crime is committed by white meth heads..if I see someone stumbling around at night, or looking suspicious, know that I ALWAYS ask if I can help them find who or what they are looking for. 8 times out of 10, they mumble something about looking for a friend, who doesn't live on my street.


 But what do you do at that point? Do you follow them down the street while dialing for the police or do you watch them to make sure that they aren't up to something?

It is after 10 PM EST. While I don't usually go out on foot this late, I have the right to do so and I shouldn't have to be concerned about someone calling the cops on me for walking in a neighborhood that isn't mine. I'm reminded of that Nicholas Cage/Samuel L. Jackson movie, Amos and Andrew.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106266/plotsummary?ref_=tt_ov_pl


----------



## poppy

Darren said:


> For the umpteenth time, Poppy, the woman WAS NOT Martin's girlfriend.


Sorry, that is what we call people who are intimate around here. Perhaps they were just unattached sex partners? All the intimate text messages between them shows something.


----------



## TheMartianChick

Lazaryss said:


> Its about establishing patterns of behaviour that can lead to outcomes.


 Zimmerman also has a history of domestic violence and he is/was seeing a counselor of some sort. He was studying Mixed Martial Arts three times per week in 3 hour sessions. He made multiple calls to the police and a very large percentage of the people that he was calling about were black. There were some minority residents in the neighborhood who were black and felt that Zimmerman treated them poorly. One black man and his wife said that Zimmerman followed the husband all the way home and watched him park inside his own garage. 

Zimmerman had some established patterns of behavior, too.


----------



## poppy

mmoetc said:


> Actually, all I know is that Zimmerman shot Martin. I also know that he was advised that he needn't follow him. My conclusion is that had he taken that advise he wouldn't have shot Martin that night. As to any other events- I haven't a clue what was said or not said between the two. I have no knowledge of who the aggressor was. Zimmerman will likely be aquited and based on the evidence I've seen and read about so far that is the proper outcome. Whether it is the truth of the situation we will never know for certain.


While we haven't seen all the evidence presumably, we do know more than Zimmerman shot Martin. We know Zimmerman's nose was messed up and bleeding. We also know he was bleeding from 2 places on the back of his head and the back of his jacket was wet and had grass stains on it. Unless we think Zimmerman did that to himself, it shows he was on the ground being beaten in some way. Once in that position, people may differ on whether they would feel their life was in danger. Personally, I would say it is and grab whatever I could to stop the attack, including my gun.


----------



## mmoetc

poppy said:


> While we haven't seen all the evidence presumably, we do know more than Zimmerman shot Martin. We know Zimmerman's nose was messed up and bleeding. We also know he was bleeding from 2 places on the back of his head and the back of his jacket was wet and had grass stains on it. Unless we think Zimmerman did that to himself, it shows he was on the ground being beaten in some way. Once in that position, people may differ on whether they would feel their life was in danger. Personally, I would say it is and grab whatever I could to stop the attack, including my gun.


None of that answers who the initial aggressor was. It just shows that Zimmerman was losing.


----------



## poppy

mmoetc said:


> None of that answers who the initial aggressor was. It just shows that Zimmerman was losing.


Maybe, but I have seen no evidence Zimmerman was the aggressor either. What I have seen indicates Zimmerman was returning to his vehicle when Martin confronted him. I sure couldn't send someone to prison based on what we know so far.


----------



## poppy

TheMartianChick said:


> Even if Zimmerman had said that he was with Neighborhood Watch, Trayvon Martin had no obligation to tell him anything about where he was going. Since when do we encourage children to give out their addresses to a stranger?
> 
> Also, being a member of Neighborhood Watch does not make you part of Security. You are no more than a citizen who keeps an eye out for crime. What crime was Trayvon committing?



LOL, how do you keep an eye out for crime unless you watch what suspicious people are up to? If Zimmerman had followed Martin to his dad's house and saw them open the door for him, he would have known he belonged there. Again, nothing wrong with watching or following someone who looks suspicious. We all do it whether we admit it or not.


----------



## vicker

And all that watching can sure get boring if nothing is happening. Sometimes you just have to stir things up a bit.


----------



## watcher

TheMartianChick said:


> Even if Zimmerman had said that he was with Neighborhood Watch, Trayvon Martin had no obligation to tell him anything about where he was going. Since when do we encourage children to give out their addresses to a stranger?
> 
> Also, being a member of Neighborhood Watch does not make you part of Security. You are no more than a citizen who keeps an eye out for crime. What crime was Trayvon committing?


What good is a NW if they have to wait until after a crime in committed to do anything? I thought the purpose of NW was to PREVENT crime by being a visible deterrent. If you are just going to sit in your house and wait for someone to commit a crime before you call the cops why form a NW group?

From what I have read one of the things they are told to do is call the police when they see suspicious or unusual activity. Was it common to see an unknown young male dressed in dark colors with his face concealed walking down the street at that time of day?


----------



## watcher

TheMartianChick said:


> But what do you do at that point? Do you follow them down the street while dialing for the police or do you watch them to make sure that they aren't up to something?


I've called the cops many times in many places. If you are walking around an apartment complex late at night wearing dark clothing or down a country road I don't know if you are lost, looking for a run away dog or an armed serial killer looking for his next victim. Because I don't know the odds are I'm going to call the cops to find out because they are TRAINED and EQUIPPED to deal just this situation.

If something makes me think you might just be that armed serial killer I'm not going to call the cops and then go away. I'm going to try to keep you in sight so the police can talk to you.





TheMartianChick said:


> It is after 10 PM EST. While I don't usually go out on foot this late, I have the right to do so and I shouldn't have to be concerned about someone calling the cops on me for walking in a neighborhood that isn't mine. I'm reminded of that Nicholas Cage/Samuel L. Jackson movie, Amos and Andrew.


I've been on both sides of this. I have no problem with anyone calling the cops on me if I'm out of place. AAMOF, I have told neighbors I much rather they call the cops on me than assume that guy they see outside isn't up to no good.

And your "right" to walk when and where you walk abuts with other's right to feel safe in their neighborhood. You have the right to wrap yourself in AL foil and walk down the sidewalk at 0230 but the people who see you have just as much right to call the cops to check you out.


----------



## watcher

TheMartianChick said:


> Zimmerman also has a history of domestic violence and he is/was seeing a counselor of some sort. He was studying Mixed Martial Arts three times per week in 3 hour sessions. He made multiple calls to the police and a very large percentage of the people that he was calling about were black. There were some minority residents in the neighborhood who were black and felt that Zimmerman treated them poorly. One black man and his wife said that Zimmerman followed the husband all the way home and watched him park inside his own garage.
> 
> Zimmerman had some established patterns of behavior, too.


Its my understanding the non-white people who have interacted with Zimmerman have said he showed not the least bit of racism toward them or anyone else.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> None of that answers who the initial aggressor was. It just shows that Zimmerman was losing.


A couple of problems. One there's on way to prove who the aggressor was. You couldn't do it even if Martian was alive. It would be one's word against the other.

The state went stupid and way over charged. Do a web search on what the state has to prove to convict someone of 2nd degree murder. You'll see even if they manage to get the jury to convict him the conviction will be tossed on appeal due to the fact the state hasn't met the burden of proof. To be honest with you if this were a 'normal' trial the judge would rule for the defense as soon as the prosecution rested its case due to the fact they haven't met the burden.

I posted all of this months ago if I can find it I'll link to it. Found it.

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/ge...ermans-account-fatal-fight-3.html#post5973438


----------



## watcher

_I posted this months ago and linked to it in another post but I wanted to post it again here. 
_
I ask those of you who think Zimmerman should be convicted, or stands a chance of so, tell me what evidence we know of which the state can use to prove its case.

Let's look at the Florida law on second degree murder. To get a conviction for second degree murder the state must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt. It must prove all of them, two out of three means it loses.


_1. (Victim) is dead._

I'll give you this one, they have the body.


_2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant)._

There's a problem. The state must prove that Zimmerman did not act in self defense because otherwise there was no criminal act. Note that Zimmerman does not have prove the shooting was legal. What evidence can you point to to prove this?


_3. There was an unlawful killing of (victim) by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life._

Here's are two problems. The first is they prove the killing was unlawful. What evidence can you point to to prove this?

Plus note the word "and" which means not only must that be proven but the following. That Zimmerman acted with a "depraved mind". Which leads us to the second problem here; the phrase "depraved mind". Let us see what that means under FL law. We find that "depraved mindâ is defined by Floridaâs jury instructions. 


_Three elements must be present:_

Note the wording. All three of the following must be met. If the state fails to prove even one of these it fails to meet its burden of proof for murder. 


_* A âperson of ordinary judgmentâ would know the act, or series of acts, âis reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to anotherâ;_

Again I'll give you this one, a 'reasonable man' would know that shooting someone is reasonably certain to kill or harm another.


_* The act is âdone from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intentâ; and_

Well there's a problem here. The state must prove Zimmerman either harbored ill will, hatred or spite for Martin or that he acted with evil intent. Your evidence to prove either of these?


_* The act is âof such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.â_

Another problem. What evidence can you point to to show that Zimmerman's actions "indicates an indifference to human life"?


If you can't prove each and EVERY one of these you will have failed to reach its burden of proof which means the case should be dismissed with prejudice and Zimmerman released never to be tried again without the defense needing to put any argument before the court.


----------



## farmrbrown

I hope the jurors are as educated as you are watcher.


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> A couple of problems. One there's on way to prove who the aggressor was. You couldn't do it even if Martian was alive. It would be one's word against the other.
> 
> The state went stupid and way over charged. Do a web search on what the state has to prove to convict someone of 2nd degree murder. You'll see even if they manage to get the jury to convict him the conviction will be tossed on appeal due to the fact the state hasn't met the burden of proof. To be honest with you if this were a 'normal' trial the judge would rule for the defense as soon as the prosecution rested its case due to the fact they haven't met the burden.
> 
> I posted all of this months ago if I can find it I'll link to it. Found it.
> 
> http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/ge...ermans-account-fatal-fight-3.html#post5973438


Much here I agree with. Not only did the state probably overcharge but the police managed to screw up the investigation from the beginning. Zimmerman will probably walk away a free man and based on what I've seen so far that's the correct verdict. Does it explain the truth of what happened that night? We'll never know for sure, even after Zimmerman's book is published.


----------



## FeralFemale

> _2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant).
> 
> _There's a problem. The state must prove that Zimmerman did not act in self defense because otherwise there was no criminal act. Note that Zimmerman does not have prove the shooting was legal. What evidence can you point to to prove this?


Just one correction. Self Defense is an affirmative defense, which means the burden of proof shifts from the State to the defendant. So, yes, Zimmerman must prove it was self defense, though the same standard of proof still applies where the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did not prove self defense.


----------



## DryHeat

First, I think there are *so* many issues in national and world society ongoing that really need media coverage in detail that it disgusts me that these bread and circus situations have this wall-to-wall attention. I suppose advertisers want the ratings and the majority of viewers watch the soap opera situations and turn off in-depth stories. That said, "when in Rome" and I've absorbed some of the testimony and issues in this case. My thinking at this point is that I expect either a hung jury or acquittal on 2nd degree murder. Perhaps if a reduction of charge by jury is allowed, and I'd be surprised if it isn't, *perhaps* a manslaughter conviction or such might happen, but even that could be a split vote outcome. It sounds to me that both the parties were likely in the wrong in various ways, but the most damaging (and obviously lethal) decision was made by Zimmerman although there's a plausible case he could have been "in fear of his life."

Whatever, I would expect the same followup as in the OJ case: a massive civil suit by Martin's family for wrongful death. Zimmerman could get a settlement from his present suit versus NBC, tabloid or other interview fees, ghost-written book deals, etc. so it's not likely to be trying to bleed a turnip. Most cases I've seen, though I don't know the Florida statutes, require only a majority sort of vote on a lawsuit jury, plus the burden of proof is much lower, there's certainly NOT a requirement of acquittal if reasonable doubt, there's room for a range of monetary awards based on degree of blame. The whole range of Zimmerman's apparent behavior... arguments of "cop wannabe," his ignoring the 911 operator instructions not to follow Martin, just the fact that he doesn't seem to have told Martin he'd called 911, so let's just hang out until the cops get here to check you out... there are levels of fault there to balance against Martin's failure *also* to just stop and say "Dude, what's up, let's call the cops if you think there's a problem? Oh, you *have*? Well, let's just stand here and wait." Too much testosterone and projection of fears and anger on both sides, surely. 

Maybe Zimmerman gets sued for $10 million and the jury gives Martin's family $2 million, maybe even depending on his income from various deals. When these situations in which there's clearly a lot of fault on both sides happen, it's often the case, in my experience, that it's hard to get a criminal conviction for a major charge but both sides get further punishment from the civil tar-baby aspects that develop later, plus whoever damaged another party *more* loses a chunk of cash at the end.


----------



## Darren

DryHeat said:


> First, I think there are *so* many issues in national and world society ongoing that really need media coverage in detail that it disgusts me that these bread and circus situations have this wall-to-wall attention. I suppose advertisers want the ratings and the majority of viewers watch the soap opera situations and turn off in-depth stories. That said, "when in Rome" and I've absorbed some of the testimony and issues in this case. My thinking at this point is that I expect either a hung jury or acquittal on 2nd degree murder. Perhaps if a reduction of charge by jury is allowed, and I'd be surprised if it isn't, *perhaps* a manslaughter conviction or such might happen, but even that could be a split vote outcome. It sounds to me that both the parties were likely in the wrong in various ways, but the most damaging (and obviously lethal) decision was made by Zimmerman although there's a plausible case he could have been "in fear of his life."
> 
> Whatever, I would expect the same followup as in the OJ case: a massive civil suit by Martin's family for wrongful death. Zimmerman could get a settlement from his present suit versus NBC, tabloid or other interview fees, ghost-written book deals, etc. so it's not likely to be trying to bleed a turnip. Most cases I've seen, though I don't know the Florida statutes, require only a majority sort of vote on a lawsuit jury, plus the burden of proof is much lower, there's certainly NOT a requirement of acquittal if reasonable doubt, there's room for a range of monetary awards based on degree of blame. The whole range of Zimmerman's apparent behavior... arguments of "cop wannabe," his ignoring the 911 operator instructions not to follow Martin, just the fact that he doesn't seem to have told Martin he'd called 911, so let's just hang out until the cops get here to check you out... there are levels of fault there to balance against Martin's failure *also* to just stop and say "Dude, what's up, let's call the cops if you think there's a problem? Oh, you *have*? Well, let's just stand here and wait." Too much testosterone and projection of fears and anger on both sides, surely.
> 
> Maybe Zimmerman gets sued for $10 million and the jury gives Martin's family $2 million, maybe even depending on his income from various deals. When these situations in which there's clearly a lot of fault on both sides happen, it's often the case, in my experience, that it's hard to get a criminal conviction for a major charge but both sides get further punishment from the civil tar-baby aspects that develop later, plus whoever damaged another party *more* loses a chunk of cash at the end.


Whether or not there's a civil suit depends on how vulnerable Crump is. IMNSHO, Crump stepped way over the line when he fabricated the story he presented to the media. I think Reuters was given the story first and then the rest of the media picked it up. The media then manipulated he info in two provable instances where the picture was photoshopped and the tape transcription was altered. And of course no one researched Martin's past before piling on. With the access to social media it wouldn't have taken an expert to find darling litle Trayvon wasn't an innocent. 

Crump's fatal mistake was not sanitizing the internet before releasing the story. All of Martin's twitters, facebook posting, etc. were found and archived in muliple places.

As more information became available it was obvious that there were problems with the media release. Even the excuses for Martin presented here in the discussions became outlandish. The one that gave me the biggest laugh was the notion that Zimmerman grabbed Martin and deserved to be knocked down and beaten.

I'm still wondering why Martin's father wasn't concerned when he returned from a night out with his girlfriend and heard that Trayvon went to the store for Skittles and tea and never returned. As a parent, I would have been worried sick if my kid did not have a history of delinquency. If my kid had already been involved in delinquent acts, then I might have figured he decided to go off and do something. He'd get home when he got home. I'd deal with him then.

The other odd thing is with all of the commotion in the commons area, flashing lighs and probably sirens, the girlfriend's kid should have mentioned that unless that was a common occurrence which doesn't seem to be the case. Other neighbors noticed and witnessed Martin straddling Zimmerman and pounding the crap out of him per testimony.

This entire incident is a perversion of justice. Everyone who stood to capitalize on it from the President on down jumped in with both feet. I hope Crump is disbarred over this.

In the interest of fair play lets look at Zimmerman-Martin portraying Zimmerman as innocent similar to the way Crump pimped Martin.


----------



## watcher

farmrbrown said:


> I hope the jurors are as educated as you are watcher.


They won't be. Both sides want jurors as dumb as possible so they can sway them.

AAMOF, judges get ticked if a juror tries to educate themselves.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> Much here I agree with. Not only did the state probably overcharge but the police managed to screw up the investigation from the beginning. Zimmerman will probably walk away a free man and based on what I've seen so far that's the correct verdict. Does it explain the truth of what happened that night? We'll never know for sure, even after Zimmerman's book is published.


Unless you had a dozen video cameras you'd never be sure.

If you had a dozen eyewitnesses you'd still not be sure. Studies and practical experience has shown one of the least reliable forms of evidence is eyewitnesses.


----------



## watcher

FeralFemale said:


> Just one correction. Self Defense is an affirmative defense, which means the burden of proof shifts from the State to the defendant. So, yes, Zimmerman must prove it was self defense, though the same standard of proof still applies where the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did not prove self defense.


Not true. Zimmerman doesn't even have to put up a defense. The state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the shooting was a criminal act. Say the state has a witness knowledgeable about firearms. The defense could ask him if it were possible that during a struggle a firearm could accidentally be fired. When he says yes that could put a reasonable doubt in someone's mind about if firing the shot was an act done with thought or an accident. If the firearm discharged by accident was the shooting a criminal act?


----------



## watcher

DryHeat said:


> Whatever, I would expect the same followup as in the OJ case: a massive civil suit by Martin's family for wrongful death.


In which case he should get a good lawyer and counter sue. After all its clear Martin assaulted him and the result was his life was ruined. 




DryHeat said:


> The whole range of Zimmerman's apparent behavior... arguments of "cop wannabe," his ignoring the 911 operator instructions not to follow Martin, just the fact that he doesn't seem to have told Martin he'd called 911, so let's just hang out until the cops get here to check you out... there are levels of fault there to balance against Martin's failure *also* to just stop and say "Dude, what's up, let's call the cops if you think there's a problem? Oh, you *have*? Well, let's just stand here and wait." Too much testosterone and projection of fears and anger on both sides, surely.


And in a civil suit Martin and his family's past history would be open as well. I don't know if the family wants to have all their dirty laundry dragged into view.


----------



## Karen

Watcher, there certainly is evidence:_

1. (Victim) is dead._

Proven.


_2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant)._

That is what is to be determined according to *all* the evidence; which by way, hasn't been presented yet.

_3. There was an unlawful killing of (victim) by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life._

There is evidence of this. Racial profiling, knowingly and willfully failing to abide by the rules of the neighborhood watch which you promised to abide by (ie: following and leaving his vehicle), stalking, wanting to be a big shot, previous actions toward other suspects, etc. 

_* A &#8220;person of ordinary judgment&#8221; would know the act, or series of acts, &#8220;is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another&#8221;;_

Proven.

_* The act is &#8220;done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent&#8221;; and_

Also evidence as listed above.

_* The act is &#8220;of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.&#8221;_

Also evidenced as listed above.

Note that you don't need to 'prove' any of these. You only have to prove them beyond "a _reasonable_ doubt" in the minds of the jury. In other words, when you put together all the evidence, do the pieces _reasonably_ fit.


----------



## farmrbrown

I hoye that the jurors have a _reasonable doubt_ about the supposed ability to read minds.
Mind reading would be a necessity in order to prove what you thought someone else was thinking.


----------



## Karen

farmrbrown said:


> I hoye that the jurors have a _reasonable doubt_ about the supposed ability to read minds.
> Mind reading would be a necessity in order to prove what you thought someone else was thinking.


And that's the problem in most every trial. Only those present at the time of the crime know what happened, and even they don't know what is actually in the mind of each other. 

All a trial can do is attempt to recreate each sides understanding of the what the 'evidence' shows occurred. It's why we call it "blind justice" and is never 100% accurate. It's also why a jury is allowed "reasonable doubt". But even at that it's still the fairest and best method there is because there is no other better way.


----------



## Wanderer0101

TheMartianChick said:


> It goes to show that he made a choice to not check the Hispanic box at all and to not check the two boxes that identify his racial background. It is a small piece to demonstrate that he might have a bias against minorities. There is such a thing to have a sort of loathing about one's own ethnicity.


That's so thin you can read six point type through it.


----------



## FeralFemale

watcher said:


> Not true. Zimmerman doesn't even have to put up a defense. The state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the shooting was a criminal act. Say the state has a witness knowledgeable about firearms. The defense could ask him if it were possible that during a struggle a firearm could accidentally be fired. When he says yes that could put a reasonable doubt in someone's mind about if firing the shot was an act done with thought or an accident. If the firearm discharged by accident was the shooting a criminal act?


 
Is Zimmerman asserting self defense or not? If yes, then it happens exactly how I stated it. Zimmerman must present facts and evidence that it was, indeed, self defense. The state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in self defense. The state must also prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman committed 2nd degree murder.

Your example, above, is nothing more than what I said. The defense questioning a witness in susch a manner is part of meeting their burden to prove self defense.

If he were not asserting an affirmative defense, then you would be correct that the entire burden is on the prosecution and he doesn't have to put up a defense. I may have misused the term 'burden shift'. It is not a true burden shift, but it does require that he submit facts and evidence as to self defense.


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> In which case he should get a good lawyer and counter sue. After all its clear Martin assaulted him and the result was his life was ruined.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in a civil suit Martin and his family's past history would be open as well. I don't know if the family wants to have all their dirty laundry dragged into view.


It's interesting that in a previous post you claim we can never be sure what happened yet you're willing to assert with certainty that Martin assaulted Zimmerman.


----------



## Darren

mmoetc said:


> It's interesting that in a previous post you claim we can never be sure what happened yet you're willing to assert with certainty that Martin assaulted Zimmerman.


There are enough facts that taken together cast a tremendous amount of doubt on the story apparently fabricated by Crump and the publicist he hired to prepare the media release.

1. *Zimmerman lost sight of Martin*. The layout of the commons area makes this inexplicable unless Martin hid and then came at Zimmerman when he turned around which matches the surprise on Zimmerman's behalf. First Martin has disappeared and then he reappears out of no where.

2. *The handgun malfunctioned. * Apparently Zimmerman was unaware of this. I hope Zimmerman's defense lawyers have a firearms expert that can tell the jury what that implies.

3. *Martin's father's initial lack of concern.* Crump and Martin's family tried to keep the kid's past off limits.

4. *Martin's blood test results.*

5. *Zimmerman's wounds.* and lack of for Martin with the exception of the knuckles and gun shot.

6. *The statement by the funeral director* Ties to the above.

7. *Zimmerman's actions after the incident.* None indicated the acts of a guilty person.

8. *Nothing in Zimmerman's account and walk through raised any questions for the police investigators.*

9. *The falsification of the relationship between Martin and the so-called girlfriend.*

10. *Martin's previous delinquent acts and video taped fighting.*

11. *Crump's manipulations.*

12. *Eye witness accounts.* How did a young kid get an older adult on the ground and start beating him? Zimmerman out weighed the kid. There's nothing to indicate Martin was a wrestler. Zimmerman's knuckles weren't skinned up. Was he sucker punched in the manner of the current knock out game practiced by Black kids?

Many are thinking about his on an emotional level rather than a logical level. That is exactly what Crump wanted. Again I hope he is disbarred. I would be happy to advise Zimmerman on how to put the crook into bankruptcy.


----------



## Ambereyes

I have kinda followed this trial, really trying to understand the reason in it being such a large media draw. Just seems the type of crime that is not that unusual.


----------



## bjba

This trial brings up two questions for me.
How can one form an opinion based on the biased and inflammatory reports this event has engendered. It seems to me the passion of those who so eagerly consume the lies, half truths and speculation about the Martin/Zimmerman confrontation pays homage to the lies, half truths and speculation of biased, bigoted reporters. What has the media, print, film, TV or internet done to gain your trust?
The second, what is Hispanic? Hispanic as defined by the Merriam Webster dictionary


> of or relating to the people, speech, or culture of Spain or of Spain and Portugal


. The last time I looked Spain and Portugal are European. More specifically, my family immigrated from central Europe to Mexico became Mexican citizens and then were forced to become US citizens, does that make me Hispanic? A European European.


----------



## watcher

Karen said:


> Watcher, there certainly is evidence:_
> 
> 1. (Victim) is dead._
> 
> Proven.


Agreed.


_


Karen said:



2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant).

Click to expand...

_


Karen said:


> That is what is to be determined according to *all* the evidence; which by way, hasn't been presented yet.


Again based on what you know what proves this to you?



_


Karen said:



3. There was an unlawful killing of (victim) by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life.

Click to expand...

_


Karen said:


> There is evidence of this.


I don't see it.




Karen said:


> Racial profiling


If you listen to the tapes it was the POLICE which brought race into question, not Zimmerman. Therefore the only people we can accuse of racial profiling are the police. But police racial profile all the time. When there has been crime committed do they not include the race of the possible suspect?




Karen said:


> , knowingly and willfully failing to abide by the rules of the neighborhood watch which you promised to abide by (ie: following and leaving his vehicle)


As pointed out he was not on a NW patrol at the time. I don't think he ever said anything on the tape about being a member of the NW, did he? If so then you might have a case, if not it has as much bearing on the case as if he's member of the Moose Lodge.




Karen said:


> stalking,


Huh? You can't stalk someone you have never seen before.




Karen said:


> wanting to be a big shot, previous actions toward other suspects, etc.


You mean calling the police about other people he was suspicious of? You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either he was a out of control cowboy just looking to 'shot him one of them there injens' or he was using the police too much.




Karen said:


> _* A âperson of ordinary judgmentâ would know the act, or series of acts, âis reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to anotherâ;_
> 
> Proven.


Agreed


_


Karen said:



* The act is âdone from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intentâ; and

Click to expand...

_


Karen said:


> Also evidence as listed above.


What evidence is there he had any of that for Martin? Seems to me if this were the case he would have jumped out of his truck and attacked Martian w/o calling the cops.


_


Karen said:



* The act is âof such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.â

Click to expand...

_


Karen said:


> Also evidenced as listed above.


Not quite. There is zero evidence Zimmerman had his weapon out until he was under attack. This could be used as evidence he knew how dangerous it was and in difference to human life didn't want to have the possibility of deadly force when it wasn't needed.




Karen said:


> Note that you don't need to 'prove' any of these. You only have to prove them beyond "a _reasonable_ doubt" in the minds of the jury. In other words, when you put together all the evidence, do the pieces _reasonably_ fit.


You must prove EACH AND ALL of them to that level. The chain formed to hold him must be complete. If even one link is broken he has to be allowed to go free. That is the rub.


----------



## watcher

FeralFemale said:


> Is Zimmerman asserting self defense or not?


I don't know.




FeralFemale said:


> Your example, above, is nothing more than what I said. The defense questioning a witness in susch a manner is part of meeting their burden to prove self defense.


I disagree. Asking if a weapon could have been discharged accidentally during a struggle is not setting up a self defense case. Its offering an alternative to the jury to the state's view Zimmerman knowingly and willfully fired the shot. Which the state must convince every juror of.





FeralFemale said:


> If he were not asserting an affirmative defense, then you would be correct that the entire burden is on the prosecution and he doesn't have to put up a defense. I may have misused the term 'burden shift'. It is not a true burden shift, but it does require that he submit facts and evidence as to self defense.


Sort of. To claim self defense you have to show that a 'reasonable man' in the same circumstances would be in fear of death or grievous bodily harm. You do not have to prove either of those would have happened if you had not acted. And the state must prove that it was unreasonable to have such fear.

Example, you are sitting on your porch in the late evening watching the fireflies/lighting bugs and someone come running at you making strange sounds with something in their hand. Before they reach you, you shoot and kill them. After its all over its discovered the person you killed had just been stung on the butt by a bee, was allergic to bee stings, didn't have an epipen and what he carrying was a folding umbrella. You have just killed someone who was unarmed and clearly no threat to you at all. Yet in only a few states would you even be arrested.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> It's interesting that in a previous post you claim we can never be sure what happened yet you're willing to assert with certainty that Martin assaulted Zimmerman.


There is more than enough evidence to get above the reasonable doubt that Martin assaulted Zimmerman. There is eyewitness testimony backed up by physical evidence, photos and medical records. What we can't know is WHY the assault happened.


----------



## Karen

Watcher, you're missing the point. The point is that no conclusion should be drawn by any of us -- yet.

All any of us know is what we've read or heard from the media. Unless you're (not just 'you', but meaning all of us) are watching every minute of the actual trial, you can't form an educated opinion. There's still a lot of evidence out there and a great deal on both sides that we haven't even heard yet; therefore, our conclusions at this point are biased or distorted. 

Living in America means we have the responsibility to weigh the evidence before making an opinion. Not from what we've been told, rather what is present from the facts, from the sources themselves, in a court of law. To do otherwise and form opinions prior to hearing all the evidence is wrong and totally going against our Constitution. We presume a person to be innocent until proven guilty, but that means we also have to open to the facts he may just actually be guilty.

To say there is no evidence against Zimmerman is not true, otherwise there would be no trial at all. But we need to patiently wait for both sides of the facts to come forward, _in a court of law rather than from the media_, and gather all the facts before making any type of determination. Otherwise, it's an emotional determination and not one based on the facts. We are obligated, under the Constitution to abide by the facts only before coming to a conclusion or opinion in determining guilt or innocence.

IMHO, and after almost a lifetime of serving in the legal field, I believe that when we are asked, "So what do you think, is he/she guilty or innocent", our reply should always be, "I don't know until all the evidence is provided in a court of law".


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> There is more than enough evidence to get above the reasonable doubt that Martin assaulted Zimmerman.


If there was one thing we can take from his girlfriend's testimony, it's that Martin was genuinely concerned about Zimmerman following him. By Zimmerman's own admission, he was the one who was doing the following. Keep in mind that Martin also had the right to defend himself.

The downside to Zimmerman carrying a gun is that if the gun was used it could result in a shooting of questionable circumstances. That's what happened here. Unfortunately Zimmerman didn't do much to avoid the appearance of a questionable shooting. This would have gone a lot easier on him if Martin had a weapon of some sort on his person.

Let's face it, shooting an unarmed person puts you in a difficult legal position. Zimmerman didn't know that?


----------



## unregistered353870

> Let's face it, shooting an unarmed person puts you in a difficult legal position. Zimmerman didn't know that?


If it happened the way he says it did, he didn't really have the luxury of considering the "difficult legal position" he was putting himself in by shooting his attacker.


----------



## farmrbrown

Nevada said:


> Let's face it, shooting an unarmed person puts you in a difficult legal position. Zimmerman didn't know that?


 Of course he did.
Just like Martin probably knew that attacking an *armed* man puts you 6 feet under the ground, a MUCH more difficult position, IMO


----------



## davel745

I would not let a person get inside of 15 feet from me without drawing on them. If they came forward I would shoot them. This was Zimmerman's mistake he tried to talk to the guy and he was taken down. He broke the 15 foot rule. As far as I am concerned he is lucky he is still alive. Never, never let anyone inside of 15 feet from you.


----------



## poppy

Ambereyes said:


> I have kinda followed this trial, really trying to understand the reason in it being such a large media draw. Just seems the type of crime that is not that unusual.


It is not unusual at all. It just happens to be the one that got media attention because of the race thing. I can guarantee there are young black men alive and well in Chicago right now who will be dead before morning. It happens every weekend there and none of them make national news because it is blacks killing blacks. Some of them die for no reason at all. They might just be sitting on their porch or walking to the corner store for Skittles wearing the wrong color clothing. They won't even have the luxury of asking someone why they are following them. Blacks will not protest these killings or make threats to kill other blacks like they are threatening to kill whites if Zimmerman walks. In fact, if a black is arrested for one of the shootings, many blacks will say he is the victim of police profiling.


----------



## Nevada

farmrbrown said:


> Just like Martin probably knew that attacking an *armed* man puts you 6 feet under the ground, a MUCH more difficult position, IMO


First, Zimmerman could have avoided any danger by simply following the police dispatcher's recommendation of not following the suspicious person.

I suspect that Zimmernam acted out his frustration that guys like Martin 'always get away' by attempting to detain Martin so he could be questioned by the police. Martin wasn't about to be detained by a "cracker", so Martin defended himself against the presumed unarmed man. I suspect that there came a point where Martin was getting the best of Zimmerman, so in his outrage Zimmerman ended the fight with deadly force.

That account seems to be consistent with his girlfriend's testimony. Martin had every right to defend himself from being unlawfully detained, and Zimmerman had no legal justification to end a fistfight with an unarmed man using deadly force. Zimmerman had no reason to believe that Martin intended to use deadly force, or even had a weapon.

What you're missing is that many people see this as a case of the right of unarmed people to walk the streets in safety. If armed people aren't going to show good judgment and take responsibility for their actions, the law needs to send them a strong message. Zimmerman showed poor judgment, and has no intention of taking responsibility for his actions. That makes him a problem for society.


----------



## watcher

davel745 said:


> I would not let a person get inside of 15 feet from me without drawing on them. If they came forward I would shoot them. This was Zimmerman's mistake he tried to talk to the guy and he was taken down. He broke the 15 foot rule. As far as I am concerned he is lucky he is still alive. Never, never let anyone inside of 15 feet from you.


You must be quicker than my instructors, I was taught anyone within 21 feet of you is to be considered a deadly threat.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> If there was one thing we can take from his girlfriend's testimony, it's that Martin was genuinely concerned about Zimmerman following him. By Zimmerman's own admission, he was the one who was doing the following. Keep in mind that Martin also had the right to defend himself.


You do not have the right to use possible deadly force to defend yourself unless you are facing deadly force. IOW, if I come up and punch you in the face you don't have the right to draw a firearm and shoot me. But if I have you on the ground and am beating your head against a concrete sidewalk its a different story. And if I punch you in the face and you pick up a 2X4 and come after me I do not have to stand there and let you kill me just because I threw the first punch.




Nevada said:


> Let's face it, shooting an unarmed person puts you in a difficult legal position. Zimmerman didn't know that?


No person is unarmed, unless they they do not have the use of their arms and legs. Read the following two statements and remember them, it could save your life: 

There is only ONE weapon, your brain; everything else is just a tool.

If you think a person is not a threat just because he doesn't have something in his hands you are a fool.


Most people don't realize the amount of damage one human body can inflict upon another.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> First, Zimmerman could have avoided any danger by simply following the police dispatcher's recommendation of not following the suspicious person


He STOPPED following as soon as he was told that.
Why keep trying to confuse the facts?

It's self defense, plain and simple, if you simply go with the EVIDENCE and stop parroting the spin


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> First, Zimmerman could have avoided any danger by simply following the police dispatcher's recommendation of not following the suspicious person.
> 
> I suspect that Zimmernam acted out his frustration that guys like Martin 'always get away' by attempting to detain Martin so he could be questioned by the police. Martin wasn't about to be detained by a "cracker", so Martin defended himself against the presumed unarmed man. I suspect that there came a point where Martin was getting the best of Zimmerman, so in his outrage Zimmerman ended the fight with deadly force.
> 
> That account seems to be consistent with his girlfriend's testimony. Martin had every right to defend himself from being unlawfully detained, and Zimmerman had no legal justification to end a fistfight with an unarmed man using deadly force. Zimmerman had no reason to believe that Martin intended to use deadly force, or even had a weapon.
> 
> What you're missing is that many people see this as a case of the right of unarmed people to walk the streets in safety. If armed people aren't going to show good judgment and take responsibility for their actions, the law needs to send them a strong message. Zimmerman showed poor judgment, and has no intention of taking responsibility for his actions. That makes him a problem for society.


If a citizen believes that another person is in the act of commiting a crime, they can enforce a citizens arrest. The police will sort it out. Zimmerman may have done just that, and martin didn't like that idea(what was he hiding) and started a beatdown on Zimmerman. Zimmerman will walk from this. The DA didn't even want to press charges, but were forced into it by the media.


----------



## Guest

JeffreyD said:


> If a citizen believes that another person is in the act of commiting a crime, they can enforce a citizens arrest. The police will sort it out. Zimmerman may have done just that, and martin didn't like that idea(what was he hiding) and started a beatdown on Zimmerman. Zimmerman will walk from this. The DA didn't even want to press charges, but were forced into it by the media.


I agree with this . Charges had to be brought in an attempt to prevent looting & destruction of property which is more than likely to happen anyway .


----------



## mmoetc

Maybe Zimmerman should ask his MMA instructor for a refund.


----------



## Karen

Bearfootfarm said:


> He STOPPED following as soon as he was told that.
> Why keep trying to confuse the facts?
> 
> It's self defense, plain and simple, if you simply go with the EVIDENCE and stop parroting the spin


That has not been proven. When Zimmerman was told to quit following Martin, he replied, "okay". It has not been proven that he actually did.


----------



## joseph97297

mmoetc said:


> Maybe Zimmerman should ask his MMA instructor for a refund.


Just wanted to say thanks, I was having a rough night, but this totally brought me back up on my toes. I laughed, and I needed it.

Don't have much to add to this 'discussion' but wanted to say thanks anyway.


----------



## mmoetc

joseph97297 said:


> Just wanted to say thanks, I was having a rough night, but this totally brought me back up on my toes. I laughed, and I needed it.
> 
> Don't have much to add to this 'discussion' but wanted to say thanks anyway.


Hope your night gets better. Glad to help.


----------



## Darren

Ambereyes said:


> I have kinda followed this trial, really trying to understand the reason in it being such a large media draw. Just seems the type of crime that is not that unusual.


That's a good question. The reason it is a big media draw is because of the actions of Benjamin Crump. If Crump hadn't falsified the story and pimped it to the media, nothing would have happened.


----------



## farmrbrown

Nevada said:


> First, Zimmerman could have avoided any danger by simply following the police dispatcher's recommendation of not following the suspicious person.


That is probably true.




Nevada said:


> I *suspect* that Zimmernam acted out his frustration that guys like Martin 'always get away' by attempting to detain Martin so he could be questioned by the police. Martin wasn't about to be detained by a "cracker", so Martin defended himself against the presumed unarmed man. I *suspect* that there came a point where Martin was getting the best of Zimmerman, so in his outrage Zimmerman ended the fight with deadly force.
> 
> That account seems to be consistent with his girlfriend's testimony.
> *The girlfriend which I admitted in an earlier post has credibility issues*


Ok I had a little fun with that one at the end, sorry.




Nevada said:


> Martin had every right to defend himself from being unlawfully detained, and Zimmerman had no legal justification to end a fistfight with an unarmed man using deadly force. Zimmerman had no reason to believe that Martin intended to use deadly force, or even had a weapon.
> 
> What you're missing is that many people see this as a case of the right of unarmed people to walk the streets in safety. If armed people aren't going to show good judgment and take responsibility for their actions, the law needs to send them a strong message. Zimmerman showed poor judgment, and has no intention of taking responsibility for his actions. That makes him a problem for society.



I don't think I missed that part. I walk the streets unarmed quite often, and relish the right to do so safely.
I also was the victim of a rather brutal beating one night while doing just that. There were several, not just one, but I can assure you that bouncing your head off concrete will make you THINK you're going to meet Death.
I managed to get away and make it the .45 in my truck just as the police got there, but after that night, let's just say I always had a "little something" in my pocket that would allow me to get my favorite baby, just in case.
And on a few other occasions that's exactly how it went.
I never had to shoot anyone, but I'm not about to take a beating like that again.


----------



## Nevada

Darren said:


> That's a good question. The reason it is a big media draw is because of the actions of Benjamin Crump. If Crump hadn't falsified the story and pimped it to the media, nothing would have happened.


I think there is an organic general interest in this case. People look at this case and have concerns that they are not safe while gun-toting idiots like Zimmerman are on the loose. Honestly, from what I know about this case so far I'll gladly take my chances with someone like Martin than with someone like Zimmerman. My concern is that he was looking for an opportunity to use the gun, and I haven't heard anything at the so far trial that changes my mind about that.

People who carry guns have to show good judgment & restraint, then take responsibility for their actions. I'm not seeing any of that in Zimmerman. I may change my tune of Zimmerman testifies, but so far I've got my concerns.


----------



## Nevada

farmrbrown said:


> I also was the victim of a rather brutal beating one night while doing just that. There were several, not just one, but I can assure you that bouncing your head off concrete will make you THINK you're going to meet Death.


I've never been mugged. My brushes with death have been occupational. Both oil refinery work and firefighting are inherently dangerous occupations. But, of course, a gun wouldn't have helped make me any safer in those settings. Guns wouldn't have been tolerated either.

Zimmerman took a huge risk carrying a gun while doing neighborhood watch activities. This is the expected result. Zimmerman is in serious trouble. Anyone who thinks he can simply shrug and say he was defending himself isn't in touch with reality. As a direct result of the shooting Zimmerman is fighting for his life. His future is very much in question.


----------



## farmrbrown

I think Zimmerman made a few mistakes also. I wouldn't characterize carrying a gun as a huge risk, but a huge responsibility. When carrying, I've never felt the urge to be an aggressor or escalate the situation, quite the opposite. The last thing I wanted was to pull it out, but I can tell you, that when you're in that situation, it's a relief to know the aggressor is going to stop, by his choice, or mine, guaranteed.
I also think Martin made a few mistakes.
If there hadn't been a gun involved, and Zimmerman ended up dead from a head bashing instead, it would be interesting to see what the opinions would be on this, wouldn't it?
But as to what exactly occurred that night, and the final outcome, we'll just have to wait and see.


----------



## EDDIE BUCK

JeffreyD said:


> If a citizen believes that another person is in the act of commiting a crime, they can enforce a citizens arrest. The police will sort it out. Zimmerman may have done just that, and martin didn't like that idea(what was he hiding) and started a beatdown on Zimmerman. Zimmerman will walk from this. The DA didn't even want to press charges, but were forced into it by the media.


 Yep, here's proof. :happy2:[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9efgLHgsBmM[/ame]


----------



## Pearl B

Nevada said:


> First, Zimmerman could have avoided any danger by simply following the police dispatcher's recommendation of not following the suspicious person.
> 
> I suspect that Zimmernam acted out his frustration that guys like Martin 'always get away' by attempting to detain Martin so he could be questioned by the police. Martin wasn't about to be detained by a "cracker", so Martin defended himself against the presumed unarmed man. I suspect that there came a point where Martin was getting the best of Zimmerman, so in his outrage Zimmerman ended the fight with deadly force.
> 
> That account seems to be consistent with his girlfriend's testimony. Martin had every right to defend himself from being unlawfully detained, and Zimmerman had no legal justification to end a fistfight with an unarmed man using deadly force. Zimmerman had no reason to believe that Martin intended to use deadly force, or even had a weapon.
> 
> What you're missing is that many people see this as a case of the right of unarmed people to walk the streets in safety. If armed people aren't going to show good judgment and take responsibility for their actions, the law needs to send them a strong message. Zimmerman showed poor judgment, and has no intention of taking responsibility for his actions. That makes him a problem for society.


Spot on.



Nevada said:


> I think there is an organic general interest in this case. People look at this case and have concerns that they are not safe while gun-toting idiots like Zimmerman are on the loose. Honestly, from what I know about this case so far I'll gladly take my chances with someone like Martin than with someone like Zimmerman. My concern is that he was looking for an opportunity to use the gun, and I haven't heard anything at the so far trial that changes my mind about that.
> 
> People who carry guns have to show good judgment & restraint, then take responsibility for their actions. I'm not seeing any of that in Zimmerman. I may change my tune of Zimmerman testifies, but so far I've got my concerns.


 I agree completely with the underlined above. 



Nevada said:


> I've never been mugged. My brushes with death have been occupational. Both oil refinery work and firefighting are inherently dangerous occupations. But, of course, a gun wouldn't have helped make me any safer in those settings. Guns wouldn't have been tolerated either.
> 
> Zimmerman took a huge risk carrying a gun while doing neighborhood watch activities. This is the expected result. Zimmerman is in serious trouble. Anyone who thinks he can simply shrug and say he was defending himself isn't in touch with reality. As a direct result of the shooting Zimmerman is fighting for his life. His future is very much in question.


Spot on again.
I think if Z gets off on Self Defense, there will be a public backlash against right to carry.


----------



## davel745

watcher said:


> You must be quicker than my instructors, I was taught anyone within 21 feet of you is to be considered a deadly threat.


We were taught 15 feet and they can move in on you in less than a second. We were told to have your gun out and issue a warning at about 15 to 20 feet and if they don't stop to do two center mass and one to the head. It sounds harsh but that is what they taught. Ask any police officer what they were taught.


----------



## davel745

Originally Posted by *Nevada*  
_I think there is an organic general interest in this case. People look at this case and have concerns that they are not safe while gun-toting idiots like Zimmerman are on the loose. Honestly, from what I know about this case so far I'll gladly take my chances with someone like Martin than with someone like Zimmerman. My concern is that he was looking for an opportunity to use the gun, and I haven't heard anything at the so far trial that changes my mind about that.
_
_If he was looking for an opportunity to use his gun why did he wait till he was getting the snot knocked out of himself before he reached for the gun? _


----------



## Ambereyes

Wonder why there are no media circus's surrounding trials for inner city violence?


----------



## mmoetc

davel745 said:


> Originally Posted by *Nevada*
> _I think there is an organic general interest in this case. People look at this case and have concerns that they are not safe while gun-toting idiots like Zimmerman are on the loose. Honestly, from what I know about this case so far I'll gladly take my chances with someone like Martin than with someone like Zimmerman. My concern is that he was looking for an opportunity to use the gun, and I haven't heard anything at the so far trial that changes my mind about that.
> 
> _
> _If he was looking for an opportunity to use his gun why did he wait till he was getting the snot knocked out of himself before he reached for the gun? _


We can also ask the question why a healthy, adult male, who had trained for mixed martial arts three times a week for some period had no indication on his hands or body that he fought back. The inference can be made that rather than using his MMA training he immediately resorted to his weapon.


----------



## Darren

At some point while Martin was beating Zimmerman, Martin may have become aware of the gun. You may argue that without the handgun, evens would have turned out OK. I diasgree, based on Zimmerman's wounds and the uncontrolled rage demonstrated by Martin. It goes without saying in a civilized world you don't kick a man when he;s down. 

*There was absolutely no reason for Martin to continue beating Zimmerman after he had knocked him down. That was inexcusable and indicates malicious intent.*

Zimmerman, from the accounts, did what anyone with a CCW should do. He didn't pull the gun out and go looking for Martin. It was only after he was on the ground and being punched that the gun came into play. I'm not so sure why folks think a handgun is a bogeyman and cringe at the thought of someone legally carrying. Get used to it. 

There are very few states that don't have a shall issue law.. Even Chicago was drug kicking and screaming into compliance with the Constitution.

I've never been in the situation of being punched and not being able for my body to move to deflect some of the force of the punch. Zimmerman was taking the full force of the blows while pinned to the ground. Think about lying on the ground with a mad man punching you in the face.

Both had a bias. Martin called Zimmerman a white cracker. Zimmerman thought Martin was a delinquent that was up to something suspicious. Martin was wrong. Zimmerman wasn't a white cracker. Zimmerman was half right or half wrong since Martin was a delinquent but not provably up to something suspicious that night.

Personally I feel safer where more people have a CCW. We had a few issues with folks doing show and tell at one of the local fire stations including one who has a federal get out of jail free card so to speak. The board of directors didn't ban firearms but we did change the rules so that if the state regulations for CCW were not strictly observed on fire dept. property, disciplinary action would follow.

When you impartially look at the potential alternative outcomes, Martin made far more wrong choices. .IMNSHO, Zimmerman did every thing right. Only when allowed no recourse did he shoot his attacker. Even then it was not an act of rage but one of desperation. He was lucky that the one shot he made fatally wounded Martin and stopped the attack. Martin was immediately incapacitated and other than a few last words fell over dead. The handgun wouldn't have fired again.


----------



## FeralFemale

Karen said:


> That has not been proven. When Zimmerman was told to quit following Martin, he replied, "okay". It has not been proven that he actually did.


Is there proof that he didn't?

The way the justice system is supposed to work is that a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Unless the prosecution can present evidence and facts that prove otherwise, Zimmerman saying that he stopped following at that point *is* what happened. 

At least, that is how the judge and jury is supposed to look at it. What we all *think* happened counts for nothing.


----------



## FeralFemale

> *There was absolutely no reason for Martin to continue beating Zimmerman after he had knocked him down. That was inexcusable and indicates malicious intenes.*


That's not something I've thought of before. You have a good point. 

However, we don't know how everything went down. Maybe Martin saw the gun and decided he needed to keep waling on GZ *because* he had a gun. Would you be comfortable retreating if the other person in the altercation had a gun or would you keep waling until he was too incapacitated to use the gun against you?

And does Florida even have a 'duty to retreat' in their self defense laws? I don't think they do. That's what 'stand your ground' is all about, isn't it?


----------



## po boy

FeralFemale said:


> Is there proof that he didn't?
> 
> The way the justice system is supposed to work is that a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Unless the prosecution can present evidence and facts that prove otherwise, Zimmerman saying that he stopped following at that point *is* what happened.
> 
> At least, that is how the judge and jury is supposed to look at it. What we all *think* happened counts for nothing.


I do believe the defense will be able to prove GZ did stop.

GZ states "Please, get an officer over here."
*7:10*
"He's coming towards me," Zimmerman tells the police about Trayvon, who is now walking towards his truck. He makes his first firm identification of Trayvon as "a black male." Adds Zimmerman, "He's coming to check me out. He's got something in his hands." Zimmerman sounds a little anxious: "Please, get an officer over here."
*7:11*
After Trayvon passes his truck, Zimmerman says, "----, he's running." He is heading towards "the back entrance," says Zimmerman. That entrance is in the same general direction as Brandy's townhouse. A question that goes unasked is why Trayvon was running. 
*7:12 *
When asked by the dispatcher, Zimmerman agrees not to follow Trayvon, and his heavy breathing ends. "He ran," says Zimmerman. Even if running slowly, Trayvon could have made it to Brandy's house in a half a minute. It was only 100 yards from the truck.
*7:13*


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012..._not_to_know_about_trayvon.html#ixzz2Xhda8d67


----------



## davel745

mmoetc said:


> We can also ask the question why a healthy, adult male, who had trained for mixed martial arts three times a week for some period had no indication on his hands or body that he fought back. The inference can be made that rather than using his MMA training he immediately resorted to his weapon.


So while he was immediately reaching for his weapon he got the broken nose and cut on the back of his head. Also there was witness who said he was on the bottom, (he was down) and the wounds support this. Oh wait The wounds were self inflicted. He just walked up to the guy and immediately shot him. Then punched himself in the nose and banged his head on the sidewalk.

This whole mess has nothing to do with the truth but it is 100% racial.


----------



## poppy

Nevada said:


> I think there is an organic general interest in this case. People look at this case and have concerns that they are not safe while gun-toting idiots like Zimmerman are on the loose.


What sane people SHOULD take from this case is what could happen to them if they are walking and some black hooligan with a dislike of white people decides you are following him, whether you are or not. You need a gun for protection. Beatdowns like Martin was giving Zimmerman happen to whites all the time in cities for no reason at all. Young black males resort to violence at the drop of a hat and commit crimes in numbers that dwarf those of other races. Sorry, but it is fact. Don't believe it? Check out our jail and prison populations.


----------



## davel745

mmoetc said:


> We can also ask the question why a healthy, adult male, who had trained for mixed martial arts three times a week for some period had no indication on his hands or body that he fought back. The inference can be made that rather than using his MMA training he immediately resorted to his weapon.


He was sucker punched. He broke the 15-20 foot rule.


----------



## davel745

I think that if you were punched in the nose as hard as the pictures show you would be stunned and fall backwards and maybe hit your head on the sidewalk. I would of drawn and shot right then too.


----------



## greg273

A punk teenager and an overzealous armed vigilante wanna-be make for a very volatile combination.


----------



## greg273

poppy said:


> What sane people SHOULD take from this case is what could happen to them if they are walking and some black hooligan with a dislike of white people decides you are following him, *whether you are or not*.


 Especially if you are following him. If you go looking for trouble, chances are you will find it. 

My guess, Zimmerman gets charged with manslaughter, at least.


----------



## Tricky Grama

wannabechef said:


> I'm pretty sure it will either be a mistrial or George will be free. There is no way in hell George could get a fair trial in this country by the way the media handled the story from the beginning. They had him pinned as a gun happy racist from the beginning...and Obama "if I had a son...", stay out of it Mr President, not your place to speak about this case...but I know it fits his agenda.












I wasn't going to open this thread, then wasn't going to give this a POTDA but it may still hold true...even tho overwhelming evidence (in spite of the OP's thinking) proves Zimmerman acted in self defense.
I'm wondering why the op thought b/c Martin's prints were not on the gun that it proved anything?


----------



## farmrbrown

I doubt it meets the standard of even manslaughter, and although all the facts aren't in, and likely never will be, due to the circumstances, I'll tell you why I think so at this point.

As Nevada pointed out, everyone has the right to walk in safety, in public.....agreed.
Also, whether you like it, know it or admit it, others also have the same right and if they so desire, to watch you, be curious and up to the point of threatening or harm, even follow you on your walk in public.
This is where this story takes a bad turn.
What Martin did at the point where he was annoyed at Zimmerman following him, is where the determination of Zimmerman's guilt or innocence hinges.
I have a right to stop and confront my follower. I have a right to call for help if threatened. I even have the right to defend myself if my follower turns aggressive or violent. And in every state's self defense laws there is a limit to my self defense that stops when my aggressor is stopped or retreats and I cannot legally go any further.

If that is exactly what happened and Zimmerman is shown to have killed Martin NOT in self defense but out of revenge for being beaten, then he IS guilty of a criminal homicide.
But if that is NOT exactly what happened, then he is innocent of all charges.

EDIT.
Before someone brings up some state's "stalking" laws, as a reason that Zimmerman was wrong in the first place, those laws are all unconstitutional. 
That is IF you agree with the premise that we all have a right to be in public in the first place. If OTOH, you believe that some have rights to be in public and the gov't gets to decide what you are thinking before any law is broken, then you may agree with stalking laws.
I personally don't know if a follower is a criminal UNTIL they act, not before.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Pugnacious said:


> I have my doubts about this whole thing. The fact that the local DA refused to prosecute him initially makes me think this is a witch hunt. There can't be an untainted outcome. The media needs to learn to report news and not make news.


----------



## Darren

greg273 said:


> Especially if you are following him. If you go looking for trouble, chances are you will find it. e.
> 
> My guess, Zimmerman gets charged with manslaughter, at least.


My guess is manslaughter is not on the table given the severity of the charge by the state. Given the damage to the state's case from their own winesses, I don't see the defense going for a plea of manslaughter and exposing Zimmerman to civil liability. Zimmerman has to thread several legal needles beginning with an aquital. 

If he's found not guilty I hope he sues both Crump and the Martins. Crump for deliberately perpeuating a lie that cost Zimmerman time, money and his reputation. along with anything else a smart attorney could find and the Martins for not raising their son properly and allowing him out in public without supervision. 

I'd like to see a Zimmerman legal team use the obvious falsifications by Crump to establish new legal precedent. It's time for people to take responsibility. People today seem to think their kids can do no wrong. Teachers have no real options when the parents defend little Johnny or Susie's wrongdoing.

The Martin's have put themselves between a rock and a hard place by agreeing to Crump's fabrications. It's telling that before Crump, Tracy Martin told the police it was not his son calling for help that night. As a father, I think I could tell if one of my kids was screamng for help.


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> How can you make any kind of judgement when you have not seen or studied any evidence other than what is floating around the news and internet? It does not really matter at this point what will be allowed or not. You have no real idea what is true or not but are judging it as fact.


 So, you think the pictures of GZ immediately after were fake? Or do you mean the media's doctoring of the 911 calls?


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> I agree. He tried to rattle her but she stood strong. It will really come down to whether her testimony ties in with some other evidence that is important. Her lack of speaking skills did not change the fact that she was honest about her belief in what she heard.


 Really??!??! Which part? She changed her lies, er...story so many times...


----------



## Tricky Grama

mmoetc said:


> You mean the "cracker" who ignored the
> police dispatcher who told him not to keep following. Two sides to every conflict.


 Ah, so I see your leanings. Since he followed a suspicious person, b/c there had been lots of break-ins in the area, he's a guilty cracker.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Wanderer0101 said:


> No obligation to follow the direction of some low rent non-sworn telephone operator. This is a red herring issue that only makes sense to leftists that believe the vast bulk of the population should be sheep.


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> So, you think the pictures of GZ immediately after were fake? Or do you mean the media's doctoring of the 911 calls?


Really? Where did I say that?


----------



## Nevada

davel745 said:


> He was sucker punched. He broke the 15-20 foot rule.


We really don't know who approached who. What this is going to come down to is what makes the most sense, 1) Martin approaching Zimmerman because he was being followed, or 2) Zimmerman approaching Martin to find out why he was there. It may be that it was Zimmerman who broke the 15-20 foot rule.


----------



## Tricky Grama

mmoetc said:


> Actually, all I know is that Zimmerman shot Martin. I also know that he was advised that he needn't follow him. My conclusion is that had he taken that advise he wouldn't have shot Martin that night. As to any other events- I haven't a clue what was said or not said between the two. I have no knowledge of who the aggressor was. Zimmerman will likely be aquited and based on the evidence I've seen and read about so far that is the proper outcome. Whether it is the truth of the situation we will never know for certain.


Everyone can "IF IF IF" all year long. _(edited)_ But its MORE of an "IF" if martin had NOT attacked GZ.


----------



## Nevada

Tricky Grama said:


> But its MORE of an "IF" if martin had NOT attacked GZ.


How are you so sure that Martin attacked Zimmerman?


----------



## davel745

Nevada said:


> We really don't know who approached who. What this is going to come down to is what makes the most sense, 1) Martin approaching Zimmerman because he was being followed, or 2) Zimmerman approaching Martin to find out why he was there. It may be that it was Zimmerman who broke the 15-20 foot rule.


Zimmerman did break the 15-20 foot rule, he should of had his gun out and issued a warning at 15 to 20 feet away. if Martin continued he should of shot him. Not waite till he got sucker punched.


----------



## Nevada

davel745 said:


> Zimmerman did break the 15-20 foot rule, he should of had his gun out and issued a warning at 15 to 20 feet away. if Martin continued he should of shot him. Not waite till he got sucker punched.


Do you draw on everyone who violates your 15-20 foot radius? How do you conduct business? What I mean is, do you draw when you approach a clerk to buy a burger at McDonalds? How do you know that the clerk isn't going to attack you?


----------



## Tricky Grama

davel745 said:


> So while he was immediately reaching for his weapon he got the broken nose and cut on the back of his head. Also there was witness who said he was on the bottom, (he was down) and the wounds support this. Oh wait The wounds were self inflicted. He just walked up to the guy and immediately shot him. Then punched himself in the nose and banged his head on the sidewalk.
> 
> This whole mess has nothing to do with the truth but it is 100% racial.


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> Really? Where did I say that?


Here-your post on pg 2-

"How can you make any kind of judgement when you have not seen or studied any evidence other than what is floating around the news and internet? It does not really matter at this point what will be allowed or not. You have no real idea what is true or not but are judging it as fact." 

You are implying news & internet is not to be believed...I'm wondering what part of the news or internet. It is why I asked you about the pics of GZ vs the doctored tape nbc put out..


----------



## Tricky Grama

Nevada said:


> How are you so sure that Martin attacked Zimmerman?


 Maybe it was you who gave him the bloody nose? Or the cement cuts to the back of his head...numerous, not just ONE head-pounding.


----------



## farmrbrown

Nevada said:


> Do you draw on everyone who violates your 15-20 foot radius? How do you conduct business? What I mean is, do you draw when you approach a clerk to buy a burger at McDonalds? How do you know that the clerk isn't going to attack you?


This is when a discussion goes off the rails, lol.

The criteria of a fast food purchase, is totally different than an uneasy encounter between strangers at night who are already suspicious of each other. 
In the first, no warning is given or necessary and both parties are in agreement.
In the second, a safe distance is required and expected, with a violation of that distance resulting in a bad outcome for both parties.

But you already knew that.


----------



## Nevada

davel745 said:


> Also there was witness who said he was on the bottom, (he was down) and the wounds support this.


The fact that Zimmerman might have been on the bottom at one point of the fight doesn't tell us a lot. It doesn't tell how the fight got started. The fact that someone was on the losing end of a fight doesn't give him the right to use deadly force as an equalizer.

I'm sensitive to being detained without cause. It's commonplace around here, even though it's contrary to the law. Even in the face of huge lawsuit awards the casinos persist in unlawful detainment, and even unlawful arrest.

It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that Zimmerman tried to detain Martin. I'm used to hearing about it.


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> Here-your post on pg 2-
> 
> "How can you make any kind of judgement when you have not seen or studied any evidence other than what is floating around the news and internet? It does not really matter at this point what will be allowed or not. You have no real idea what is true or not but are judging it as fact."
> 
> You are implying news & internet is not to be believed...I'm wondering what part of the news or internet. It is why I asked you about the pics of GZ vs the doctored tape nbc put out..


Well you have just proven I never said that. I am not implying that the internet and news is not to be believed in all cases. I am implying that it is only part of the story and I will not make a judgement on half of the information like so many here like to do.

I do believe there was a fight and that Zimmerman was injured. The evidence has been shown in court. However we have only his version of the story. I want to know the other versions and how the evidence supports or does not support those versions before I come to any kind of conclusion. You seem to think that is a bad thing, waiting to hear all the evidence.


----------



## Darren

*If you truly want to understand what happened look into the history of both men including their problems and service to their respective communities and sensibilities before the incident.* Zimmerman was a caring neighbor no matter what the race. Calling him a vigilante is way off base. 

Find out for yourself why he and his wife purchased handguns and who recommended that.

Martin made plenty of social media posts that are still on the internet.

Look at the timeline and the Martin family statements immediately after Trayvon's death and then after Crump go involved. You'll see a change. 

Look at how the media slanted things to make Martin out as an innocent and defame Zimmerman.

Look at Benjamin Crump's background. If you think he's all about justice, you have been bamboozled.

Look at the layout and pictures of he commons area and ask how someone could lose sight of Martin. That is important. That is indicative Martin's intent..

If you're going to express an opinion look at both sides and every aspect of the coin.


----------



## Nevada

farmrbrown said:


> This is when a discussion goes off the rails, lol.
> 
> The criteria of a fast food purchase, is totally different than an uneasy encounter between strangers at night who are already suspicious of each other.
> In the first, no warning is given or necessary and both parties are in agreement.
> In the second, a safe distance is required and expected, with a violation of that distance resulting in a bad outcome for both parties.
> 
> But you already knew that.


Oh, ok. So there are exceptions to davel745's 15-20 foot rule. You need to explain these things when you introduce a new rule.

I wonder how often davel745 draws his weapon? Certainly he gets within 15-20 feet of people he doesn't know every day. Since he isn't always sure of their intentions he probably has to draw several times each day. I wonder how people react to looking down a gun barrel for getting too close to him?


----------



## farmrbrown

davel745 said:


> Zimmerman did break the 15-20 foot rule,* he should of had his gun out and issued a warning at 15 to 20 feet away. if Martin continued he should of shot him.* Not waite till he got sucker punched.



I noticed the detailed conditions right away.
No confusion for me, between a McDonald's transaction and a more serious event.:shrug:


----------



## Nevada

farmrbrown said:


> I noticed the detailed conditions right away.
> No confusion for me, between a McDonald's transaction and a more serious event.:shrug:


What was Zimmerman's tip-off that Martin was dangerous to approach?

As has been evident at the trial, there were a lot of residents at that complex who didn't know Zimmerman.

* Would it be fitting for Zimmerman to draw when approaching all residents he didn't recognize?
* How many residents might Zimmerman have to draw on during his patrols?
* How would residents react to that?
* How would you react to that?
* If you enforce the same 15-20 foot rule, would you draw on Zimmerman at the same time he drew on you?
* Would you really want to live in a place where someone drew a gun on everyone he didn't recognize?


----------



## TraderBob

TheMartianChick said:


> But what do you do at that point? Do you follow them down the street while dialing for the police or do you watch them to make sure that they aren't up to something?
> 
> It is after 10 PM EST. While I don't usually go out on foot this late, I have the right to do so and I shouldn't have to be concerned about someone calling the cops on me for walking in a neighborhood that isn't mine. I'm reminded of that Nicholas Cage/Samuel L. Jackson movie, Amos and Andrew.
> 
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106266/plotsummary?ref_=tt_ov_pl


I watch to make sure they leave my area. If they start to go in someones back yard, I'll make the decision to call at that time. It hasn't happened yet. What has happened is they either go and knock on the door of the place they were going to, or keep looking back to see if I'm watching as they leave the area...sometimes calling me names as they do so. 

I've had no confrontations that have turned violent, and don't expect any....but am always prepared for the fact that they might.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> How are you so sure that Martin attacked Zimmerman?


Because that's what the* EVIDENCE* shows.
You can PRETEND all you like, but there is* nothing* that backs any other scenario


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> It is after 10 PM EST. While I don't usually go out on foot this late, I have the right to do so and* I shouldn't have to be concerned* about someone calling the cops on me for walking in a neighborhood that isn't mine


If you *fit the description* of a person/persons who have commited PREVIOUS crimes in that neighborhood, it's no big surprise you'd come under suspiscion


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> Because that's what the* EVIDENCE* shows.
> You can PRETEND all you like, but there is* nothing* that backs any other scenario


Let me put it this way, if Zimmerman can't convince the jury that he was attacked by Martin then he's in a lot of trouble.


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> If you *fit the description* of a person/persons who have commited PREVIOUS crimes in that neighborhood, it's no big surprise you'd come under suspiscion


Let's dwell on that thought for a moment. Other than the fact that Zimmerman didn't recognize Martin, why did he fit the description of a suspicious person?


----------



## FeralFemale

Anyone else find it disconcerting that support/condemnation of Zimmerman falls almost exactly along political lines?

Why do you think that is?


----------



## Nevada

FeralFemale said:


> Anyone else find it disconcerting that support/condemnation of Zimmerman falls almost exactly along political lines?
> 
> Why do you think that is?


I don't support or condemn Zimmerman. I want to know what happened, and I want to see him get a fair trial. I hope we all get a better understanding of accountability for gun carrying out of this case, and I hope people who carry guns develop a better sense of accountability for their judgment.

While this case isn't political, you are correct that support/condemnation seems to go down party lines. I don't think that's because people are rallying for or against a cause. I think it's a basic difference in how people think. Everyone believes that we all have a basic right to defend ourselves, but when that right turns into a sense of entitlement to execute anyone who might make us uneasy then it becomes a problem.


----------



## Wanderer0101

FeralFemale said:


> Anyone else find it disconcerting that support/condemnation of Zimmerman falls almost exactly along political lines?
> 
> Why do you think that is?


Because part of the leftist ethos in the US is to view blacks as victims and not responsible for their actions. That's one of the ways they keep them on the plantation pulling the Democrat lever at the polling station. Plus there's the fact in this case that Zimmerman was a private individual carrying an evil GUN which automatically makes him a villain in the eyes of the left


----------



## Nevada

Wanderer0101 said:


> Because part of the leftist ethos in the US is to view blacks as victims and not responsible for their actions. That's one of the ways they keep them on the plantation pulling the Democrat lever at the polling station. Plus there's the fact in this case that Zimmerman was a private individual carrying an evil GUN which automatically makes him a villain in the eyes of the left


Nonsense. If the victim would have been a 17 year-old white boy there would have been just as much outrage.

What I'm seeing is the right giving a pass to gun use without accountability. This trial represents the kind of accountability that people will face. It's a good thing.


----------



## forphase1

_(edited) _If this was a white 17 year old boy most of us would have never heard the story in the first place much less the constant attention it has received. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Nevada

forphase1 said:


> I call bs. If this was a white 17 year old boy most of us would have never heard the story


Whatever. It's 117 today here in Las Vegas. I'm headed to a cool casino for the afternoon.


----------



## unregistered353870

> If you enforce the same 15-20 foot rule, would you draw on Zimmerman at the same time he drew on you?


If someone draws on me, I'd not only draw on him, but I'd shoot. Some of the keyboard cowboys think it's much simpler than it is.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> Let me put it this way, if Zimmerman can't convince the jury that he was attacked by Martin then he's in a lot of trouble.


 
You can "put it" any way you want, but if the Jury follows thee RULES of LAW, and ONLY considers* evidence presented*, they can only come to ONE coclusion

Zimmerman doesn't have to "convince" anyone of anything.

The STATE has to PROVE, beyond a reasonable doubt, he committed murder, and the EVIDENCE doesn't show that at all


----------



## TheMartianChick

Darren said:


> I'm still wondering why Martin's father wasn't concerned when he returned from a night out with his girlfriend and heard that Trayvon went to the store for Skittles and tea and never returned. As a parent, I would have been worried sick if my kid did not have a history of delinquency. If my kid had already been involved in delinquent acts, then I might have figured he decided to go off and do something. He'd get home when he got home. I'd deal with him then.
> 
> The other odd thing is with all of the commotion in the commons area, flashing lighs and probably sirens, the girlfriend's kid should have mentioned that unless that was a common occurrence which doesn't seem to be the case. Other neighbors noticed and witnessed Martin straddling Zimmerman and pounding the crap out of him per testimony.
> 
> This entire incident is a perversion of justice. Everyone who stood to capitalize on it from the President on down jumped in with both feet. I hope Crump is disbarred over this.
> 
> In the interest of fair play lets look at Zimmerman-Martin portraying Zimmerman as innocent similar to the way Crump pimped Martin.


 
Trayvon's father wondered about his son's whereabouts that night. There is an interview out there where he made phone calls to try to track him down. Police don't look for a missing child for hours unless foul play is suspected. At his age, cops assume that the child has runaway and that they will probably come back within a day or two. The family found out that he had been killed after they called the police.The police never went through his cell phone to try to reach next of kin for notification.

I did edit this post to correct an innacuracy caused by my faulty memory.Here is a link to a news article that explains what happened:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/03/us-usa-florida-shooting-trayvon-idUSBRE8320UK20120403


----------



## TheMartianChick

Bearfootfarm said:


> If you *fit the description* of a person/persons who have commited PREVIOUS crimes in that neighborhood, it's no big surprise you'd come under suspiscion


Those people had already been caught. I saw the demographics of that community online. It is about 20-25% black. Zimmerman didn't know everyone who lived there and he couldn't possibly know all of their friends, or the black friends of the other residents.

Skincolor aside, many of us here have children or grandchildren. Imagine one of your own walking through a neighborhood at 7 PM. Do you think it is alright for them to be followed by a grown man? Should the police be called on your teen relative for having the audacity to walk through that neighborhood? As someone suggested earlier, should your relative be obligated to tell an unidentified stranger where he is going?

One thing that I'm realizing here is that some people are assuming that the version of the story that they are receiving from their usual news sources is accurate. Zimmerman has also changed his story,but that seems to be getting ignored here. When people say that the acts only line up with Zimmerman's account, it just isn't so. They line up with one of the stories that he told but not with all of the stories that he told.

http://www.standard.net/stories/2012/06/28/zimmerman-kept-changing-his-story-police


----------



## wannabechef

TheMartianChick said:


> Those people had already been caught. I saw the demographics of that community online. It is about 20-25% black. Zimmerman didn't know everyone who lived there and he couldn't possibly know all of their friends, or the black friends of the other residents.
> 
> Skincolor aside, many of us here have children or grandchildren. Imagine one of your own walking through a neighborhood at 7 PM. Do you think it is alright for them to be followed by a grown man? Should the police be called on your teen relative for having the audacity to walk through that neighborhood? As someone suggested earlier, should your relative be obligated to tell an unidentified stranger where he is going?
> 
> One thing that I'm realizing here is that some people are assuming that the version of the story that they are receiving from their usual news sources is accurate. Zimmerman has also changed his story,but that seems to be getting ignored here. When people say that the acts only line up with Zimmerman's account, it just isn't so. They line up with one of the stories that he told but not with all of the stories that he told.
> 
> http://www.standard.net/stories/2012/06/28/zimmerman-kept-changing-his-story-police


I wouldn't let my kid walk around at night by himself...I know where my son is all the time....at least while he is living in my house.


----------



## Nevada

wannabechef said:


> I wouldn't let my kid walk around at night by himself...I know where my son is all the time....at least while he is living in my house.


You wouldn't let your 17 year-old son go to a convenience store by himself?


----------



## Nevada

TheMartianChick said:


> When people say that the acts only line up with Zimmerman's account, it just isn't so.


If they were saying that Zimmerman's story is consistent with the evidence then that might be true, but to say that the facts can only be interpreted to support Zimmerman's account is false.

A lot of this case will depend on how the witnesses do. Both sides have made points so far. I don't think either side has a slam-dunk case right now, but the testimony is still coming out.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> *Those people had already been caught*. I saw the demographics of that community online. It is about 20-25% black. Zimmerman didn't know everyone who lived there and he couldn't possibly know all of their friends, or the black friends of the other residents.


It's not unususal for suspects to commit crimes while awaiting trial for other crimes.
It wasn't RACE alone that made Martin "suspicious"
*Read the 911 transcripts*




> *Zimmerman has also changed his story*,but that seems to be getting ignored here. When people say that the acts only line up with Zimmerman's account, it just isn't so. They line up with one of the stories that he told but not with all of the stories that he told.


I've not seen any real changes in his story, since most of it has been *confirmed by tapes and witnesses*
The article you linked to has LOTS of speculation and innuendo, but offers no proof of anything.
Teh precise wording really means little.
What matters is *who was attacked*, and who defended themselves, an dthe evidence there is clear


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> If they were saying that Zimmerman's story is consistent with the evidence then that might be true, but* to say that the facts can only be interpreted to support Zimmerman's account is false.
> *


So where are your "facts" ( *not your speculations*) that DON'T support Zimmerman's version


----------



## wannabechef

Nevada said:


> You wouldn't let your 17 year-old son go to a convenience store by himself?


Not at night...obviously it's not safe to do so...and even before this case I wouldn't. Still living in my home, my house my rules. Now if he was in a car...yes.

Secondly, if he was black in a mostly white neighborhood I wouldn't allow it..nor would I let him walk through Harlem in the middle of the night...it is what it is.

Obviously I realize the world is not as safe a place as you...I am not naive.


----------



## How Do I

From the link above.



> "How do you not know the three streets in your neighborhood (where) youâve been living for three years?"


I was wondering that also. One of the witnesses is his neighbor that saw the altercation...supposedly. He said he heard it going on outside and when he looked out, said he saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman. He was supposedly living in the same unit as Zimmerman and Zimmerman doesn't know the area directly behind his home where he was attacked, the street even? And this guy was part of neighborhood watch?

IDK, I still don't understand how the body ended up 20-30 feet down the sidewalk _that connects_ to the sidewalk that Zimmerman says he was on when he was heading back to his vehicle. Even getting popped in the nose, I would be moving _away_ from the danger and back to the security of my vehicle and to where officers should be arriving shortly. I can understand stumbling a few feet in wet grass, but not "stumbling" 20-30 feet into the area where someone just came out of the bushes. That makes no sense. You can see the photos for yourself if you haven't already. The reenactment video is also online where Zimmerman walks them through what happened. "It happened HERE", "no wait, it happened OVER HERE". Yeah, whatever.


----------



## wes917

How Do I said:


> From the link above.
> 
> I was wondering that also. One of the witnesses is his neighbor that saw the altercation...supposedly. He said he heard it going on outside and when he looked out, said he saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman. He was supposedly living in the same unit as Zimmerman and Zimmerman doesn't know the area directly behind his home where he was attacked, the street even? And this guy was part of neighborhood watch?
> 
> IDK, I still don't understand how the body ended up 20-30 feet down the sidewalk _that connects_ to the sidewalk that Zimmerman says he was on when he was heading back to his vehicle. Even getting popped in the nose, I would be moving _away_ from the danger and back to the security of my vehicle and to where officers should be arriving shortly. I can understand stumbling a few feet in wet grass, but not "stumbling" 20-30 feet into the area where someone just came out of the bushes. That makes no sense. You can see the photos for yourself if you haven't already. The reenactment video is also online where Zimmerman walks them through what happened. "It happened HERE", "no wait, it happened OVER HERE". Yeah, whatever.


I haven't commented because of all the speculations so far, but at 30' that's 10 or so steps from where it started at 20' that's 6-7 steps. Don't know about you but during a fight its not unlikely to move that distance or farther.

Also ever been hit in the nose? You say you'd retreat, when getting hit that hard your eyes water and its easy to get disoriented.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Nevada said:


> The fact that Zimmerman might have been on the bottom at one point of the fight doesn't tell us a lot. It doesn't tell how the fight got started. The fact that someone was on the losing end of a fight doesn't give him the right to use deadly force as an equalizer.
> 
> I'm sensitive to being detained without cause. It's commonplace around here, even though it's contrary to the law. Even in the face of huge lawsuit awards the casinos persist in unlawful detainment, and even unlawful arrest.
> 
> It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that Zimmerman tried to detain Martin. I'm used to hearing about it.


You continue to use this phony defense. IF GZ tried to detain Martin its NO CAUSE for martin to violently beat him. NO CAUSE. (go back to the citizen's arrest post-numerous burglaries, etc) AND there were NO knuckle marks, no evidence of GZ attacking 1st.
But you know that.

I'd like to add that I think this is a monumental tragedy. Martin should not be dead. This young man should've been caught way earlier & stopped of the gang-style behavior, the 'no respect' attitude, the 'minor' offenses. 
I have a son who strayed as a teen, got into a little trouble...you DO NOT shrug that off, you FIX it.


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> Well you have just proven I never said that. I am not implying that the internet and news is not to be believed in all cases. I am implying that it is only part of the story and I will not make a judgement on half of the information like so many here like to do.
> 
> I do believe there was a fight and that Zimmerman was injured. The evidence has been shown in court. However we have only his version of the story. I want to know the other versions and how the evidence supports or does not support those versions before I come to any kind of conclusion. You seem to think that is a bad thing, waiting to hear all the evidence.


OK, now I'll challenge YOU. Where do I say I don't want to hear all the evidence?
I showed you where you don't believe all the news & 'net & you wouldn't tell us which part you don't believe.
We've already had proof where MSNBC & other left-leaning lamestream media told us lies. So I'm believing pictures, eye witnesses, physical evidence. I rarely believe MSNBC, NBC b/c they've shown they'll alter facts & outright lie. 
I was dragged into the 1st batch of folks who thought GZ was a cold blooded killer out looking for a young black 'boy'.


----------



## How Do I

Yes, I've been punched in the nose before. Hurts good. But I still knew where backwards was. By Zimmerman's account he would have still been on the sidewalk to his vehicle when he was punched. If it was with so much force, he should have been forced backwards on the sidewalk he was on, not took off "stumbling" in the other direction into the dark. And after just seeing another media interview that showed the exact location where the body was looking back towards the sidewalk where Zimmerman says he was, I'm going to say a minimum of 35 feet now and possibly 40 feet. I just checked the reenactment video again and Zimmerman took I think 10 steps from the middle of the sidewalk to show the second place he "thought" it was and it still isn't close to where they showed the body location on the media interview. Another good 5-10 steps or so. Kind of hard to judge in the video without them moving. You can view it all yourself. No need to take my word for it.


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> OK, now I'll challenge YOU. Where do I say I don't want to hear all the evidence?
> I showed you where you don't believe all the news & 'net & you wouldn't tell us which part you don't believe.
> We've already had proof where MSNBC & other left-leaning lamestream media told us lies. So I'm believing pictures, eye witnesses, physical evidence. I rarely believe MSNBC, NBC b/c they've shown they'll alter facts & outright lie.
> I was dragged into the 1st batch of folks who thought GZ was a cold blooded killer out looking for a young black 'boy'.


You say it in your first post in this thread.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Nevada said:


> I don't support or condemn Zimmerman. I want to know what happened, and I want to see him get a fair trial. I hope we all get a better understanding of accountability for gun carrying out of this case, and I hope people who carry guns develop a better sense of accountability for their judgment.
> 
> While this case isn't political, you are correct that support/condemnation seems to go down party lines. I don't think that's because people are rallying for or against a cause. I think it's a basic difference in how people think. Everyone believes that we all have a basic right to defend ourselves, but when that right turns into a sense of entitlement to execute anyone who might make us uneasy then it becomes a problem.


Here ya go again making us conservatives think long & hard on prohibiting libs from owning guns!! 

B/c YOU just said this: "...we all have a basic right to defend ourselves, but when that right turns into a sense of entitlement to execute anyone who might make us uneasy then it becomes a problem."
Why on earth do you think GZ shot b/c he was JUST UNEASY????!! Who do you think beat him so visciously? Why didn't he have any evidence of beating Martin?


----------



## Tricky Grama

Wanderer0101 said:


> Because part of the leftist ethos in the US is to view blacks as victims and not responsible for their actions. That's one of the ways they keep them on the plantation pulling the Democrat lever at the polling station. Plus there's the fact in this case that Zimmerman was a private individual carrying an evil GUN which automatically makes him a villain in the eyes of the left


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> He was *supposedly living in the same unit as Zimmerman* and Zimmerman doesn't know the area directly behind his home where he was attacked, the street even? And this guy was part of neighborhood watch?


What's your source for that statement?
Giong *by the facts*, it was BLOCKS away from Zimmerman's home

Can you name the *house number* of every residence on YOUR street without looking to be sure?
All of this makes perfect sense if you just READ the TRANSCRIPTS:



> Zimmerman: If they come in through the gate, tell them to go straight past the club house, and uh, straight past the club house and make a left [_onto Twin Trees Lane_], and then they go past the mailboxes, that's my truck...[unintelligible]
> Dispatcher: *What address* are you parked in front of?
> Zimmerman: I don't know, it's a cut through so *I don't know the address*.


http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2012/03/last-map-of-the-retreat-at-twin-lakes.html


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> I don't support or condemn Zimmerman. I want to know what happened, and I want to see him get a fair trial. I hope we all get a better understanding of accountability for gun carrying out of this case, and I hope people who carry guns develop a better sense of accountability for their judgment.
> 
> While this case isn't political, you are correct that support/condemnation seems to go down party lines. I don't think that's because people are rallying for or against a cause. I think it's a basic difference in how people think. Everyone believes that we all have a basic right to defend ourselves, but when that right turns into a sense of entitlement to execute anyone who might make us uneasy then it becomes a problem.


The case is beyond highly political. You can't say it isn't when Obama interfered. What right does a president have to take sides before a trial? The race baiters were on this in a heartbeat after Crump did his hatchet job with the phonied up press release.

Are you saying someone getting their head pounded on concrete shouldn't "feel uneasy?" when it's being done by someone you've never seen before and your screams for help aren't doing anything?

After looking at everyhing available, Zimmerman complied with all CCW requiremens and based on the handgun malfunction only drew and fired when he had no other option. Martin had the choice to get off Zimmerman and not detain him any longer when the man started screaming for help. 

From Zimmerman's wounds, Martin's attitude demonstrated by his social media posts, and the fact he kept beating Zimmerman in the face, I'd say Zimmerman's life was very much in jeopardy and he would have either been much more severely injured or killed that night if he didn't have the gun.


----------



## 7thswan

FeralFemale said:


> Anyone else find it disconcerting that support/condemnation of Zimmerman falls almost exactly along political lines?
> 
> Why do you think that is?


 Because recent politics have been pounding it into everyones head. Race this, that and everywhere...


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> You say it in your first post in this thread.


Ok, you'll have to point out where in my 1st post, #247, that I say I don't want to hear the evidence. 

This is that post: "I wasn't going to open this thread, then wasn't going to give this a POTDA but it may still hold true...even tho overwhelming evidence (in spite of the OP's thinking) proves Zimmerman acted in self defense.
I'm wondering why the op thought b/c Martin's prints were not on the gun that it proved anything?

So are you going to say what part of the news & 'net you don't believe?


----------



## Tricky Grama

Darren said:


> The case is beyond highly political. You can't say it isn't when Obama interfered. What right does a president have to take sides before a trial? The race baiters were on this in a heartbeat after Crump did his hatchet job with the phonied up press release.
> 
> Are you saying someone getting their head pounded on concrete shouldn't "feel uneasy?" when it's being done by someone you've never seen before and your screams for help aren't doing anything?
> 
> After looking at everyhing available, Zimmerman complied with all CCW requiremens and based on the handgun malfunction only drew and fired when he had no other option. Martin had the choice to get off Zimmerman and not detain him any longer when the man started screaming for help.
> 
> From Zimmerman's wounds, Martin's attitude demonstrated by his social media posts, and the fact he kept beating Zimmerman in the face, I'd say Zimmerman's life was very much in jeopardy and he would have either been much more severely injured or killed that night if he didn't have the gun.


----------



## Nevada

Tricky Grama said:


> B/c YOU just said this: "...we all have a basic right to defend ourselves, but when that right turns into a sense of entitlement to execute anyone who might make us uneasy then it becomes a problem."
> Why on earth do you think GZ shot b/c he was JUST UNEASY????!!


Actually, that statement was made in reaction to the 15-20 foot rule, not the Martin/Zimmerman incident.


----------



## Wanderer0101

Nevada said:


> Actually, that statement was made in reaction to the 15-20 foot rule, not the Martin/Zimmerman incident.


 The Tueller Drill (21 feet) really only applies if someone has a knife or something similar in their hand and they are coming at you. If you don't respond by drawing and firing at 21 feet you may kill them eventually but you are also stuck, bleeding and maybe dead.


----------



## unregistered353870

Wanderer0101 said:


> The Tueller Drill (21 feet) really only applies if someone has a knife or something similar in their hand and they are coming at you. If you don't respond by drawing and firing at 21 feet you may kill them eventually but you are also stuck, bleeding and maybe dead.


The person who brought the "rule" into this discussion used a different version. He didn't mention a weapon of any kind in the other person's hand. I don't think he really meant it quite the way he said it, though.



davel745 said:


> We were taught 15 feet and they can move in on you in less than a second. We were told to have your gun out and issue a warning at about 15 to 20 feet and if they don't stop to do two center mass and one to the head. It sounds harsh but that is what they taught. Ask any police officer what they were taught.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Ask any police officer what they were taught


That's a response to an* imminent* threat.
It has nothing to do with Martin and Zimmerman


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's a response to an* imminent* threat.
> It has nothing to do with Martin and Zimmerman


The biggest problem with the Martin/Zimmerman shooting is that Martin belonged there, was unarmed, and committed no crime. Regardless of what it may have looked like to Zimmerman, it was a bad shooting on its face.

I was never a cop, but I recall when I was a firefighter that I broke down the wrong door one time. We responded the squad to a medical aid, but nobody answered the door. Dispatch gave authorization for forcible entry, which we did. Turns out it was the wrong house. It was a rural setting where people sometimes aren't good about displaying street numbers.

Despite the fact that we really believed we were at the right place where someone needed our help, and we even acted on authority from dispatch, guess who the captain yelled at when we got back to the station? Regardless of our good intentions, we cost the captain a lot of paperwork and the county had to pay to replace the door.

The point is that this would be going a lot easier on Zimmerman if Martin didn't belong there or was trying to rob a house. Even a cop is in a tight spot when he shoots an innocent person -- even an innocent person who resisted authority. The assumption is that someone died because the situation wasn't handled better, which is difficult to deny.


----------



## Hollowdweller

This is going to be a tough one.

It sounds like to me that Zimmerman profiled him pursued him and then when the guy turned the tables on him and got the better of him he shot him.

Whole thing probably could have been avoided had Zimmerman not been carrying a gun.

However unless somebody clearly contradicts him which I don't see at this point he didnt' do anything illegal.


----------



## TheMartianChick

They played Zimmerman's re-enactment earlier for the court. Is anyone listening to the recordings of Zimmerman's police interrogation? The sound quality is really bad!


----------



## Nevada

TheMartianChick said:


> They played Zimmerman's re-enactment earlier for the court. Is anyone listening to the recordings of Zimmerman's police interrogation? The sound quality is really bad!


I'm watching the hearing. I haven't heard anything new so far. It's basically a rehash of Zimmerman's story.

I was a little surprised that the prosecutor make the lady cop read Zimmerman's 4-page written narrative. She admittedly didn't see well, and it wasn't her writing anyway. The prosecution should have transcribed it to typed text and had someone who could see better read it. It served no purpose to have the lady cop labor through the document.


----------



## Darren

TheMartianChick said:


> Trayvon's father wondered about his son's whereabouts that night. There is an interview out there where he made phone calls to try to track him down. Police don't look for a missing child for hours unless foul play is suspected. At his age, cops assume that the child has runaway and that they will probably come back within a day or two. The family found out that he had been killed after they called the police.The police never went through his cell phone to try to reach next of kin for notification.
> 
> I did edit this post to correct an innacuracy caused by my faulty memory.Here is a link to a news article that explains what happened:
> 
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/03/us-usa-florida-shooting-trayvon-idUSBRE8320UK20120403


Thanks for linking to that. It sort of confirmed my impression of the father and raised more questions about Crump's story. The 711 video of Martin showed he didn't have much money. He counted it out in front of the 711 clerk.Crump made a big deal out of Trayvon going out for skittles and tea. That's certainly an innocent act of a kid. Tracy Martin's girlfriends' son was left behind. Supposedly the skittles and tea were for him. Now we have Tracey Martin saying his son may have gone to a movie or with friends.That doesn't match Crump's story.

The kid left alone should have told Tracy Martin where Trayvon went if Crumps story is true. There's nothing to indicate that Tracey Martin checked the 711. Crump's problem is that Tracy Martin's actions that night don't match the story Crump put out to the media.

Trayvon was a PITA for his parents. The mother dumped him on the father to keep him away from his friends while suspended. Then the father left Trayvon at his girlfriend's house and later stated he thought Trayvon may have gone off with the very friends he, Tracy, was supposed to keep him way from. It's a long drive from Sandford to Orlando according to the linked article..The going off with friends was a BS excuse.

The father is deflecting blame for his actions. I bet the ex-wife jumped him over that. Of course with the potential money to made, they're both singing the same song.

One of the interesting tidbits is that the big settlement Crump won previously is for the incident involving police brutality against a homeless black person. That was the same incident that Zimmerman protested. Now according to Crump, Zimmerman is a profiling racist.


----------



## TheMartianChick

Darren said:


> Thanks for linking to that. It sort of confirmed my impression of the father and raised more questions about Crump's story. The 711 video of Martin showed he didn't have much money. He counted it out in front of the 711 clerk.Crump made a big deal out of Trayvon going out for skittles and tea. That's certainly an innocent act of a kid. Tracy Martin's girlfriends' son was left behind. Supposedly the skittles and tea were for him. Now we have Tracey Martin saying his son may have gone to a movie or with friends.That doesn't match Crump's story.
> 
> The kid left alone should have told Tracy Martin where Trayvon went if Crumps story is true. There's nothing to indicate that Tracey Martin checked the 711. Crump's problem is that Tracy Martin's actions that night don't match the story Crump put out to the media.
> 
> Trayvon was a PITA for his parents. The mother dumped him on the father to keep him away from his friends while suspended. Then the father left Trayvon at his girlfriend's house and later stated he thought Trayvon may have gone off with the very friends he, Tracy, was supposed to keep him way from. It's a long drive from Sandford to Orlando according to the linked article..The going off with friends was a BS excuse.
> 
> The father is deflecting blame for his actions. I bet the ex-wife jumped him over that. Of course with the potential money to made, they're both singing the same song.


I think that you are right as far as Trayvon being a headstrong kid that was difficult for his parents to control. However, I don't agree with the other conclusions that you reached. Tracy Martin arrived at home to find that his son was gone. He may have asked the younger boy about his whereabouts but he would have only been able to say that 'he went to the store but he didn't come back.' 

The father may have assumed that his son went to a movie without permission, especially since he didn't have friends in that area. It would be a household infraction because he didn't have permission, but nothing for a parent to seriously worry about. Maybe he assumed that he had gone to the movies because his phone went straight to voicemail. (Lord knows that teens NEVER turn off their cell phones!)

When he hadn't shown up by the next morning, Tracy Martin called the police.

Make no mistake... I do not think that Trayvon Martin was a saint and I don't mean to imply that he was. It doesn't matter that he was suspended from school. He wasn't engaged in illegal behavior when Zimmerman followed him.

Saint or sinner... the question is, "Did he deserve to be stalked through the neighborhood and then shot?"


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> The biggest problem with the Martin/Zimmerman shooting is that Martin belonged there, was unarmed, and *committed no crime*.
> 
> Regardless of what it may have looked like to Zimmerman, it was* a bad shooting* on its face.


Martin ATTACKED Zimmerman
The EVIDENCE confirms it.
Once more you ignore the evidence and insert your *opinion*

Nothing has changed since it first happened


----------



## wannabechef

TheMartianChick said:


> I think that you are right as far as Trayvon being a headstrong kid that was difficult for his parents to control. However, I don't agree with the other conclusions that you reached. Tracy Martin arrived at home to find that his son was gone. He may have asked the younger boy about his whereabouts but he would have only been able to say that 'he went to the store but he didn't come back.'
> 
> The father may have assumed that his son went to a movie without permission, especially since he didn't have friends in that area. It would be a household infraction because he didn't have permission, but nothing for a parent to seriously worry about. Maybe he assumed that he had gone to the movies because his phone went straight to voicemail. (Lord knows that teens NEVER turn off their cell phones!)
> 
> When he hadn't shown up by the next morning, Tracy Martin called the police.
> 
> Make no mistake... I do not think that Trayvon Martin was a saint and I don't mean to imply that he was. It doesn't matter that he was suspended from school. He wasn't engaged in illegal behavior when Zimmerman followed him.
> 
> Saint or sinner... the question is, "Did he deserve to be stalked through the neighborhood and then shot?"


He wasn't "stalked", he was followed.


----------



## poppy

The detectives who arrived said nothing to contradict Zimmerman's story and actually made him look good. When one detective tried to trick Zimmerman by telling him Martin had videotaped the encounter, Zimmerman's immediate response was, "Thank God. I was hoping someone videotaped this". That's not a response you would get from a guilty man.


----------



## TheMartianChick

My husband just reminded me of a situation that happened to our daughter when she was 16 or 17 years old. She was on her way to the bus stop to catch a city bus to school. (Public high school kids in our city catch public transportation to school). A man pulled around a corner and started talking to her. She tried to ignore him. He went back around the block and approached her again. This time she made a smart remark and he acted like he was going to get out of the car. She took off running across a busy intersection and ended up at home. She was scared to death. I was home and called the police because she thought that the man was trying to kidnap her or something. When the police arrived, she had calmed down enough to tell the whole story. The guy initially thought that she was cute and wanted to talk to her. When she rebuffed him, he got a bit nasty. We don't know what he was going to do once he had gotten out of the car. I just know that we ended up giving her a ride to school for the last few days of school during exam week. It is scary to have your child stalked by a stranger. 

I just asked my daughter about that situation and she said that she was reminded of that event the first time that she ever heard of Trayvon Martin.


----------



## TheMartianChick

poppy said:


> The detectives who arrived said nothing to contradict Zimmerman's story and actually made him look good. When one detective tried to trick Zimmerman by telling him Martin had videotaped the encounter, Zimmerman's immediate response was, "Thank God. I was hoping someone videotaped this". That's not a response you would get from a guilty man.


Of course, Zimmerman also said that the dispatcher asked him to look for Trayvon Martin, too. Listening to the police call, we know that it is not true.

The officer also told Zimmerman that if he had stayed in the truck that they wouldn't be having that interrogation.

Zimmerman also referred to Trayvon Martin as a "suspect" repeatedly in his written statement. Though he wasn't law enforcement, he had already decided that he was a criminal though he never really articulated what he was suspected of.


----------



## poppy

TheMartianChick said:


> My husband just reminded me of a situation that happened to our daughter when she was 16 or 17 years old. She was on her way to the bus stop to catch a city bus to school. (Public high school kids in our city catch public transportation to school). A man pulled around a corner and started talking to her. She tried to ignore him. He went back around the block and approached her again. This time she made a smart remark and he acted like he was going to get out of the car. She took off running across a busy intersection and ended up at home. She was scared to death. I was home and called the police because she thought that the man was trying to kidnap her or something. When the police arrived, she had calmed down enough to tell the whole story. The guy initially thought that she was cute and wanted to talk to her. When she rebuffed him, he got a bit nasty. We don't know what he was going to do once he had gotten out of the car. I just know that we ended up giving her a ride to school for the last few days of school during exam week. It is scary to have your child stalked by a stranger.
> 
> I just asked my daughter about that situation and she said that she was reminded of that event the first time that she ever heard of Trayvon Martin.


The situation is completely different. Zimmerman did not talk to Martin and Zimmerman had every right to walk the path he took just as Martin did. By his account, and no evidence has come forward to dispute it, Zimmerman stopped following Martin and was returning to his car when Martin jumped him from some bushes. How does that relate to your daughter's situation?


----------



## wannabechef

TheMartianChick said:


> My husband just reminded me of a situation that happened to our daughter when she was 16 or 17 years old. She was on her way to the bus stop to catch a city bus to school. (Public high school kids in our city catch public transportation to school). A man pulled around a corner and started talking to her. She tried to ignore him. He went back around the block and approached her again. This time she made a smart remark and he acted like he was going to get out of the car. She took off running across a busy intersection and ended up at home. She was scared to death. I was home and called the police because she thought that the man was trying to kidnap her or something. When the police arrived, she had calmed down enough to tell the whole story. The guy initially thought that she was cute and wanted to talk to her. When she rebuffed him, he got a bit nasty. We don't know what he was going to do once he had gotten out of the car. I just know that we ended up giving her a ride to school for the last few days of school during exam week. It is scary to have your child stalked by a stranger.
> 
> I just asked my daughter about that situation and she said that she was reminded of that event the first time that she ever heard of Trayvon Martin.


Your daughter was stalked, Trayvon was followed. Your daughter was where she was supposed to be, Trayvon was a teen walking around late at night in the dark...and call me a racist, but a black kid in a mostly white neighborhood would arouse concerns to most when walking around late at night...wrong or right, doesn't matter...it is what it is.

If I see a white fellow in a mostly black or all black neighborhood I am guilty of judging as many, around here he is buying drugs.


----------



## poppy

TheMartianChick said:


> Of course, Zimmerman also said that the dispatcher asked him to look for Trayvon Martin, too. Listening to the police call, we know that it is not true.
> 
> The officer also told Zimmerman that if he had stayed in the truck that they wouldn't be having that interrogation.
> 
> Zimmerman also referred to Trayvon Martin as a "suspect" repeatedly in his written statement. Though he wasn't law enforcement, he had already decided that he was a criminal though he never really articulated what he was suspected of.


LOL, Zimmerman called him a suspect because he looked suspicious to him. He did not call him a criminal at all.


----------



## Darren

TheMartianChick said:


> I think that you are right as far as Trayvon being a headstrong kid that was difficult for his parents to control. However, I don't agree with the other conclusions that you reached. Tracy Martin arrived at home to find that his son was gone. He may have asked the younger boy about his whereabouts but he would have only been able to say that 'he went to the store but he didn't come back.'
> 
> The father may have assumed that his son went to a movie without permission, especially since he didn't have friends in that area. It would be a household infraction because he didn't have permission, but nothing for a parent to seriously worry about. Maybe he assumed that he had gone to the movies because his phone went straight to voicemail. (Lord knows that teens NEVER turn off their cell phones!)
> 
> When he hadn't shown up by the next morning, Tracy Martin called the police.
> 
> Make no mistake... I do not think that Trayvon Martin was a saint and I don't mean to imply that he was. It doesn't matter that he was suspended from school. He wasn't engaged in illegal behavior when Zimmerman followed him.
> 
> Saint or sinner... the question is, "Did he deserve to be stalked through the neighborhood and then shot?"


I don't think he was stalked by definition. Followed, yes. There is a difference and it's being used to make Zimmerman out to be racist. The media tried to read that into the recording of the call to the dispatcher. Zimmerman at that point couldn't describe Martin's race to the dispatcher.

If you watched the 711 video it seemed like Martin didn't have much money. It wan't enough to pay for a movie. The report of personal belongings confirmed that. Did the father know that? I'm wondering if he did which calls into question the went to the movie excuse.

Tracy Martin's excuse really opens the door to Trayvon's previous history. Did he stay out into the early morning hours without permission before? Things changed from the reports to the police to the story that Crump made up for the media.

Trayvon had ample opportunity to continue on to the father's girlfriend's home. Instead he chose to confront someone in an area where he was a stranger. I wonder if Trayvon would have done that and played the knock out game if he had known Zimmerman had a CCW?

If I see someone strange in the area and I try to get more information and he disappears then reappears from behind me after I turn to leave that's a five alarm somethings not right situation. FWIW, I always talk to strangers in this area when something seems odd. I sometimes have to follow them a short distance to get their attention and ask if they need help. Is that stalking? 

Although there's no neighborhood watch here, there are in adjacent areas.


----------



## TheMartianChick

wannabechef said:


> Your daughter was stalked, Trayvon was followed. Your daughter was where she was supposed to be, Trayvon was a teen walking around late at night in the dark...and call me a racist, but a black kid in a mostly white neighborhood would arouse concerns to most when walking around late at night...wrong or right, doesn't matter...it is what it is.
> 
> If I see a white fellow in a mostly black or all black neighborhood I am guilty of judging as many, around here he is buying drugs.


7 PM is not late at night. It is evening. In my house, we finish dinner around then. I don't understand why so many people think that he was out late. When my kids were in school, some of the school activities weren't over until 7 PM, while other started at 7 PM.


----------



## TheMartianChick

FYI- There is a panel discussion on CNN right now called The N Word. They are discussing aspects of the Zimmerman case and the Paula Deen scandal.


----------



## unregistered353870

wannabechef said:


> Your daughter was stalked, Trayvon was followed. Your daughter was where she was supposed to be, Trayvon was a teen walking around late at night in the dark...and call me a racist, but a black kid in a mostly white neighborhood would arouse concerns to most when walking around late at night...wrong or right, doesn't matter...it is what it is.
> 
> If I see a white fellow in a mostly black or all black neighborhood I am guilty of judging as many, around here he is buying drugs.


It wasn't late at night. It was just past sunset. And the neighborhood is supposedly about 25% black. If 1 out of every 4 people you see in a neighborhood is black, will seeing a black person there arouse concerns to you?


----------



## poppy

Unless the prosecution has a lot more than they have produced so far or all the jurors are of the same mental capacity as Martin's girl friend, Zimmerman will walk. If any of the jurors have an IQ over 70, the prosecution is in deep trouble.


----------



## poppy

jtbrandt said:


> It wasn't late at night. It was just past sunset. And the neighborhood is supposedly about 25% black. If 1 out of every 4 people you see in a neighborhood is black, will seeing a black person there arouse concerns to you?


Certainly would if I knew most of the people in the neighborhood by sight and it was unusual to see someone walking in the neighborhood after dark. I imagine if Zimmerman was used to seeing young people walking to and fro after dark, Martin would not have stood out.


----------



## TheMartianChick

poppy said:


> Certainly would if I knew most of the people in the neighborhood by sight and it was unusual to see someone walking in the neighborhood after dark. I imagine if Zimmerman was used to seeing young people walking to and fro after dark, Martin would not have stood out.


Who said that it was unusual to see people walking at 7 PM in that neighborhood? Lots of people there had dogs. In Florida, walking is a common exercise. After dinner is the perfect time for people to take a stroll.


----------



## vicker

I'm still scratching my head at a lot of y'all  Has any of y'all's opinions been changed by seeing and hearing any of the evidence and testimony? This thread strongly brings home the difficulty of finding unbiased jurors.


----------



## unregistered353870

poppy said:


> Certainly would if I knew most of the people in the neighborhood by sight and it was unusual to see someone walking in the neighborhood after dark. I imagine if Zimmerman was used to seeing young people walking to and fro after dark, Martin would not have stood out.


The question I asked was really an aside from the Zimmerman topic. I don't think Zimmerman racially profiled Martin. I don't think he's racist. Some of those who support him, however, I just don't know about. Racial profiling would not be very effective in a neighborhood where 1 in 4 people is the race you think is suspicious.

ETA: The fact that Martin was young really doesn't play into this at all. If Zimmerman didn't know he was black at first, he didn't know he was young either.


----------



## painterswife

vicker said:


> I'm still scratching my head at a lot of y'all  Has any of y'all's opinions been changed by seeing and hearing any of the evidence and testimony? This thread strongly brings home the difficulty of finding unbiased jurors.


Yes, I am leaning more towards the possibility that Zimmerman can claim self defense than I was before. However there is a lot more evidence still to hear so I am going to wait until I have heard it all to render my decision. I still also am curious on how the judge will set the rules for deliberation and how they can view the evidence.


----------



## poppy

jtbrandt said:


> The question I asked was really an aside from the Zimmerman topic. I don't think Zimmerman racially profiled Martin. I don't think he's racist. Some of those who support him, however, I just don't know about. Racial profiling would not be very effective in a neighborhood where 1 in 4 people is the race you think is suspicious.
> 
> ETA: The fact that Martin was young really doesn't play into this at all. If Zimmerman didn't know he was black at first, he didn't know he was young either.


I don't think he is racist either. I don't know because I haven't heard his 911 call but did he even mention Martin's race in the beginning? If he saw him from the rear in a hoodie while it was dark, race would be tough to determine. A lot of white young men dress like that too.


----------



## vicker

For anyone interested, sunset on the day of the shooting was at 6:33pm


----------



## wannabechef

TheMartianChick said:


> Who said that it was unusual to see people walking at 7 PM in that neighborhood? Lots of people there had dogs. In Florida, walking is a common exercise. After dinner is the perfect time for people to take a stroll.


On the sidewalks yes...not the lawns, not sure of Zimmerman's community, but the 150 unit Townhome community I take care of, the property behind each unit is private, it would not be normal for a person to be walking behind the units at night across other people's property...that's why there is sidewalks.


----------



## poppy

painterswife said:


> Yes, I am leaning more towards the possibility that Zimmerman can claim self defense than I was before. However there is a lot more evidence still to hear so I am going to wait until I have heard it all to render my decision. I still also am curious on how the judge will set the rules for deliberation and how they can view the evidence.


From the low quality of evidence thus far, it seems those who said this was a show trial from the beginning were right. Whether the charges were filed to give time for the black uproar to subside or it was because of someone in the prosecutor's office trying to make a name for him/herself, I don't know. If it was done for either purpose, it is a shame and a perversion of our justice system. If this same scenario happened except for the races being reversed, would we be having this trial? I doubt it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> From the low quality of evidence thus far, it seems those who said this was a show trial from the beginning were right.


The whole thing is just for PR

They knew there was no crime committed, which is why they didn't charge him in the beginning.

Now it's just a circus, and it makes the State look like idiots


----------



## vicker

A question for you bald headed fellows. If someone pounded your head on a sidewalk, what would the back of your head look like?


----------



## EDDIE BUCK

vicker said:


> A question for you bald headed fellows. If someone pounded your head on a sidewalk, what would the back of your head look like?


If that bald headed guy was my friend,it would look like the back of his cap.He says when he steps out of the shower,he reaches for his cap before he reaches for the towel.There ain't nobody seeing that bald hairless head.:nono::happy2:


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> Now it's just a circus, and it makes the State look like idiots


The state's problem is obvious; they don't have the evidence to make Zimmerman the aggressor in the fight. Since nobody except Zimmerman & Martin were actually there, and Martin can't testify, it comes down to Zimmerman's word that Martin was the aggressor. Unless the prosecution has evidence we don't know about, such as a bullet trajectory that doesn't match Zimmerman's story, the state is in trouble with their case.


----------



## vicker

I wouldn't write them off just yet. The trial is far from over, and I'm sure that not one person on that jury has silly putty for brains.


----------



## davel745

I liked the redirect of the lady cop the prosecutor became aggressive toward his own witness. It seems that the cops are being responsible and telling the truth, at least for now. I also think that Zimmerman wont have to take the stand as his story is told by all the videos and audio clips. This is helping to keep the cops in line. The defense asked the lady cop if the evidence shows Zimmerman had malicious intent, her answer was no. So the state cant show intent to murder. I think they are going to go for manslaughter which can be as long as 30 years.


----------



## EDDIE BUCK

Nevada said:


> The state's problem is obvious; they don't have the evidence to make Zimmerman the aggressor in the fight. Since nobody except Zimmerman & Martin were actually there, and Martin can't testify, it comes down to Zimmerman's word that Martin was the aggressor. Unless the prosecution has evidence we don't know about, such as a bullet trajectory that doesn't match Zimmerman's story, the state is in trouble with their case.


That's what they get for listening to a bunch of black racists like Jackson,Sharpton and Obama,whom if he had a son,he would look just like little Travon,and allowing the racists Black Panthers to put out a ten thousand dollar wanted Dead or Alive bounty on Zimmerman,and the state did absolutely nothing about it.

Being so afraid,they then arrested Zimmerman.Should Zimmerman be found not guilty of murder,it would serve the state right if the racist blacks rioted ,robbed,looted and burned down the whole state of Florida.Maybe then they will be able to recognize racism when they see it.Then stand up to it and let the chips fall where they may.He should never have been charged in the first place.


----------



## FeralFemale

davel745 said:


> I liked the redirect of the lady cop the prosecutor became aggressive toward his own witness. It seems that the cops are being responsible and telling the truth, at least for now. I also think that Zimmerman wont have to take the stand as his story is told by all the videos and audio clips. This is helping to keep the cops in line. The defense asked the lady cop if the evidence shows Zimmerman had malicious intent, her answer was no. So the state cant show intent to murder. I think they are going to go for manslaughter which can be as long as 30 years.


I don't know how it works in FL, and don't have time to look it up, but he is only charged with murder 2. The only way he can be found guilty of any other charge is if there is jury instructions that allow the jury to find for a lesser charge if they don't think it rises to murder 2.


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> The state's problem is obvious; they don't have the evidence to make Zimmerman the aggressor in the fight. Since nobody except Zimmerman & Martin were actually there, and Martin can't testify, it comes down to Zimmerman's word that Martin was the aggressor. Unless the prosecution has evidence we don't know about, such as* a bullet trajectory that doesn't match Zimmerman's story,* the state is in trouble with their case.


You ignored the malfunction, not jam, of Zimmerman's handgun. That's a critical piece of evidence along with the powder residue on Martin's hoodie. Even with the autopsy report, the police didn't charge Zimmerman. Don't expect that to save the day for the prosecution.


----------



## po boy

Darren,

You have a link about the malfunction?


----------



## Tricky Grama

Nevada said:


> Actually, that statement was made in reaction to the 15-20 foot rule, not the Martin/Zimmerman incident.


I see. Sorry I misinterpreted you NV. For a bit I thought you'd really gone over the edge.


----------



## Tricky Grama

TheMartianChick said:


> My husband just reminded me of a situation that happened to our daughter when she was 16 or 17 years old. She was on her way to the bus stop to catch a city bus to school. (Public high school kids in our city catch public transportation to school). A man pulled around a corner and started talking to her. She tried to ignore him. He went back around the block and approached her again. This time she made a smart remark and he acted like he was going to get out of the car. She took off running across a busy intersection and ended up at home. She was scared to death. I was home and called the police because she thought that the man was trying to kidnap her or something. When the police arrived, she had calmed down enough to tell the whole story. The guy initially thought that she was cute and wanted to talk to her. When she rebuffed him, he got a bit nasty. We don't know what he was going to do once he had gotten out of the car. I just know that we ended up giving her a ride to school for the last few days of school during exam week. It is scary to have your child stalked by a stranger.
> 
> I just asked my daughter about that situation and she said that she was reminded of that event the first time that she ever heard of Trayvon Martin.


 OMG, how scary! Did they do anything to the guy? probably never apprehended & if so, probably couldn't pin anything on him...wonder what he did to those who DID stop & 'talk'?

However, this is really nothing like the GZ, TM case...


----------



## Tricky Grama

jtbrandt said:


> It wasn't late at night. It was just past sunset. And the neighborhood is supposedly about 25% black. If 1 out of every 4 people you see in a neighborhood is black, will seeing a black person there arouse concerns to you?


IF there had been many burglaries & the perps were known to be black, yes.


----------



## 7thswan

poppy said:


> From the low quality of evidence thus far, it seems those who said this was a show trial from the beginning were right. Whether the charges were filed to give time for the black uproar to subside or it was because of someone in the prosecutor's office trying to make a name for him/herself, I don't know. If it was done for either purpose, it is a shame and a perversion of our justice system. If this same scenario happened except for the races being reversed, would we be having this trial? I doubt it.


 
Seems there are some citizens forming a Grand Jury against the prosecutors office because of her actions in this case.
http://www.citizensgrandjury.com/


----------



## Wanderer0101

TheMartianChick said:


> Who said that it was unusual to see people walking at 7 PM in that neighborhood? Lots of people there had dogs. In Florida, walking is a common exercise. After dinner is the perfect time for people to take a stroll.


It was raining. People generally don't stroll around in the rain.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> it comes down to* Zimmerman's word* that Martin was the aggressor.


You keep saying that, but to make that claim you have to* IGNORE *all the forensic evidence and the EYEWITNESS.

Why do you keep doing that?
Why not just *stick to the facts* and stop the speculation?



> Unless the prosecution has evidence we don't know about, such as a bullet trajectory that doesn't match Zimmerman's story, *the state is in trouble with their case*.


The state *HAS NO CASE*
The whole fiasco is* POLITICAL*


----------



## vicker

While there may have been a bit of misty February rain, I don't think it would stop most people from walking. I, for one, like to ambulate on a nice drizzly day.  
http://www.wunderground.com/history...tml?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA


----------



## Nevada

Darren said:


> You ignored the malfunction, not jam, of Zimmerman's handgun.


I've not seen that as evidence yet.


----------



## Nevada

Why on earth has the prosecution called his best friend as a witness? It looks like the prosecution is presenting the defense's case.


----------



## Lazaryss

Nevada said:


> Why on earth has the prosecution called his best friend as a witness? It looks like the prosecution is presenting the defense's case.


Sounds more like the prosecution never had a case in the first place.


----------



## mmoetc

Hypothetically, if you're legally walking to and from the store in the early evening and you noticed someone following you what would you do differently. Martin approached Zimmerman's car and Zimmerman rolled up his window. Martin left, Zimmerman continued to follow. Martin tried to elude him, Zimmerman parked and followed on foot. Martin confronted Zimmerman as to why he was being followed. Zimmerman says he now reached for his cell phone. If you were in Martin's place would you automatically assume his movement was benign or could you also assume Zimmerman may have been reaching for a weapon of some sort. How would you react?


----------



## Nevada

Lazaryss said:


> Sounds more like the prosecution never had a case in the first place.


I'm not a lawyer and I have no idea what the inner workings of the prosecution's strategy might be, but it looks like the prosecution is presenting all testimony that they have -- even if it helps the defense. I don't get it.


----------



## 7thswan

Nevada said:


> I'm not a lawyer and I have no idea what the inner workings of the prosecution's strategy might be, but it looks like the prosecution is presenting all testimony that they have -- even if it helps the defense. I don't get it.


 Maybe they realize they should not have prosecuted this case, and want to ease the watchers into Z getting off.


----------



## painterswife

Nevada said:


> I'm not a lawyer and I have no idea what the inner workings of the prosecution's strategy might be, but it looks like the prosecution is presenting all testimony that they have -- even if it helps the defense. I don't get it.


I think they are presenting their less compelling evidence first as they build their case. They want to have the jury hear what they believe to be the most compelling last so as to have them remember it better. 

It is important to also remember that the jury is supposed to hear all the evidence before deliberating. They are not suppose to form any opinions until the entire case of both the prosecution and the defense is heard.

I am trying to do that but it is difficult to not speculate.


----------



## dixiegal62

I don't have any comments about the trial. Today is the first time I've watched it, in fact it's the first time I've sat and watched any trial. I have a question about the jury. 

Is it common for a member of the jury to be shaking their head with what looks like disagreement or maybe disgust at testimony? I had always assumed the jury had to at least try to be neutral. Are they passing notes to each other? If so is that a common practice?


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> I don't have any comments about the trial. Today is the first time I've watched it, in fact it's the first time I've sat and watched any trial. I have a question about the jury.
> 
> Is it common for a member of the jury to be shaking their head with what looks like disagreement or maybe disgust at testimony? I had always assumed the jury had to at least try to be neutral. Are they passing notes to each other? If so is that a common practice?


I don't think they are showing video of the jury.


----------



## vicker

I have not seen any television footage that showed the jury. Are you seeing the jury, or the onlookers?


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> I don't think they are showing video of the jury.


 
Ok maybe its just people in the room. I'm not really up on who's who in this trial. Thx


----------



## Nevada

Looks like they finished with his best friend. I don't see how it can help but do the defense more good.

The only thing the prosecution might have been trying to do is to present inconsistencies in Zimmerman's story, but the inconsistencies were minor. Most of his testimony reinforced Zimmerman's account. I call his testimony a win for the defense.


----------



## mmoetc

Nevada said:


> I'm not a lawyer and I have no idea what the inner workings of the prosecution's strategy might be, but it looks like the prosecution is presenting all testimony that they have -- even if it helps the defense. I don't get it.


It could be that they know this information will come out in the course of the trial anyway. This way they have control of how it comes out, they can try to shape it as best they can and they don't look later like they were trying to hide things from the jury.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I think they are presenting their less compelling evidence first as they build their case


They HAVE no case, and all the evidence supports Zimmerman
*Nothing new* is being revealed in this trial


----------



## TheMartianChick

Tricky Grama said:


> OMG, how scary! Did they do anything to the guy? probably never apprehended & if so, probably couldn't pin anything on him...wonder what he did to those who DID stop & 'talk'?
> 
> However, this is really nothing like the GZ, TM case...


No, they never caught him. My daughter was too frazzled to have gotten a license plate. She did know what color and model of car it was.


----------



## TheMartianChick

Wanderer0101 said:


> It was raining. People generally don't stroll around in the rain.


I have to admit that I wouldn't be likely to walk around in the rain because I don't want my hair to get wet and I don't like drippy umbrellas, but black males don't really have to worry about their hair if they keep it reasonably short. A little light rain probably wouldn't be a deterrent, especially if wearing a hoodie.


----------



## Hollowdweller

EDDIE BUCK said:


> That's what they get for listening to a bunch of black racists like Jackson,Sharpton and Obama,whom if he had a son,he would look just like little Travon,and allowing the racists Black Panthers to put out a ten thousand dollar wanted Dead or Alive bounty on Zimmerman,and the state did absolutely nothing about it.
> 
> Being so afraid,they then arrested Zimmerman.Should Zimmerman be found not guilty of murder,it would serve the state right if the racist blacks rioted ,robbed,looted and burned down the whole state of Florida.Maybe then they will be able to recognize racism when they see it.Then stand up to it and let the chips fall where they may.He should never have been charged in the first place.


 
So this case IS all about race for you correct?


----------



## TheMartianChick

jtbrandt said:


> The question I asked was really an aside from the Zimmerman topic. I don't think Zimmerman racially profiled Martin. I don't think he's racist. Some of those who support him, however, I just don't know about. Racial profiling would not be very effective in a neighborhood where 1 in 4 people is the race you think is suspicious.
> 
> ETA: The fact that Martin was young really doesn't play into this at all. If Zimmerman didn't know he was black at first, he didn't know he was young either.


Zimmerman was asked for a description in the police call. He described Trayvon as being in his teens. He also repeated his ethnicity twice.


----------



## Wanderer0101

TheMartianChick said:


> Zimmerman was asked for a description in the police call. He described Trayvon as being in his teens. He also repeated his ethnicity twice.


Don't ignore the fact that the police asked him if the guy was black. He didn't volunteer it except in the carefully edited NBC audio which was trumped up to make him look racist.


----------



## Wanderer0101

TheMartianChick said:


> I have to admit that I wouldn't be likely to walk around in the rain because I don't want my hair to get wet and I don't like drippy umbrellas, but black males don't really have to worry about their hair if they keep it reasonably short. A little light rain probably wouldn't be a deterrent, especially if wearing a hoodie.


But the question is would Zimmerman have reached that conclusion? Or would he have thought, why is some dude out here wandering around in the rain? is he up to no good?

If I see someone walking across the back of property in the neighborhood while it's raining I am going to draw conclusions that relate to undesirable activity. Many people would react the same way.


----------



## painterswife

The witness on right now is quite interesting. The prosecution is making headway in regards to whether Zimmerman's injuries were the result of a single slam or a multitude of slams.

It will be interesting to see how the defense handles it. I see now why the previous witnesses seemed to be bolstering the defense but were really setting the scene for this witness.


----------



## TheMartianChick

I agree about this witness (Dr. Rao). However, I felt that the physicians assistant's opinion was essentially saying the same thing. The PA did not make his injuries sound as though they were very serious...

Dr. Rao asserted that none of Zimmerman's lacerations were life-threatening and that they were insignificant in their severity.


----------



## painterswife

TheMartianChick said:


> I agree about this witness (Dr. Rao). However, I felt that the physicians assistant's opinion was essentially saying the same thing. The PA did not make his injuries sound as though they were very serious...
> 
> Dr. Rao asserted that none of Zimmerman's lacerations were life-threatening and that they were insignificant in their severity.


I missed the physicians assistant. I must say that this Dr Rao's experience and expertise is very good. She comes across as very knowledgeable.


----------



## vicker

The main point is that his injuries do not appear be consistent with his story of having his head repeatedly pounded against the sidewalk.


----------



## Cornhusker

TheMartianChick said:


> I can guarantee that I'd feel the same way if Trayvon had been a white teen walking home in the rain carrying a a can of Arizona fruit juice and some Skittles.


If Trayvon had been a white teen, they'd be calling him Martin, and not showing a 5th grade picture of him on every TV.
Actually, if he had been a white teen, you would have never heard of him.
This was politicized to demonize the legal fun owners, just another disgusting leftist use of dead kids to further their nasty agenda.


----------



## Cornhusker

TheMartianChick said:


> I agree about this witness (Dr. Rao). However, I felt that the physicians assistant's opinion was essentially saying the same thing. The PA did not make his injuries sound as though they were very serious...
> 
> Dr. Rao asserted that none of Zimmerman's lacerations were life-threatening and that they were insignificant in their severity.


I think when you have someone sitting on you, beating you and pounding your head into the sidewalk, it seems life threatening at the time


----------



## Pugnacious

vicker said:


> The main point is that his injuries do not appear be consistent with his story of having his head repeatedly pounded against the sidewalk.


 

So you know more from a distance than the lead investigator knows, having ALL of the facts? I saw him say he believed Zimmerman, with my own eyes and ears. :bandwagon:


----------



## painterswife

vicker said:


> The main point is that his injuries do not appear be consistent with his story of having his head repeatedly pounded against the sidewalk.


I agree, that was the point the prosecution was making with this witness. The defense slipped up a bit by trying to tarnish how she got her job and failing and by trying to twist her testimony. That in itself should not be pertinent to the case but I wonder if it takes root in the jury's thoughts when considering the case.


----------



## vicker

Pugnacious said:


> So you know more from a distance than the lead investigator knows, having ALL of the facts? I saw him say he believed Zimmerman, with my own eyes and ears. :bandwagon:


Are you talking to me???? You should be addressing the witness. I'm responding about her testimony.


----------



## Pugnacious

vicker said:


> Are you talking to me???? You should be addressing the witness. I'm responding about her testimony.


I see. I missed that. Apologies. 

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## vicker

No problem, you can't help it that you're pugnacious.


----------



## Pugnacious

vicker said:


> No problem, you can't help it that you're pugnacious.


It's true. I've filed for disability through the federal government to help offset the cost of this particular uncontrollable disease. 

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## EDDIE BUCK

Hollowdweller said:


> So this case IS all about race for you correct?


Absolutely its about race.What else could it be when Sharpton,Jackson,the B Panthers and Obama puts their two cents worth in?

If Trayvon was white, it wouldn't have gotten farther than the local news,and neither would Zimmerman have been charged and he should not have been.

Why are the police going door to door to try to calm folks down should Zimmerman be acquitted?They think there will be riots if they don't.Yes its racism,blacks against whites.


----------



## Pugnacious

EDDIE BUCK said:


> Yes its racism,blacks against whites.



Can't be. Racism doesn't work like that.



Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## TheMartianChick

EDDIE BUCK said:


> If Trayvon was white, it wouldn't have gotten farther than the local news,and neither would Zimmerman have been charged and he should not have been.


I do agree that if Trayvon had been white, that this wouldn't have gotten as much airplay in the media, but I believe that Zimmerman most definitely would have been charged.

It took weeks before this case hit the national media.


----------



## Nevada

Pugnacious said:


> So you know more from a distance than the lead investigator knows, having ALL of the facts? I saw him say he believed Zimmerman, with my own eyes and ears.


That was really strange. First, the prosecution didn't object to it. They should have been on their feet immediately to strike that statement from the record, but they said nothing yesterday.

Then after thinking about it overnight the prosecution objected this morning. The judge agreed, so she called the jury back in to tell them to disregard that statement. The odd thing about that is the judge's instruction to the jury only called attention to the fact that the lead investigator believed Zimmerman's account. The jury instruction only served to remind them of what the lead investigator said, which has to help Zimmerman's case.

Having missed the opportunity to object yesterday, they should have kept their mouths shut today. I believe that objecting today was a monumental tactical error, perhaps as huge as when the prosecution had OJ Simpson try-on the glove that didn't fit.


----------



## Pugnacious

I think this is clearly a case where everyone involved knows there is no case and they want it to be over with. The DA didn't want to try this case to begin with. They are throwing soft balls to the defense so they can hit them out of the park.


----------



## greg273

If you go out of your way to follow someone, get into a confrontation with them BECAUSE you followed them, and then they proceed to whip your grits, you should still pay a penalty for killing them. It probably doesn't meet the criteria for murder, it certainly wasn't premeditated, but he took someones life. I don't believe Zimmerman should walk away scott-free because he was on the receiving end of a beat down. I would say Trayvon deserves punishment too for assault, but Zimmerman already took care of that.


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> They HAVE no case, and all the evidence supports Zimmerman
> *Nothing new* is being revealed in this trial


None of us has any idea what evidence might still be presented. Don't make up your mind until closing statements and jury instructions are done.


----------



## dixiegal62

greg273 said:


> If you go out of your way to follow someone, get into a confrontation with them BECAUSE you followed them, and then they proceed to whip your grits, you should still pay a penalty for killing them. It probably doesn't meet the criteria for murder, it certainly wasn't premeditated, but he took someones life. I don't believe Zimmerman should walk away scott-free because he was on the receiving end of a beat down. I would say Trayvon deserves punishment too for assault, but Zimmerman already took care of that.


 
How would a person getting a beat down know if they where going to keep going until they thought you had had enough and stop, or beat you to death?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> None of us has any idea what evidence might still be presented. Don't make up your mind until closing statements and jury instructions are done.


Actually we know ALL the evidence that will be presented.
The MAIN evidence that shows Zimmerman is* not guilty of murder* has already been given.
There's no need to pretend there will be any surprises in the evidence


----------



## Nevada

greg273 said:


> If you go out of your way to follow someone, get into a confrontation with them BECAUSE you followed them, and then they proceed to whip your grits, you should still pay a penalty for killing them. It probably doesn't meet the criteria for murder, it certainly wasn't premeditated, but he took someones life.


Actually, if the jury determines that Zimmerman following Martin was aggression then he can't assert the Florida law of self defense. The Florida statute of self-defense is very specific about that.

_The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself_
http://lawofselfdefense.com/statute/fl-776-041%E2%80%83use-of-force-by-aggressor-the-justification-described-in-the-preceding-sections-of-this-chapter-is-not-available-to-a-person-who/

So to assert that defense Zimmerman has to convince the jury that he was not the aggressor.


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> Actually we know ALL the evidence that will be presented.
> The MAIN evidence that shows Zimmerman is* not guilty of murder* has already been given.
> There's no need to pretend there will be any surprises in the evidence


I'm not pretending anything. I'm just waiting for the evidence to be presented before making up my mind. Why do you have a problem with that?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> If you go out of your way to follow someone, get into a confrontation with them BECAUSE you followed them, and then they proceed to whip your grits, you should still pay a penalty for killing them


Being "followed" is NOT *legal justification* to *attack* anyone.

Martin could have* kept going* and been safe at home.
Instead, *he* decided to attack


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I'm just waiting for the evidence to be presented before making up my mind. Why do you have a problem with that?


There is no "hidden evidence"
It's all been presented in the media for a year

_



The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(2) Initially* provokes the use of force* against himself or herself
http://lawofselfdefense.com/statute/...-a-person-who/

Click to expand...

_There's *no evidence* Zimmerman did anything to justify any "use of force".
It's just the same old *speculation* you've made from the beginning


----------



## Pugnacious

greg273 said:


> If you go out of your way to follow someone, get into a confrontation with them BECAUSE you followed them, and then they proceed to whip your grits, you should still pay a penalty for killing them. It probably doesn't meet the criteria for murder, it certainly wasn't premeditated, but he took someones life. I don't believe Zimmerman should walk away scott-free because he was on the receiving end of a beat down. I would say Trayvon deserves punishment too for assault, but Zimmerman already took care of that.


So someone following you gives you the right to beat them up? What if you had dropped something or left your cell phone on the counter of the store? Or debit card? There are a million legitimate reasons to follow someone. That's just as loony as the idea that someone within 15 feet of you should be shot. In your house, with a stranger, sure. But in public? He better have a 14' long stick or something that can reach you(gun, throwing stars, etc)


I will say this. That until a couple years ago in Utah. The way the law was written. If you pulled your concealed carry weapon on someone and DIDN'T shoot them, you would be charged with brandishing a firearm. In other words, as soon as it was unholstered you had to shoot. You couldn't legally use the firearm to defuse the situation and the bad guy wouldn't get the chance to capitulate.


----------



## mmoetc

Pugnacious said:


> So someone following you gives you the right to beat them up? What if you had dropped something or left your cell phone on the counter of the store? Or debit card? There are a million legitimate reasons to follow someone. That's just as loony as the idea that someone within 15 feet of you should be shot. In your house, with a stranger, sure. But in public? He better have a 14' long stick or something that can reach you(gun, throwing stars, etc)
> 
> 
> I will say this. That until a couple years ago in Utah. The way the law was written. If you pulled your concealed carry weapon on someone and DIDN'T shoot them, you would be charged with brandishing a firearm. In other words, as soon as it was unholstered you had to shoot. You couldn't legally use the firearm to defuse the situation and the bad guy wouldn't get the chance to capitulate.


Someone following me who when initially confronted gives no valid reason for following me and who then continues to follow me is something I would find threatening. Someone, who when confronted again as to why he is following me who then makes a movement towards his pocket(Zimmerman saying he reached for his cell phone) is something I would also find threatening. I might even react to a perceived threat by attacking. I wouldn't punch anyone in the face because I like the bones in my hands where they are. I would probably try to take them to the ground and subdue them.


----------



## unregistered353870

TheMartianChick said:


> Zimmerman was asked for a description in the police call. He described Trayvon as being in his teens. He also repeated his ethnicity twice.


I was just responding to people who said he couldn't have been racial profiling Martin because he didn't know what race he was in the beginning, but those same people suggest that he may have "age profiled" Martin. They can't have it both ways.


----------



## CesumPec

greg273 said:


> If you go out of your way to follow someone, get into a confrontation with them BECAUSE you followed them, and then they proceed to whip your grits, you should still pay a penalty for killing them. It probably doesn't meet the criteria for murder, it certainly wasn't premeditated, but he took someones life. I don't believe Zimmerman should walk away scott-free because he was on the receiving end of a beat down. I would say Trayvon deserves punishment too for assault, but Zimmerman already took care of that.


So if the guy doing the following was a cop, like on all those car chases on TV, the cop is fair game for a beat down? 

OK, GZ was not a cop. I don't know the details of this case but wasn't he some sort of community watch guy? I don't know if GZ was acting solely on his own or hired by the community or what. But aren't the community watch folks supposes to follow people if they have suspicions?


----------



## modineg44

Neighborhood watch people are NOT supposed to carry guns and not supposed to follow. Once they think there is a problem they are to call 911 and let the cops take care of it. 

Z will be acquitted, get a book and tv movie deal, get paid to speak at tea-party/fundie church rallies, become a Fox News commentator. He'll be fine.


Nancy


----------



## FeralFemale

Zimmerman was not on neighborhood watch that night. And, he wasn't allowed to carry a gun when he was on watch (if I recall correctly). It seems he was a private citizen when the shooting took place.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

FeralFemale said:


> Zimmerman was *not on neighborhood watch* that night.
> And, he *wasn't allowed to carry a gun* when he was on watch (if I recall correctly).
> It seems he was a *private citizen* when the shooting took place.


"Neighborhood watch" is not a "job" where you punch a timeclock

He had a permit to carry his gun whether "on watch" or not

We're ALL "prvate citizens", and "Neighborhood Watch" doesn't come with lots of rules.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Someone following me who *when initially confronted* gives no valid reason for following me and who then continues to follow me is something I would find threatening.
> Someone, who *when confronted* again as to why he is following me who then makes a movement towards his pocket(Zimmerman saying he reached for his cell phone) is something I would also find threatening. I might even react to a perceived threat by attacking. I wouldn't punch anyone in the face because I like the bones in my hands where they are. I would probably try to take them to the ground and subdue them.


In your scenario, you're *starting* the confrontation .
Somone "reaching for a pocket" is NOT grounds for a* physical* attack

Martin should have just kept walking that last 100 yds


----------



## katydidagain

Anyone in the Orlando area watching this? I was there on Friday, Monday and part of Tuesday when my host insisted on having it on plus heard the highlights from when it began. It's a joke IMO. They can't prove 2nd degree. Manslaughter? Yes. Glad to be back where it's not on from 9 to 5.


----------



## FeralFemale

Bearfootfarm said:


> "Neighborhood watch" is not a "job" where you punch a timeclock
> 
> He had a permit to carry his gun whether "on watch" or not
> 
> We're ALL "prvate citizens", and "Neighborhood Watch" doesn't come with lots of rules.


 
Actually, it is a good thing he wasn't on watch that night. The community rules stated that neighborhood watch people aren't allowed to be armed. He was not on watch that night. That night, he was just a regular citizen. He was carrying a firearm that a LEO recommended he have.


----------



## wannabechef

modineg44 said:


> Neighborhood watch people are NOT supposed to carry guns and not supposed to follow. Once they think there is a problem they are to call 911 and let the cops take care of it.
> 
> Z will be acquitted, get a book and tv movie deal, get paid to speak at tea-party/fundie church rallies, become a Fox News commentator. He'll be fine.
> 
> 
> Nancy


He was legally permitted to carry a weapon per State of FL and although the neighborhood watch rules may have said no firearms, they hold zero weight in the courts, much like a store that says "no firearms", it's only legally enforceable if made and asked to leave, if you do not leave its criminal trespassing.


----------



## CesumPec

modineg44 said:


> Neighborhood watch people are NOT supposed to carry guns and not supposed to follow. Once they think there is a problem they are to call 911 and let the cops take care of it.
> 
> Z will be acquitted, get a book and tv movie deal, get paid to speak at tea-party/fundie church rallies, become a Fox News commentator. He'll be fine.
> 
> 
> Nancy


who says neighborhood watch people are not supposed to carry guns? Does 2A say the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed unless you are a neighborhood watch person?

And GZ must have called the cops because the TV news has parsed that 911 call to the point of fraud if some of the admittedly conflicting reports are to believed.

You also state that neighborhood watchers are supposed to stand down and let the cops take care of problems. What is your source for that? Is it Florida law? HOA rule? Your preference? I would argue that if GZ saw a crime taking place (and admit there is no evidence of that unless it is proven that TM attacked GZ) GZ does not have a moral, legal, or ethical obligation to stand down, but rather to take action to protect the rights, property, and lives of innocents. I almost always carry, have a Florida CCW, and that is ow I was trained.


----------



## CesumPec

Bearfootfarm said:


> In your scenario, you're *starting* the confrontation .
> Somone "reaching for a pocket" is NOT grounds for a* physical* attack
> 
> Martin should have just kept walking that last 100 yds


Agree. When I have taken classes which focus on shooting decisions, it has also been made 100% absolutely clear that angry words, reaching into a pocket or purse, being outnumbered, even threats are not grounds to initiate an attack. As the guy holding the gun, I'm bascially operating at a disadvantage having to wait for the bad guy to come at me or an innocent with a perceived weapon and a threat to use that weapon.


----------



## CesumPec

FeralFemale said:


> Actually, it is a good thing he wasn't on watch that night. The community rules stated that neighborhood watch people aren't allowed to be armed. He was not on watch that night. That night, he was just a regular citizen. He was carrying a firearm that a LEO recommended he have.


It may not matter to this case, but even if the neighborhood rules say no gun, that doesn't necessarily mean you can not carry a gun. HT could make a rule that says we can't post if armed, but they have no legal right or authority to do so. I truly do not know if when you sigh HOA agreements you somehow agree to give up a portion of your 2A rights. Doesn't sound believable to me, but I could be wrong. I do recall a case where courts ruled the gov't in section 8 housing could not force you to give up 2A and other rights, but that is not an exact parallel to an HOA.


----------



## davel745

dixiegal62 said:


> How would a person getting a beat down know if they where going to keep going until they thought you had had enough and stop, or beat you to death?


That is the right question.


----------



## farmrbrown

Nevada said:


> Actually, if the jury determines that Zimmerman following Martin was aggression then he can't assert the Florida law of self defense. The Florida statute of self-defense is very specific about that.
> 
> _The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
> (2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself_
> http://lawofselfdefense.com/statute/fl-776-041%E2%80%83use-of-force-by-aggressor-the-justification-described-in-the-preceding-sections-of-this-chapter-is-not-available-to-a-person-who/
> 
> So to assert that defense Zimmerman has to convince the jury that he was not the aggressor.



Once again when quoting a statute, ALL of it must be included.....

Title XLVI. Crimes.

Chapter 776: JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

776.041&#8195;Use of force by aggressor.&#8212;

The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1)&#8195;Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2)&#8195;Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, *unless:*

(a)&#8195;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)&#8195;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.


There is only one live witness to the entire incident between the two, but Zimmerman's story back's this exception up 1OO%

There is no legal obligation to allow oneself to be pinned down and beaten into the ER or cemetery instead of using the weapon you have in your possession, even IF you are the (non felony) aggressor.


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> Once again when quoting a statute, ALL of it must be included.....
> 
> Title XLVI. Crimes.
> 
> Chapter 776: JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
> 
> 776.041&#8195;Use of force by aggressor.â
> 
> The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
> 
> (1)&#8195;Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
> 
> (2)&#8195;Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, *unless:*
> 
> (a)&#8195;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)&#8195;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.
> 
> 
> There is only one live witness to the entire incident between the two, but Zimmerman's story back's this exception up 1OO%
> 
> There is no legal obligation to allow oneself to be pinned down and beaten into the ER or cemetery instead of using the weapon you have in your possession, even IF you are the (non felony) aggressor.


This case will hinge on 2a, did Zimmerman exhaust all non lethal means in his defense before he used his gun. Testimony was presented that Zimmerman's head wounds were minor. Yes the defense will have an expert to refute this. Zimmerman had some training in fighting(MMA training 3 days a week for some period). Trayvon Martin had no bruising, cuts or scratches to indicate that Zimmerman fought back in any effective way per his training. Zimmerman was not immobilized, he had at least one hand and arm free allowing him to reach his waist, unholster a gun, raise it to Martin's chest and pull the trigger. The question the prosecution will force Zimmermans team to answer is whether Zimmerman exhausted all other options before he pulled and used his gun.


----------



## davel745

Hypothetically speaking if GZ shoulders were on the concrete when he fell, his head would be rotated lower and have a set of contusions in a certain spot. Then if he shimmied and got his shoulders off the concrete his head would be in a different position as the grass is usually lower than the sidewalk. (shoulders are lower by a few inches) Just putting this out there for thought. Could explain different places on his head were there were contusions.


----------



## Darren

greg273 said:


> If you go out of your way to follow someone, get into a confrontation with them BECAUSE you followed them, and then they proceed to whip your grits, you should still pay a penalty for killing them. It probably doesn't meet the criteria for murder, it certainly wasn't premeditated, but he took someones life. I don't believe Zimmerman should walk away scott-free because he was on the receiving end of a beat down. I would say Trayvon deserves punishment too for assault, but Zimmerman already took care of that.


Gregg, even Trayvon's friend he was talking to on the phone told him to run home. If he had done that and not chosen to confront, knock to the ground and start beating Zimmerman, the kid would be alive today. Zimmerman was on his back pinned to the ground and the kid beating him. The calls for help didn't do any good. One person walked by with their dog. The witness Good said stop that and went inside to make a 911 call.

The common expression is you don't kick a man when he's down, figuratively and literally. The kid made several bad choices along with his parents leading to the incident. Now it seems the entire world wants to ignore the history and move directly to lynching Zimmerman. I'm amazed at the convoluted reasons posted here.

Crump fabricated a story specifically to elicit sympathy for a budding young aeronautical engineer that was gunned down before he got a chance to make his mark in the world. It worked! We're still seing the carefully selected photos of a young friendly Trayvon. Unfortunately the photos that Trayvon posted on the internet portray a very different individual. Trayvon comes across as a gangsta wannabe pictorially and verbally. 

The fact is Trayvon didn't go home. He turned the corner and hid. When Zimmerman turned to go back, he confronted him and sucker punched him. If that was as far as it went he'd probably still be alive and bragging to his friends over the knock down. when he jumped on and didn't stop and Zimmerman's cries for help didn't do anything, Trayvon soon found out he was dead wrong.


----------



## suzfromWi

TheMartianChick said:


> As I mentioned, I can't get past the fact that all of this escalated into a police call in the first place. Some kids cut through my fully fenced yard the other day... I didn't call the police. I told the kids to stay out of my yard.
> 
> I really hope that Zimmerman takes the stand because I really want to know what was so odd about Trayvon Martin's behavior that evening. I don't call the police when I see someone (of any color) walk by and I am a member of a group that is similar to Neighborhood Watch.
> 
> My particular neighborhood doesn't have many Asian people in it (as an example), but I wouldn't assume that an Asian person in my neighborhood was 'up to no good'. In the call, he never really told the dispatcher what piqued his interest. He talks about him looking around as he walked and then later mentioned that he was looking at him (Zimmerman) and checking him out. Eyeballing someone isn't a crime.
> 
> Edited to add: If Zimmerman thought that Trayvon was a burglar... Why did he feel that way? The fact that there had been break-ins before and that the perpetrators had been black does not mean that every black person is a thief. That particular gated community is populated with people of all ethnic backgrounds, including black people. Why would he assume that Trayvon had to be a burglar and not that he might be related to (or visiting) someone in the community?


Because he was wearing a hoody...That was the stupid statement my DH said when assuming that Martin was a bad person. It makes me CRAZY!!!!


----------



## Tricky Grama

Bearfootfarm said:


> Being "followed" is NOT *legal justification* to *attack* anyone.
> 
> Martin could have* kept going* and been safe at home.
> Instead, *he* decided to attack


Gosh, I thought it was all GZ's fault for following someone: "...if he'd only stayed in his truck..."; NOT: "...if Martin had simply GONE HOME..."!


----------



## Tricky Grama

Darren said:


> Gregg, even Trayvon's friend he was talking to on the phone told him to run home. If he had done that and not chosen to confront, knock to the ground and start beating Zimmerman, the kid would be alive today. Zimmerman was on his back pinned to the ground and the kid beating him. The calls for help didn't do any good. One person walked by with their dog. The witness Good said stop that and went inside to make a 911 call.
> 
> The common expression is you don't kick a man when he's down, figuratively and literally. The kid made several bad choices along with his parents leading to the incident. Now it seems the entire world wants to ignore the history and move directly to lynching Zimmerman. I'm amazed at the convoluted reasons posted here.
> 
> Crump fabricated a story specifically to elicit sympathy for a budding young aeronautical engineer that was gunned down before he got a chance to make his mark in the world. It worked! We're still seing the carefully selected photos of a young friendly Trayvon. Unfortunately the photos that Trayvon posted on the internet portray a very different individual. Trayvon comes across as a gangsta wannabe pictorially and verbally.
> 
> The fact is Trayvon didn't go home. He turned the corner and hid. When Zimmerman turned to go back, he confronted him and sucker punched him. If that was as far as it went he'd probably still be alive and bragging to his friends over the knock down. when he jumped on and didn't stop and Zimmerman's cries for help didn't do anything, Trayvon soon found out he was dead wrong.


----------



## suzfromWi

This is how I feel...Zimmerman was NOT on watch that night. he was carrying a gun. After he called police he should have let them handle it....he thought Martin was trouble, why? because he was wearing a hoody and looking around...he followed a guy that so far had done nothing wrong. For all we know...martin felt scared and threatened by zimmerman when zimmerman went to reach for his pocket, [ cell phone so he says] We dont know because Martin cannot speak. hes DEAD! If I were to follow someone in my area with a gun in my pocket, I would be looking to get a beat down or to kill someone...Zimmerman felt like a big man with that gun and got to use it....Cop wanna be that he is...I dont give a rats ... that martin was not a sweetie pie in life. I believe he was the one defending himself against a man that wouldnt leave him alone...He didnt deserve to die and zimmerman will probably get away with it...JMO!


----------



## Cornhusker

TheMartianChick said:


> I do agree that if Trayvon had been white, that this wouldn't have gotten as much airplay in the media, but I believe that Zimmerman most definitely would have been charged.
> 
> It took weeks before this case hit the national media.


If I remember right, he wasn't charged until after it hit the national scene?


----------



## Cornhusker

modineg44 said:


> Neighborhood watch people are NOT supposed to carry guns and not supposed to follow. Once they think there is a problem they are to call 911 and let the cops take care of it.
> 
> Z will be acquitted, get a book and tv movie deal, get paid to speak at tea-party/fundie church rallies, become a Fox News commentator. He'll be fine.
> 
> 
> Nancy


All Americans are allowed to carry guns to defend themselves, it's in the Bill of Rights and shall not be infringed


----------



## Darren

suzfromWi said:


> This is how I feel...Zimmerman was NOT on watch that night. he was carrying a gun. After he called police he should have let them handle it....he thought Martin was trouble, why? because he was wearing a hoody and looking around...he followed a guy that so far had done nothing wrong. For all we know...martin felt scared and threatened by zimmerman when zimmerman went to reach for his pocket, [ cell phone so he says] We dont know because Martin cannot speak. hes DEAD! If I were to follow someone in my area with a gun in my pocket, I would be looking to get a beat down or to kill someone...Zimmerman felt like a big man with that gun and got to use it....Cop wanna be that he is...I dont give a rats ... that martin was not a sweetie pie in life. I believe he was the one defending himself against a man that wouldnt leave him alone...He didnt deserve to die and zimmerman will probably get away with it...JMO!


I'm guessing you didn't hear or read the police testimony that they found a slim jim entry tool nearby when they searched. Where did that come from? Where did the women's jewelry and large screwdriver they took off Martin at school come from?

The innocent Skittles and tea story Crump embellished and released was designed to bamboozle those inclined to be sympathetic to the downtrodden. Do yourself a favor and look into Martin's persona on the internet. That is how Martin presented himself to the world he lived in. 

Crump tried to seal Martin's school history for a reason.

While you're at it look into Zimmerman's history including helping a black neighbor who suffered a home invasion while she was locked in a bedroom with her kid.

It's time we dealt with criminals and stopped babying them. Zimmerman was protecting his home turf which includes his neighbors'. Anyone who watches what's going on in their neighborhood and checks out those that are strange does the same thing. I do it all the time. If someone stops and looks like they have a problem, I ask if I can help. I always find out why they're in the area in a friendly manner. I've never encounter rudeness nor have I had to be rude when talking.

Even the newly released thief was cordial even though I was eyeballing him everyday. That went on until he and his wife got arrested for another offense.

If Martin hadn't decided to turn the encounter into a hostile situation instead of just going home, he would probably be alive today. People need to accept responsibility for their actions. Letting them off because they're dead is no excuse. It's certainly not acceptable to hang the responsibility for the juvenile's poor judgement on a man trying to be a good neighbor.


----------



## painterswife

Darren said:


> I'm guessing you didn't hear or read the police testimony that they found a slim jim entry tool nearby when they searched.


The trial dealt with this. It was a piece of the window frame not a slim jim. It was from the window above where it was found.


----------



## Darren

Thanks!


----------



## 7thswan

Darren said:


> Gregg, even Trayvon's friend he was talking to on the phone told him to run home. If he had done that and not chosen to confront, knock to the ground and start beating Zimmerman, the kid would be alive today. Zimmerman was on his back pinned to the ground and the kid beating him. The calls for help didn't do any good. One person walked by with their dog. The witness Good said stop that and went inside to make a 911 call.
> 
> The common expression is you don't kick a man when he's down, figuratively and literally. The kid made several bad choices along with his parents leading to the incident. Now it seems the entire world wants to ignore the history and move directly to lynching Zimmerman. I'm amazed at the convoluted reasons posted here.
> 
> Crump fabricated a story specifically to elicit sympathy for a budding young aeronautical engineer that was gunned down before he got a chance to make his mark in the world. It worked! We're still seing the carefully selected photos of a young friendly Trayvon. Unfortunately the photos that Trayvon posted on the internet portray a very different individual. Trayvon comes across as a gangsta wannabe pictorially and verbally.
> 
> The fact is Trayvon didn't go home. He turned the corner and hid. When Zimmerman turned to go back, he confronted him and sucker punched him. If that was as far as it went he'd probably still be alive and bragging to his friends over the knock down. when he jumped on and didn't stop and Zimmerman's cries for help didn't do anything, Trayvon soon found out he was dead wrong.


I remember reading right after the incident, twitter or something, Martin said the next time he gets into a fight he wants to see blood. I'm sure it's all erased now. I realize evidence won't be allowed in about TM, but many people, could be Zimmerman, learn to recognize certain peoples behavior as troublesome.


----------



## TheMartianChick

Darren said:


> *I'm guessing you didn't hear or read the police testimony that they found a slim jim entry tool nearby when they searched. Where did that come from? Where did the women's jewelry and large screwdriver they took off Martin at school come from?
> *
> The innocent Skittles and tea story Crump embellished and released was designed to bamboozle those inclined to be sympathetic to the downtrodden. Do yourself a favor and look into Martin's persona on the internet. That is how Martin presented himself to the world he lived in.
> 
> Crump tried to seal Martin's school history for a reason.
> 
> While you're at it look into Zimmerman's history including helping a black neighbor who suffered a home invasion while she was locked in a bedroom with her kid.
> 
> It's time we dealt with criminals and stopped babying them. Zimmerman was protecting his home turf which includes his neighbors'. Anyone who watches what's going on in their neighborhood and checks out those that are strange does the same thing. I do it all the time. If someone stops and looks like they have a problem, I ask if I can help. I always find out why they're in the area in a friendly manner. I've never encounter rudeness nor have I had to be rude when talking.
> 
> Even the newly released thief was cordial even though I was eyeballing him everyday. That went on until he and his wife got arrested for another offense.
> 
> If Martin hadn't decided to turn the encounter into a hostile situation instead of just going home, he would probably be alive today. People need to accept responsibility for their actions. Letting them off because they're dead is no excuse. It's certainly not acceptable to hang the responsibility for the juvenile's poor judgement on a man trying to be a good neighbor.


Actually, an officer on the stand yesterday admitted that what they had initially thought was a slim jim was actually part of Frank Taafe's (Zimmerman's friend) awning.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

FeralFemale said:


> Actually, it is a good thing he wasn't on watch that night. *The community rules stated that neighborhood watch people aren't allowed to be armed.* He was not on watch that night. That night, he was just a regular citizen. He was carrying a firearm that a LEO recommended he have.


There is no such "rule"
It's not a "job"
It's PEOPLE watching their *own neighborhoods*


----------



## CesumPec

mmoetc said:


> This case will hinge on 2a, did Zimmerman exhaust all non lethal means in his defense before he used his gun. Testimony was presented that Zimmerman's head wounds were minor. Yes the defense will have an expert to refute this. Zimmerman had some training in fighting(MMA training 3 days a week for some period). Trayvon Martin had no bruising, cuts or scratches to indicate that Zimmerman fought back in any effective way per his training. Zimmerman was not immobilized, he had at least one hand and arm free allowing him to reach his waist, unholster a gun, raise it to Martin's chest and pull the trigger. The question the prosecution will force Zimmermans team to answer is whether Zimmerman exhausted all other options before he pulled and used his gun.


sorry, but your understanding of constitution and applicable laws is off base.

The case hinge on 2a? No. No one has disputed GZ's right to carry that I know of. It is not an issue. 

Stand your ground law? I agree prosecution will bring this up to color the jury, but SUG does not require GZ exhaust all other options before pulling and using a gun. GZ could have pulled his gun at any time he felt his life was in danger. 

That is one key, did GZ have a jury defined reasonable fear of bodily harm. Did TM have any intent to do harm? Did he have a capability to do harm? Did he have proximity to do harm? There is no legal obligation to keep wrestling an opponent for a certain amount of time while you fear for grievous bodily harm. 

ANother key issue is did GZ initiate or provoke the attack by his actions because then SUG protections do not apply as has been quoted previously in this thread.


----------



## mmoetc

CesumPec said:


> sorry, but your understanding of constitution and applicable laws is off base.
> 
> The case hinge on 2a? No. No one has disputed GZ's right to carry that I know of. It is not an issue.
> 
> Stand your ground law? I agree prosecution will bring this up to color the jury, but SUG does not require GZ exhaust all other options before pulling and using a gun. GZ could have pulled his gun at any time he felt his life was in danger.
> 
> That is one key, did GZ have a jury defined reasonable fear of bodily harm. Did TM have any intent to do harm? Did he have a capability to do harm? Did he have proximity to do harm? There is no legal obligation to keep wrestling an opponent for a certain amount of time while you fear for grievous bodily harm.
> 
> ANother key issue is did GZ initiate or provoke the attack by his actions because then SUG protections do not apply as has been quoted previously in this thread.


You can argue the constitutionality of the law if you'd like but it states that one must exhaust all other options before using deadly force. That is what the prosecution is arguing. Could it be reasonably assumed that Zimmerman had other options to stop or escape from Martin before shooting him.


----------



## TheMartianChick

Did anyone see Zimmerman's teacher on the stand? I was cleaning out a closet and missed it.


----------



## dixiegal62

mmoetc said:


> You can argue the constitutionality of the law if you'd like but it states that one must exhaust all other options before using deadly force. That is what the prosecution is arguing. Could it be reasonably assumed that Zimmerman had other options to stop or escape from Martin before shooting him.


 
They said the law used to say that then was revised. You no longer have to exhaust all other options if you feel you life is in danger. Then it's up to the jury to decided if your actions where reasonable.


----------



## mmoetc

dixiegal62 said:


> They said the law used to say that then was revised. You no longer have to exhaust all other options if you feel you life is in danger. Then it's up to the jury to decided if your actions where reasonable.


I was commenting on the law as it was posted.


----------



## poppy

suzfromWi said:


> This is how I feel...Zimmerman was NOT on watch that night. he was carrying a gun. After he called police he should have let them handle it....he thought Martin was trouble, why? because he was wearing a hoody and looking around...he followed a guy that so far had done nothing wrong. For all we know...martin felt scared and threatened by zimmerman when zimmerman went to reach for his pocket, [ cell phone so he says] We dont know because Martin cannot speak. hes DEAD! If I were to follow someone in my area with a gun in my pocket, I would be looking to get a beat down or to kill someone...Zimmerman felt like a big man with that gun and got to use it....Cop wanna be that he is...I dont give a rats ... that martin was not a sweetie pie in life. I believe he was the one defending himself against a man that wouldnt leave him alone...He didnt deserve to die and zimmerman will probably get away with it...JMO!


Do you understand what neighborhood watch even is? There are no hours. There is no time clock to punch. It is simply to watch your neighborhood for crime or suspicious activity. According to the walk through of that night, Zimmerman was on his way to the store when he saw Martin standing on a corner looking around. He was not walking to his dad's house at the time.


----------



## partndn

TheMartianChick said:


> Did anyone see Zimmerman's teacher on the stand? I was cleaning out a closet and missed it.


I heard a small bit of the beginning. He stated he remembered GZ beginning one of the better students. They made a point of asking him if the class ever covered "stand your ground" and he replied yes.
I believe they intend to use details like that to say GZ's statements have not been consistent... As he told Hannity in an interview that he didn't know what "stand your ground" was when this incident happened.

There was more, but that's what I got til I couldn't listen.


----------



## farmrbrown

I'll quote the statute again, there seems to be a misunderstanding of what it actually says.


Title XLVI. Crimes.

Chapter 776: JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

776.041&#8195;Use of force by aggressor.&#8212;

The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1)&#8195;Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2)&#8195;Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a)&#8195;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)&#8195;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.



Nowhere does say you must exhaust all resources, it says you must reasonably try to escape, and failing that, if you feel likely to have great bodily harm, the option of deadly force is your choice to use.
Zimmerman's injuries were deemed not serious, true.
But he wasn't required to *receive* serious injury to invoke this statute, only perceive that the threat of great bodily harm was imminent.
His head looked far worse than mine did, and unbeknownst to me, I had a concussion. I had done everything you're told NOT to do with a concussion, take pain medication and go to sleep. I clearly wasn't thinking right and didn't realize why until morning.

Also note this portion applies if the person is deemed the aggressor.
If Zimmerman wasn't, the whole point is moot anyway.


----------



## Karen

poppy said:


> Do you understand what neighborhood watch even is? There are no hours. There is no time clock to punch. It is simply to watch your neighborhood for crime or suspicious activity. According to the walk through of that night, Zimmerman was on his way to the store when he saw Martin standing on a corner looking around. He was not walking to his dad's house at the time.


It must be different where you are. In Florida subdivisions/complexes, it's very organized with very strict rules you agree to when you sign up; and you have shifts that you are assigned to and work patrolling your neighborhood/subdivision/complex. Most folks have a shift at least 1x a week. In some subdivisions/complexes, you don't get enough people to sign up (_because_ of those strict rules and the shift work) and have 3-4 shifts a week.


----------



## Nevada

farmrbrown said:


> Zimmerman's injuries were deemed not serious, true.
> But he wasn't required to *receive* serious injury to invoke this statute, only perceive that the threat of great bodily harm was imminent.


That's true. Even if Zimmerman was not actually attacked or injured at all, he could still invoke his right to protect himself in the basis that he feared for his life. Notice what the statute quoted above says:

_"the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm"_

Notice that the defense is based on what the person *believes*, not whether the person might have been attacked or injured. How badly Zimmerman might have been injured before using defensive force is not relevant to the defense. I'm sure the prosecutor knows that too. That argument was weak sauce, and a complete waste of court time.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Even if Zimmerman was not actually attacked or injured at all, he *could still invoke his right to protect himself* in the basis that he feared for his life.


You'd have a really hard time proving that without some imminent *PHYSICAL* threat.
You can't use force based on VERBAL threats

I realize you *want* to make this assertion to justify Martin's attacking Zimmerman, but it really doesn't work that way in reality


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> I'll quote the statute again, there seems to be a misunderstanding of what it actually says.
> 
> 
> Title XLVI. Crimes.
> 
> Chapter 776: JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
> 
> 776.041&#8195;Use of force by aggressor.â
> 
> The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
> 
> (1)&#8195;Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
> 
> (2)&#8195;Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
> 
> (a)&#8195;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)&#8195;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.
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere does say you must exhaust all resources, it says you must reasonably try to escape, and failing that, if you feel likely to have great bodily harm, the option of deadly force is your choice to use.
> Zimmerman's injuries were deemed not serious, true.
> But he wasn't required to *receive* serious injury to invoke this statute, only perceive that the threat of great bodily harm was imminent.
> His head looked far worse than mine did, and unbeknownst to me, I had a concussion. I had done everything you're told NOT to do with a concussion, take pain medication and go to sleep. I clearly wasn't thinking right and didn't realize why until morning.
> 
> Also note this portion applies if the person is deemed the aggressor.
> If Zimmerman wasn't, the whole point is moot anyway.


And if there us no evidence that you fought back or tried to escape can you be 
deemed to have exhausted every reasonable means to escape. Don't you have to try something before its exhausted? Right now no evidence has been put forth that Zimmerman tried to escape before he shot.


----------



## Hollowdweller

Something I don't understand is apparently Martin approached Zimmerman while he was in the car and he rolled the window up? 

I'm not sure why he just didn't say "I'm with the neighborhood watch"


He never said he was with them.

Also hearing about the DNA stuff I'm sort of now thinking that Zimmerman is not as safe for getting off as I thought.


----------



## FeralFemale

Bearfootfarm said:


> There is no such "rule"
> It's not a "job"
> It's PEOPLE watching their *own neighborhoods*


Yes, there was such a rule regarding the neighborhood watch. 

And I am looking at the big picture. He may not have been legally obligated to follow such a rule, but if he did not then that, and what it says about him, is something the jury is allowed to consider.

Since he wasn't on watch that night, he was totally allowed to CCW, wasn't breaking NW rules by carrying. 

All I was trying to say is that some anti Zimmerman folk who like to point out the NW rules about carrying are wrong because he was not on NW that night.


----------



## unregistered353870

I don't understand what the DNA stuff has to do with it. I watched some of the testimony on that today and it seemed like they were just trying to run out the clock, not delving into anything with real relevance.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

If Martin was so "afraid" of Zimmerman, why didn't *HE* call 911?
He had a phone in his hand.

Or why didn't he just keep going when he had the chance to get away?

Why did he CHOOSE to wait for Zimmerman, and then CHOOSE attack him?
I don't think he was scared at all, but rather wanted the confrontation, since* he* set it up to happen


----------



## 7thswan

Was the specific law of Fla. on Hold Your Ground spoken about? A person(from classes) might know about the Law, but not in which states Laws. Z. might beable to remember the law, but when asked specifics about Fla. law-he would say ,,I don't know about it .


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> In Florida subdivisions/complexes, it's very organized with very strict rules


Groups can make any rules they like.
They don't all have one set to comply with
And it really has nothing to do with this case, since he wasn't "on duty"



> Currently, with local police agencies setting guidelines for their neighborhood watches, groups across the U.S. *vary greatly in their scope, function, the level of activity* by their members, and training


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neighborhood_watch


----------



## vicker

Hollowdweller said:


> Something I don't understand is apparently Martin approached Zimmerman while he was in the car and he rolled the window up?


That action stands out to me too. Why did he circle the car? Was Trevon looking at GZ's license plate?


----------



## dixiegal62

I think it's reasonable for anyone who chooses to carry a gun to know the laws. I studied our laws before I got my permit including our stand your ground laws. After all I got a gun to protect myself and family so why wouldn't I want to know my rights? That doesn't mean I plan on killing someone for no reason and claiming self defense. It means I'm a responsible gun owner.


----------



## farmrbrown

mmoetc said:


> And if there us no evidence that you fought back or tried to escape can you be
> deemed to have exhausted every reasonable means to escape. Don't you have to try something before its exhausted? Right now no evidence has been put forth that Zimmerman tried to escape before he shot.


I guess we'll have to wait for the jury to decide that.
If the prosecution is still presenting it's case, other than redirect questions, the defense probably hasn't given any evidence yet.
We do know that Zimmerman says he was pinned on the sidewalk. We do know there is evidence his head hit the sidewalk. We do know that according to Zimmerman, he thought Martin was going for his gun.

Would it be reasonable to wait a little while longer to see what would happen next?


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> I guess we'll have to wait for the jury to decide that.
> If the prosecution is still presenting it's case, other than redirect questions, the defense probably hasn't given any evidence yet.
> We do know that Zimmerman says he was pinned on the sidewalk. We do know there is evidence his head hit the sidewalk. We do know that according to Zimmerman, he thought Martin was going for his gun.
> 
> Would it be reasonable to wait a little while longer to see what would happen next?


As you said, the jury will decide. My personal opinion is that if you have a hand and arm free enough to unholster and fire a gun you have a hand and arm free enough to do some serious damage to the person "pinning" you down.


----------



## farmrbrown

I think some of the second guessing might be different depending on whether someone has been in a serious fight or even a life or death conflict.
Once you have, the coulda, shoulda, woulda questions are never the same.


----------



## Nevada

jtbrandt said:


> I don't understand what the DNA stuff has to do with it. I watched some of the testimony on that today and it seemed like they were just trying to run out the clock, not delving into anything with real relevance.


The DNA evidence was consistent with Zimmerman's story. I don't know what the objective of the prosecution presenting that evidence in detain was.


----------



## vicker

Is the "malfunction" that I've read several times on this thread referring to the gun not operating if the slide is displaced to the rear, and insinuating that that would prevent a contact firing? If so, that is completely lame.


----------



## poppy

farmrbrown said:


> I guess we'll have to wait for the jury to decide that.
> If the prosecution is still presenting it's case, other than redirect questions, the defense probably hasn't given any evidence yet.
> We do know that Zimmerman says he was pinned on the sidewalk. We do know there is evidence his head hit the sidewalk. We do know that according to Zimmerman, he thought Martin was going for his gun.
> 
> Would it be reasonable to wait a little while longer to see what would happen next?


Martin had Zimmerman down beating him and, according to Zimmerman, said "You are going to die tonight". Placed in that situation, if you had access to a gun to stop the attack and didn't use it because you wanted to think of more options, you deserve to die because you are too stupid to live.


----------



## modineg44

If you Google "neighborhood watch rules" you can read about the basic requirements. Here is one link:
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...1_zimmerman-community-ties-neighborhood-watch

Nancy


----------



## Bearfootfarm

vicker said:


> Is the "malfunction" that I've read several times on this thread referring to the gun not operating if the slide is displaced to the rear, and insinuating that that would prevent a contact firing? If so, that is completely lame.


The "malfunction" was the gun never chambered a second round.
I suspect the slide never travelled all the way back because the bodies were too close together


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> My personal opinion is that if you have a hand and arm free enough to unholster and fire a gun you have a hand and arm free enough to do some serious damage to the person "pinning" you down.


Obviously you haven't thought that through, since you can unholster and fire a gun without moving your hand and arm more than a few inches, which is hardly enough freedom to do "serious damage" to the person slamming your head into the concrete.

It's easy to sit at a keyboard and fantasize about what *you* would do, but it really doesn't mean anything in relation to Zimmerman's actions that night


----------



## TheMartianChick

Speaking of something that Trayvon supposedly said...

In one of Zimmerman's statements (or maybe it was the re-enactment), he claims that Trayvon referred to him as a "homie". That statement jumped out at my family as not sounding realistic. Kids that are his age don't use the term "homie". It is old...antiquated and extremely uncool. Under the supposed circumstances, Trayvon would have never used that word. He might have used profanity at that point, but NOT the word "homie". 

I can't think of a single black person who would still use that term in this day and age.It is a term that actually pre-dates Trayvon's birth. The only time that it is ever used in my house is when we're quoting Homey the Clown from the old tv show, In Living Color. We often see situations when old black slang is still being used by people outside of the culture, when our own culture has moved on to newer slang.


----------



## dixiegal62

TheMartianChick said:


> Speaking of something that Trayvon supposedly said...
> 
> In one of Zimmerman's statements (or maybe it was the re-enactment), he claims that Trayvon referred to him as a "homie". That statement jumped out at my family as not sounding realistic. Kids that are his age don't use the term "homie". It is old...antiquated and extremely uncool. Under the supposed circumstances, Trayvon would have never used that word. He might have used profanity at that point, but NOT the word "homie".
> 
> I can't think of a single black person who would still use that term in this day and age.It is a term that actually pre-dates Trayvon's birth. The only time that it is ever used in my house is when we're quoting Homey the Clown from the old tv show, In Living Color. We often see situations when old black slang is still being used by people outside of the culture, when our own culture has moved on to newer slang.


 
I still hear it here in Alabama from my daughter's friends.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Kids that are his age don't use *the term "homie*"


It seems some still do
It's also common among prisoners:



> In recent times, on August 14, 2009, an 11-year-old TV reporter, Damon Weaver, from South Florida interviewed President Barack Obama and declared that the President was now his "homeboy".[5]


----------



## TheMartianChick

I do still hear homeboy, but never homie.


----------



## vicker

Bearfootfarm said:


> The "malfunction" was the gun never chambered a second round.
> I suspect the slide never travelled all the way back because the bodies were too close together


Ah, OK. I heard one of the talking heads claim that it couldn't have been a contact firing for the reason stated above. Well, why was the weapon received into evidence with six rounds in the magazine and one loose round? The lady said that GZ was carrying with one in the chamber, and a full seven round Mag., and that when she received it, it was the gun, one mag with six rounds, and one loose round.


----------



## Nevada

No court tomorrow, and the prosecution is planning to wrap-up their case Friday. Unless they have a real zinger waiting to testify Friday I don't think the defense will need long to present Zimmerman's case. Most of the defense has already been presented.


----------



## FeralFemale

TheMartianChick said:


> Speaking of something that Trayvon supposedly said...
> 
> In one of Zimmerman's statements (or maybe it was the re-enactment), he claims that Trayvon referred to him as a "homie". That statement jumped out at my family as not sounding realistic. Kids that are his age don't use the term "homie". It is old...antiquated and extremely uncool. Under the supposed circumstances, Trayvon would have never used that word. He might have used profanity at that point, but NOT the word "homie".
> 
> I can't think of a single black person who would still use that term in this day and age.It is a term that actually pre-dates Trayvon's birth. The only time that it is ever used in my house is when we're quoting Homey the Clown from the old tv show, In Living Color. We often see situations when old black slang is still being used by people outside of the culture, when our own culture has moved on to newer slang.


 
Yeah, that was back in my day and that day was a long time ago. There was another GZ version where he said he shot TM and TM said 'you got me'. Who says that??? 

Though who knows what people say and why just before they die. I once watched a tv show about angels of death, they were organizing the dead based on last words, and the majority of untimely or violent deaths were 'Oh ****!!!" or the equivalent. It made me think about what people think or say right before they die. I imagine the shock of knowing you will very shortly be dead leads to quite a number of different reactions.


----------



## CesumPec

mmoetc said:


> You can argue the constitutionality of the law if you'd like but it states that one must exhaust all other options before using deadly force. That is what the prosecution is arguing. Could it be reasonably assumed that Zimmerman had other options to stop or escape from Martin before shooting him.


Help me. What law states one must exhaust all other options?


----------



## Nevada

CesumPec said:


> Help me. What law states one must exhaust all other options?


Ask Zimmerman. Contrary to what Zimmerman told Hannity he studied the law in class. While not terribly incriminating, I wonder why he lied about that?


----------



## Cornhusker

Sadly, even if Zimmerman is acquitted, he will be murdered, and no one will be held accountable
Obama, Sharpton, and the rest of the bigots will be silent, Obama's corrupt media puppets will not care.
Welcome to Obamantion, the land of race wars, hatred and division


----------



## unregistered353870

TheMartianChick said:


> Speaking of something that Trayvon supposedly said...
> 
> In one of Zimmerman's statements (or maybe it was the re-enactment), he claims that Trayvon referred to him as a "homie". That statement jumped out at my family as not sounding realistic. Kids that are his age don't use the term "homie". It is old...antiquated and extremely uncool. Under the supposed circumstances, Trayvon would have never used that word. He might have used profanity at that point, but NOT the word "homie".
> 
> I can't think of a single black person who would still use that term in this day and age.It is a term that actually pre-dates Trayvon's birth. The only time that it is ever used in my house is when we're quoting Homey the Clown from the old tv show, In Living Color. We often see situations when old black slang is still being used by people outside of the culture, when our own culture has moved on to newer slang.


I haven't gone back and checked to be sure, but the impression I got from that was that Zimmerman wasn't necessarily quoting Martin verbatim, but just a general idea of the way he remembered it...as in he said something like "homie" not necessarily that exact word. It could have been another word that Zimmerman translated in his head into his own vernacular without even being aware he changed it. That's one reason not to cooperate with the police. Every word you say can be overanalyzed to trip you up.


----------



## unregistered353870

Nevada said:


> Ask Zimmerman. Contrary to what Zimmerman told Hannity he studied the law in class. While not terribly incriminating, I wonder why he lied about that?


Maybe he was a bad student and didn't remember studying the law. I've forgotten most of what I've ever learned in classes.


----------



## CesumPec

Nevada said:


> Ask Zimmerman. Contrary to what Zimmerman told Hannity he studied the law in class. While not terribly incriminating, I wonder why he lied about that?


GZ's knowledge of the law is only marginally relevant. I don't care what his opinion of his actions are. I want him to rot in jail if he killed GZ without cause and and want him to be made whole (not that that is possible) if this turns out to be nothing more than a media driven witch hunt.


----------



## Nevada

jtbrandt said:


> Maybe he was a bad student and didn't remember studying the law. I've forgotten most of what I've ever learned in classes.


He got an A in the class.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...llege-course-that-addressed-self-defense?lite

Not a lot of question about that. As I said, it's not terribly incriminating, but I wonder why he lied about not knowing about the self defense laws. Honestly, I wondered about that because I knew he went through a CCR class. It was my understanding that they covered related law in those classes.


----------



## Pugnacious

How many people know everything they have ever been taught? High school? Middle school ? Primary? Work training? The simple fact is that I have a working knowledge of Utah's self defense laws but would testify the same way because I am NOT an attorney and do NOT know the nuances of the law or the ramifications of thinking I do or saying I do.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tricky Grama

suzfromWi said:


> This is how I feel...Zimmerman was NOT on watch that night. he was carrying a gun. After he called police he should have let them handle it....he thought Martin was trouble, why? because he was wearing a hoody and looking around...he followed a guy that so far had done nothing wrong. For all we know...martin felt scared and threatened by zimmerman when zimmerman went to reach for his pocket, [ cell phone so he says] We dont know because Martin cannot speak. hes DEAD! If I were to follow someone in my area with a gun in my pocket, I would be looking to get a beat down or to kill someone...Zimmerman felt like a big man with that gun and got to use it....Cop wanna be that he is...I dont give a rats ... that martin was not a sweetie pie in life. I believe he was the one defending himself against a man that wouldnt leave him alone...He didnt deserve to die and zimmerman will probably get away with it...JMO!


 The only thing is, you CANNOT beat a person, sit on 'em & continue to beat, breaking their nose, banging their head on the concrete, just b/c they may have been following you. YOU CANNOT.
(you shoulda gone home)


----------



## Tricky Grama

Darren said:


> I'm guessing you didn't hear or read the police testimony that they found a slim jim entry tool nearby when they searched. Where did that come from? Where did the women's jewelry and large screwdriver they took off Martin at school come from?
> 
> The innocent Skittles and tea story Crump embellished and released was designed to bamboozle those inclined to be sympathetic to the downtrodden. Do yourself a favor and look into Martin's persona on the internet. That is how Martin presented himself to the world he lived in.
> 
> Crump tried to seal Martin's school history for a reason.
> 
> While you're at it look into Zimmerman's history including helping a black neighbor who suffered a home invasion while she was locked in a bedroom with her kid.
> 
> It's time we dealt with criminals and stopped babying them. Zimmerman was protecting his home turf which includes his neighbors'. Anyone who watches what's going on in their neighborhood and checks out those that are strange does the same thing. I do it all the time. If someone stops and looks like they have a problem, I ask if I can help. I always find out why they're in the area in a friendly manner. I've never encounter rudeness nor have I had to be rude when talking.
> 
> Even the newly released thief was cordial even though I was eyeballing him everyday. That went on until he and his wife got arrested for another offense.
> 
> If Martin hadn't decided to turn the encounter into a hostile situation instead of just going home, he would probably be alive today. People need to accept responsibility for their actions. Letting them off because they're dead is no excuse. It's certainly not acceptable to hang the responsibility for the juvenile's poor judgement on a man trying to be a good neighbor.


----------



## Tricky Grama

CesumPec said:


> sorry, but your understanding of constitution and applicable laws is off base.
> 
> The case hinge on 2a? No. No one has disputed GZ's right to carry that I know of. It is not an issue.
> 
> Stand your ground law? I agree prosecution will bring this up to color the jury, but SUG does not require GZ exhaust all other options before pulling and using a gun. GZ could have pulled his gun at any time he felt his life was in danger.
> 
> That is one key, did GZ have a jury defined reasonable fear of bodily harm. Did TM have any intent to do harm? Did he have a capability to do harm? Did he have proximity to do harm? There is no legal obligation to keep wrestling an opponent for a certain amount of time while you fear for grievous bodily harm.
> 
> ANother key issue is did GZ initiate or provoke the attack by his actions because then SUG protections do not apply as has been quoted previously in this thread.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Karen said:


> It must be different where you are. In Florida subdivisions/complexes, it's very organized with very strict rules you agree to when you sign up; and you have shifts that you are assigned to and work patrolling your neighborhood/subdivision/complex. Most folks have a shift at least 1x a week. In some subdivisions/complexes, you don't get enough people to sign up (_because_ of those strict rules and the shift work) and have 3-4 shifts a week.


 Was this the case in GZ's neighborhood? B/c it certainly isn't in ours. Is that an 'all over FL' deal?


----------



## Tricky Grama

mmoetc said:


> And if there us no evidence that you fought back or tried to escape can you be
> deemed to have exhausted every reasonable means to escape. Don't you have to try something before its exhausted? Right now no evidence has been put forth that Zimmerman tried to escape before he shot.


 BWahahaha!


----------



## Tricky Grama

Bearfootfarm said:


> If Martin was so "afraid" of Zimmerman, why didn't *HE* call 911?
> He had a phone in his hand.
> 
> Or why didn't he just keep going when he had the chance to get away?
> 
> Why did he CHOOSE to wait for Zimmerman, and then CHOOSE attack him?
> I don't think he was scared at all, but rather wanted the confrontation, since* he* set it up to happen


----------



## Tricky Grama

Nevada said:


> He got an A in the class.
> 
> http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...llege-course-that-addressed-self-defense?lite
> 
> Not a lot of question about that. As I said, it's not terribly incriminating, but I wonder why he lied about not knowing about the self defense laws. Honestly, I wondered about that because I knew he went through a CCR class. It was my understanding that they covered related law in those classes.


 I was going to point that out, you said it better.
However its not a reason to convict. Doesn't cancel out all the other evidence of self defense.


----------



## Wanda

Why should one person be able to ''stand there ground'' and the other person be required to leave the area ?:shrug:


----------



## FeralFemale

Cornhusker said:


> Sadly, even if Zimmerman is acquitted, he will be murdered, and no one will be held accountable
> Obama, Sharpton, and the rest of the bigots will be silent, Obama's corrupt media puppets will not care.
> Welcome to Obamantion, the land of race wars, hatred and division


It's absolutely chilling the comments I read under articles and blogs about the Zimmerman case. And, I'm not even talking about the outright 'I'm gonna kill him myself if he gets off!' comments. Those are mostly bravado.

I'm talking about the quiet innuendo that sends chills down my spine...people who are very serious about rioting or killing him or his attorney stating things like how zimmerman/his attorneys/white people better watch out or how the verdict doesn't matter because it's going to get 'taken care of'. And those examples are the most tame ones.


----------



## dixiegal62

FeralFemale said:


> It's absolutely chilling the comments I read under articles and blogs about the Zimmerman case. And, I'm not even talking about the outright 'I'm gonna kill him myself if he gets off!' comments. Those are mostly bravado.
> 
> I'm talking about the quiet innuendo that sends chills down my spine...people who are very serious about rioting or killing him or his attorney stating things like how zimmerman/his attorneys/white people better watch out or how the verdict doesn't matter because it's going to get 'taken care of'. And those examples are the most tame ones.


I would expect Obama and the media to down play any riots if they took place.


----------



## unregistered353870

Nevada said:


> He got an A in the class.
> 
> http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...llege-course-that-addressed-self-defense?lite
> 
> Not a lot of question about that. As I said, it's not terribly incriminating, but I wonder why he lied about not knowing about the self defense laws. Honestly, I wondered about that because I knew he went through a CCR class. It was my understanding that they covered related law in those classes.


Getting an A in a class has nothing to do with being a good student or actually learning the material for the long term.
ETA: That's another reason to keep your mouth shut, though. If he hadn't told Hannity (and possibly the police) that he had never heard of the law it wouldn't be an issue at all.


----------



## Nevada

jtbrandt said:


> Getting an A in a class has nothing to do with being a good student or actually learning the material for the long term.
> ETA: That's another reason to keep your mouth shut, though. If he hadn't told Hannity (and possibly the police) that he had never heard of the law it wouldn't be an issue at all.


I'm always wary when someone tries to win an argument my trying to convince me of how ignorant he is.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> . *Unless they have a real zinger* waiting to testify Friday I don't think the defense will need long to present Zimmerman's case. Most of the defense has already been presented


There is NO NEW EVIDENCE,
Nothing new has been revealed in the entire farce of a trial
There never was a case for murder


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> I'm always wary when someone tries to win an argument my trying to convince me of how ignorant he is.


The fact they discussed some FLA laws in a class doesn't mean they used the same* terminology* as the media.

It's just one more Red Herring to hide the fact they have no REAL evidence against Zimmerman


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> The fact they discussed some FLA laws in a class doesn't mean they used the same* terminology* as the media.
> 
> It's just one more Red Herring to hide the fact they have no REAL evidence against Zimmerman


The fact is that the prosecution landed a firm blow by presenting that Zimmerman studied stand your ground formally in a college level course that he got an A in. That went a long way towards impeaching the Hannity interview.


----------



## unregistered353870

Nevada said:


> I'm always wary when someone tries to win an argument my trying to convince me of how ignorant he is.


Sometimes ignorance is bliss...although that probably doesn't apply to this case, especially since Zimmerman isn't even claiming the stand your ground immunity.


----------



## Nevada

farmrbrown said:


> I think some of the second guessing might be different depending on whether someone has been in a serious fight or even a life or death conflict.
> Once you have, the coulda, shoulda, woulda questions are never the same.


Zimmerman has more to worry about that just convincing the jury he feared for his life when he fired the shot. They are also going to consider that he was following Martin, which in itself might be considered aggression.


----------



## Nevada

jtbrandt said:


> Sometimes ignorance is bliss...although that probably doesn't apply to this case, especially since Zimmerman isn't even claiming the stand your ground immunity.


I don't believe that Zimmerman was at all vague on Florida gun law.


----------



## unregistered353870

Nevada said:


> I don't believe that Zimmerman was at all vague on Florida gun law.


That's really not relevant since he isn't charged with violating a gun law.


----------



## Nevada

jtbrandt said:


> That's really not relevant since he isn't charged with violating a gun law.


It's only relevant to demonstrate that Zimmerman's interview with Hannity was partially an act. He was trying to convince Fox News viewers of something that wasn't true.


----------



## unregistered353870

Nevada said:


> It's only relevant to demonstrate that Zimmerman's interview with Hannity was partially an act. He was trying to convince Fox News viewers of something that wasn't true.


It certainly can be interpreted that way, but ignorance or poor memory could be a legitimate excuse for that. But I'll say again...this is a perfect reason not to talk to the media until after your trial. That was one of Zimmerman's monumental mistakes after the shooting.


----------



## Nevada

jtbrandt said:


> It certainly can be interpreted that way, but ignorance or poor memory could be a legitimate excuse for that. But I'll say again...this is a perfect reason not to talk to the media until after your trial. That was one of Zimmerman's monumental mistakes after the shooting.


While the prosecution landed a good blow by showing that Zimmerman studied Stand Your Ground, the Hannity interview was a very good move on Zimmerman's part.

You see, since Zimmerman is asserting an affirmative defense of self-defense, he has to assert that defense to the jury somehow. Normally the defendant has to testify to that defense, voicing his claim that he believed he was in danger. The downside to doing that is that the defendant has to testify under oath, and also submit to cross examination.

In this case the prosecution willingly played the Hannity interview to the jury. While they might find a few inconsistencies in that interview, it gave Zimmerman the opportunity to voice his affirmative defense without taking the stand or submitting to cross examination.

Since the Hannity interview is part of the court record I don't expect Zimmerman to take the stand at all. He doesn't need to.

As it turns out, the Hannity interview was not a mistake.


----------



## unregistered353870

I still think it was. But it may have also been a mistake for the prosecution to use it.
ETA: It seems to me that the defendant doesn't normally have to take the stand to assert an affirmative defense. It can be established by the testimony of other witnesses.


----------



## CesumPec

Nevada said:


> The fact is that the prosecution landed a firm blow by presenting that Zimmerman studied stand your ground formally in a college level course that he got an A in. That went a long way towards impeaching the Hannity interview.


And that convinces the jury of what? At worst The defendant lied to a partisan political hack, that makes him guilty of murder?


----------



## CesumPec

Wanda said:


> Why should one person be able to ''stand there ground'' and the other person be required to leave the area ?:shrug:


Please explain. I'm not sure what your thinking is here. There are circumstances where stand your ground legal protections apply and circumstances where they don't apply. That's no different than the differences that apply to use of force when you are in your home or out on the street; the law recognizes that different levels of force are appropriate in different situations.


----------



## painterswife

CesumPec said:


> And that convinces the jury of what? At worst The defendant lied to a partisan political hack, that makes him guilty of murder?


The defense fought hard in several different motions because they did not want this impeaching evidence allowed in. It very well could be something that the jury considers when the make their deliberations.


----------



## Darren

vicker said:


> Is the "malfunction" that I've read several times on this thread referring to the gun not operating if the slide is displaced to the rear, and insinuating that that would prevent a contact firing? If so, that is completely lame.


There were early reports that the KelTec had a full magazine when the LEO checked it after it was surrendered by Zimmerman. In other words the slide did not cycle enough to load a cartridge after the gun was fired. Zimmerman obviously had 1+7 loaded. Seven in the magazine, one in the chamber. The police firearms report didn't find any issue with the gun. They fired three cartridges without incident. 

That raises the question of what interfered with the slide. The powder marks were on the shirt but not on Martin's chest showing the shirt was leaning away from his body at the time of the gunshot. That supports Martin leaning over Zimmerman with his outer garment hanging down.


----------



## Nevada

CesumPec said:


> At worst The defendant lied to a partisan political hack


As if who someone lies to makes it any less of a lie.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> The fact is that the prosecution landed a firm blow by presenting that Zimmerman studied stand your ground formally in a college level course that he got an A in. That went a long way towards impeaching the Hannity interview.


It was NOT a "firm blow"
Its merely a distraction from the fact that what he did was justified, and none of the ACTUAL evidence shows otherwise

Hannity has NOTHING to do with the FACTS of *the events that night*, and THAT is all that matters

The rest is for the Dog and Pony show crowd


----------



## painterswife

Darren said:


> There were early reports that the KelTec had a full magazine when the LEO checked it after it was surrendered by Zimmerman. In other words the slide did not cycle enough to load a cartridge after the gun was fired. Zimmerman obviously had 1+7 loaded. Seven in the magazine, one in the chamber. The police firearms report didn't find any issue with the gun. They fired three cartridges without incident.
> 
> That raises the question of what interfered with the slide. The powder marks were on the shirt but not on Martin's chest showing the shirt was leaning away from his body at the time of the gunshot. That supports Martin leaning over Zimmerman with his outer garment hanging down.


I don't think prosecution is disputing that Trayvon was on top when Zimmerman shot him.


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> ACTUAL evidence shows otherwise


Zimmerman still followed Martin against police dispatcher recommendation. That's the one thing the defense hasn't been able to shake. That could cause the jury to consider Zimmerman to be the aggressor.

The thing you keep forgetting about is Martin's right to defend himself. If Martin believed he was being followed by someone who might do him harm, which was evidently true, then Martin had justification to defend himself. The jury could look at this case that way.


----------



## Darren

painterswife said:


> I don't think prosecution is disputing that Trayvon was on top when Zimmerman shot him.


That's not the point. 

How do you explain the KelTec not chambering another cartridge after it was fired? Martin's DNA was not on it. There has been a mention of Martin becoming aware that Zimmerman had a gun. Martin was trying to stop Zimmerman from breathing/screaming for help with one hand and beating him with the other. 

The question is what happened when the gun was fired to prevent the slide from moving? Something interfered with the slide.

I'd like to know the tratjectory of the bullet. Anyway you look at it, the one shot did tremendous damage. It go both lungs and the heart. I'm wondering if Zimmerman held the firearm close enough to his own body to prevent Martin from getting it and in turn prevented the slide from operating. Does the bullet trajectory support that?


----------



## farmrbrown

Wouldn't that include using the same criteria for Martin?
Did he call the police, report this "aggression" and then follow their instructions in the act of "defending" himself?


----------



## unregistered353870

Nevada said:


> Zimmerman still followed Martin against police dispatcher recommendation. That's the one thing the defense hasn't been able to shake. That could cause the jury to consider Zimmerman to be the aggressor.
> 
> The thing you keep forgetting about is Martin's right to defend himself. If Martin believed he was being followed by someone who might do him harm, which was evidently true, then Martin had justification to defend himself. The jury could look at this case that way.


The only evidence the jury has of what Martin may have believed was from that terrible witness. Tons of reasonable doubt there, not to mention she was not a witness to the actual events, merely the lead-up.


----------



## farmrbrown

Darren said:


> That's not the point.
> 
> How do you explain the KelTec not chambering another cartridge after it was fired? Martin's DNA was not on it. There has been a mention of Martin becoming aware that Zimmerman had a gun. Martin was trying to stop Zimmerman from breathing/screaming for help with one hand and beating him with the other.
> 
> The question is what happened when the gun was fired to prevent the slide from moving? Something interfered with the slide.


It shows when some know about firearms and some don't, doesn't it?

For those that don't, as the prosecution outlined in it's opening statements, Martin was so close, that there was zero distance between him and the muzzle of the gun. That is one of the few things that will cause the slide not to have enough recoil to chamber the next round.


----------



## CesumPec

painterswife said:


> The defense fought hard in several different motions because they did not want this impeaching evidence allowed in. It very well could be something that the jury considers when the make their deliberations.


I admit the prosecutor brought it up to make GZ look bad...my Q remains, to what end? The jury won't like him and feel better about a murder conviction? I know prosecutors use that tactic, I just can't see the connecting points of logic that must reside somewhere between A. he lied to a media hack so, Z. he must be a murderer. if the prosecution can line up a bunch of more meaningful lies to cops and such, the prosecution could say, see, you can't believe anything GZ says. But since GZ isn't going to testify (I assume) I don't see where it is taking the case. 

Probably the prosecutor is more clever than me and I just can't see the bigger plan yet. Or maybe the prosecutor realizes he doesn't have a case and figures he needs to do SOMETHING other than just waving the white flag in front of judge, jury, and a national TV audience. 

I wonder if the prosecutor has the fear of ending up like that one in the NC ?Duke? Lacrosse team non-rape case, where the media, high profile race baiters like Sharpton and Jackson, and public emotions drove a case that ended up making the prosecutor look bad and suffer disciplinary actions for negligent prosecution.


----------



## unregistered353870

> The question is what happened when the gun was fired to prevent the slide from moving? Something interfered with the slide.


Not necessarily. Maybe he limp-wristed it.


----------



## painterswife

Darren said:


> That's not the point.
> 
> How do you explain the KelTec not chambering another cartridge after it was fired? Martin's DNA was not on it. There has been a mention of Martin becoming aware that Zimmerman had a gun. Martin was trying to stop Zimmerman from breathing/screaming for help with one hand and beating him with the other.
> 
> The question is what happened when the gun was fired to prevent the slide from moving? Something interfered with the slide.


You are assuming facts not in evidence at this time. We only have Zimmerman's version of the story and the prosecution is working to put holes in that. I know several of the posters here seem to think that Zimmerman's word is gold but that has not be proven. They have proven that there are some holes.


----------



## painterswife

farmrbrown said:


> It shows when some know about firearms and some don't, doesn't it?
> 
> For those that don't, as the prosecution outlined in it's opening statements, Martin was so close, that there was zero distance between him and the muzzle of the gun. That is one of the few things that will cause the slide not to have enough recoil to chamber the next round.


I am curious why it matters that there was not another round in the chamber?


----------



## CesumPec

Nevada said:


> As if who someone lies to makes it any less of a lie.


correct me if I'm wrong, but none of the official charges include felonious liar. Yes? 

And it does matter who you lie to. Lie to me, HT, or the media and you are just a liar. Lie to a cop and that's a crime. Lie to the judge and it is a different crime. lie to the jury and it is yet another crime.


----------



## painterswife

CesumPec said:


> I admit the prosecutor brought it up to make GZ look bad...my Q remains, to what end? The jury won't like him and feel better about a murder conviction? I know prosecutors use that tactic, I just can't see the connecting points of logic that must reside somewhere between A. he lied to a media hack so, Z. he must be a murderer. if the prosecution can line up a bunch of more meaningful lies to cops and such, the prosecution could say, see, you can't believe anything GZ says. But since GZ isn't going to testify (I assume) I don't see where it is taking the case.
> 
> Probably the prosecutor is more clever than me and I just can't see the bigger plan yet. Or maybe the prosecutor realizes he doesn't have a case and figures he needs to do SOMETHING other than just waving the white flag in front of judge, jury, and a national TV audience.
> 
> I wonder if the prosecutor has the fear of ending up like that one in the NC ?Duke? Lacrosse team non-rape case, where the media, high profile race baiters like Sharpton and Jackson, and public emotions drove a case that ended up making the prosecutor look bad and suffer disciplinary actions for negligent prosecution.


I think that is the whole point. We are supposed to hear all the presented evidence and then deliberate( if we are trying to do what the jury is supposed to do).


----------



## po boy

painterswife said:


> I am curious why it matters that there was not another round in the chamber?


Martin could have had his hand on the slide and prevented it from going back to chamber a round.


----------



## CesumPec

painterswife said:


> I don't think prosecution is disputing that Trayvon was on top when Zimmerman shot him.


so in addition to all the bad things said about GZ, you're now calling him a bottom? :shocked:


----------



## farmrbrown

painterswife said:


> I am curious why it matters that there was not another round in the chamber?


Well, from the defense point of view, it's very important. It proves #1 how close Martin was when he was shot. That virtually eliminates the assertion that Zimmerman calmly executed him, when coupled with the eyewitnesses that say Martin was on top, beating him.
#2 it agains drives home the point that this was a last resort, in fact Zimmerman waited too long. By the time he did fire, he only had one reliable shot.
A classic case of self defense.


----------



## Nevada

CesumPec said:


> correct me if I'm wrong, but none of the official charges include felonious liar. Yes?


No, but Zimmerman's defense depends on the jury believing his story. Any time one of Zimmerman's statements is exposed as untrue it hurts him. You can bet that the defense takes it seriously.


----------



## vicker

I have only heard testimony that the gun had been fired one time. The lab lady received the handgun with one clip loaded with six rounds and one loose cartridge. I assumed the lone round was ejected when LE cleared the weapon. I didn't hear testimony about a lack of the weapon to cycle another round. I didn't hear that testimony about the shirt and sweatshirt being some distance from the body either. 
I'm sorry but, thinking as a juror here, I don't believe GZ's injuries are any where close to lining up with his testimony of being beat and having his head, repeatedly, pounded on the sidewalk. I've seen people beaten about the head, and that isn't it. He looks like he got one, at the very most two punches to the face. The back of his head is barely injured at all.


----------



## CesumPec

jtbrandt said:


> Not necessarily. Maybe he limp-wristed it.


good point. I've seen it happen many times at the range by small women with a larger caliber pistol and no experience. And in this case it doesn't have to be from a weak wrist, it could simply be a poor grip due to being on his back and being beaten when the gun came out of the holster. Note: I claim no knowledge of when the gun came out, it is just a plausible explanation.


----------



## farmrbrown

[ame]http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=pictures+of+zimmerman's+head+and+face&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8[/ame]

Here's some pictures.


----------



## po boy

vicker said:


> I have only heard testimony that the gun had been fired one time. The lab lady received the handgun with one clip loaded with six rounds and one loose cartridge. I assumed the lone round was ejected when LE cleared the weapon. I didn't hear testimony about a lack of the weapon to cycle another round. I didn't hear that testimony about the shirt and sweatshirt being some distance from the body either.
> I'm sorry but, thinking as a juror here, I don't believe GZ's injuries are any where close to lining up with his testimony of being beat and having his head, repeatedly, pounded on the sidewalk. I've seen people beaten about the head, and that isn't it. He looks like he got one, at the very most two punches to the face. The back of his head is barely injured at all.


 Never been in a fight, but have bumped my head a few times and thought I was going to die. No cuts, just a small knot the next day. hurts like hell. I can't imagine having my head banged against a concrete walkway one time!


----------



## painterswife

farmrbrown said:


> Well, from the defense point of view, it's very important. It proves #1 how close Martin was when he was shot. That virtually eliminates the assertion that Zimmerman calmly executed him, when coupled with the eyewitnesses that say Martin was on top, beating him.
> #2 it agains drives home the point that this was a last resort, in fact Zimmerman waited too long. By the time he did fire, he only had one reliable shot.
> A classic case of self defense.


The prosecution has already said and has given evidence that they were fighting and they have not denied that Zimmerman shot when they were fighting. Both your points are not part of the prosecutions case.


----------



## CesumPec

farmrbrown said:


> http://www.google.com/search?client...f+zimmerman's+head+and+face&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
> 
> Here's some pictures.


wow! I had not seen that photo of the smashed nose. If i was a juror, that would nail it for me that GZ was in fear of his life baring some crazy scenario like someone could show GZ smashed his own face afterwards to create a defense. Since I haven't heard of anything approaching that, then now you need to convince me as a juror that GZ was not the aggressor. I'm still undecided on that issue but i've made no effort to preview the evidence on that matter.


----------



## painterswife

CesumPec said:


> wow! I had not seen that photo of the smashed nose. If i was a juror, that would nail it for me that GZ was in fear of his life baring some crazy scenario like someone could show GZ smashed his own face afterwards to create a defense. Since I haven't heard of anything approaching that, then now you need to convince me as a juror that GZ was not the aggressor. I'm still undecided on that issue but i've made no effort to preview the evidence on that matter.


Dr Roa said the smashed nose was not serious. She said the swelling was almost gone the next day. She basically minimized the injuries as minor and not life threatening.


----------



## Nevada

CesumPec said:


> If i was a juror, that would nail it for me that GZ was in fear of his life baring some crazy scenario like someone could show GZ smashed his own face afterwards to create a defense.


Do you think Martin was afraid for his life?


----------



## po boy

Nevada said:


> Do you think Martin was afraid for his life?


 No. If he was he would have gone home.


----------



## Darren

vicker said:


> I have only heard testimony that the gun had been fired one time. The lab lady received the handgun with one clip loaded with six rounds and one loose cartridge. I assumed the lone round was ejected when LE cleared the weapon. I didn't hear testimony about a lack of the weapon to cycle another round. I didn't hear that testimony about the shirt and sweatshirt being some distance from the body either.
> I'm sorry but, thinking as a juror here, I don't believe GZ's injuries are any where close to lining up with his testimony of being beat and having his head, repeatedly, pounded on the sidewalk. I've seen people beaten about the head, and that isn't it. He looks like he got one, at the very most two punches to the face. The back of his head is barely injured at all.


Zimmerman had two black eyes, a broken nose, cuts on the back of the head plus a minor back injury. We have no idea what Martin was saying as he beat Zimmerman. Was that in the police interview of Zimmerman?

If you were a witness to a beating like that would you try and help or just call 911? If one of the witnesses had gotten involved perhaps Zimmerman wouldn't have felt he had no choice.

Everything happened in a very short time starting with Martin confronting Zimmerman from behind, knocking Zimmerman down, beating him as he laid on the ground and then getting killed with one shot.

It's telling that Zimmerman didn't try to pump Martin full of lead. Unlike Martin, it appears Zimmerman reacted from desperation and not rage.


----------



## farmrbrown

painterswife said:


> The prosecution has already said and has given evidence that they were fighting and they have not denied that Zimmerman shot when they were fighting. Both your points are not part of the prosecutions case.



That's correct.
They are important points to the *defense*.

You asked about why the gun malfunction (another round not chambered) mattered, and I explained that it was very important.


----------



## Darren

painterswife said:


> Dr Roa said the smashed nose was not serious. She said the swelling was almost gone the next day. She basically minimized the injuries as minor and not life threatening.


While the injuries were evaluated as not serious after the fact, put yourself in Zimmermans place. You're getting punched in the face after getting knocked down with your assailant trying to stop you from calling for help with one hand over your mouth and nose and with blood probably going down you throat. I doubt there was any pain at that point, but having someone try to close off your mouth and nose in that instance had to be disturbing at the very least.

What do you think Martin was saying to Zimmerman as he beat him? 

Sorry to beat the hell out of you homie but you disrespected me by looking at me and following me. I'll stop once the adrenaline subsides. I promise not to kill or severely injure you?


----------



## painterswife

Darren said:


> While the injuries were evaluated as not serious after the fact, put yourself in Zimmermans place. You're getting punched in the face after getting knocked down with your assailant trying to stop you from calling for help with one hand over your mouth and nose and with blood probably going down you throat. I doubt there was any pain at that point, but having someone try to close off your mouth and nose in that instance had to be disturbing at the very least.
> 
> What do you think Martin was saying to Zimmerman as he beat him?
> 
> Sorry to beat the hell out of you homie but you disrespected me by looking at me and following me. I'll stop once the adrenaline subsides. I promise not to kill or severely injure you?


Sorry but I have yet to see any evidence that it happened like you described. Zimmerman may say it did but I need to hear all the evidence because I don't trust his judgement as he got out of his vehicle when he should not have.


----------



## farmrbrown

Well there are 6 women seeing the evidence down in Florida. I wondered at first how wise that was for the defense. But knowing the self defense laws do not require "everyone else" to agree with you about your own thoughts while taking a beating, only that YOU think your life in danger, a women's point of view may not be a bad thing.
Think about it.
Think about it terms of how severe a rape is. Does it have to be accompanied by a *severe* beating, or is just having a little sex make it ok?
Is it still a traumatic event for the victim evoking fear, or can we minimize it by looking at how bad the damage really was?


----------



## Lazaryss

Nevada said:


> Zimmerman still followed Martin against police dispatcher recommendation. That's the one thing the defense hasn't been able to shake. That could cause the jury to consider Zimmerman to be the aggressor.
> 
> The thing you keep forgetting about is Martin's right to defend himself. If Martin believed he was being followed by someone who might do him harm, which was evidently true, then Martin had justification to defend himself. The jury could look at this case that way.


So if someone is following you, do you have the legal right to beat the hell out of them? I haven't seen that law. Can you show it to me?


----------



## Nevada

Lazaryss said:


> So if someone is following you, do you have the legal right to beat the hell out of them? I haven't seen that law. Can you show it to me?


Why does Zimmerman have any more right to defend himself that Martin?


----------



## Lazaryss

Nevada said:


> Do you think Martin was afraid for his life?


No. I do not.


----------



## Lazaryss

Nevada said:


> Why does Zimmerman have any more right to defend himself that Martin.


If Martin attacked Zimmerman, Zimmerman has every right to defend himself. Zimmerman following Martin does not give Martin the right to attack Zimmerman.


----------



## farmrbrown

Nevada said:


> Why does Zimmerman have any more right to defend himself that Martin?


He DID have the right........but apparently, not the ability.


----------



## Nevada

Lazaryss said:


> No. I do not.


I imagine a 17 year-old boy believing he was being stalked by a "cracker." I can't say for sure who started the fight, but either way Martin had to be plenty scared.


----------



## Darren

painterswife said:


> *You are assuming facts not in evidence at this time.* We only have Zimmerman's version of the story and the prosecution is working to put holes in that. I know several of the posters here seem to think that Zimmerman's word is gold but that has not be proven. They have proven that there are some holes.


There's nothing to indicate that Zimmerman understood how lucky he was wtth one and only one shot. He said nothing about trying to shoot Martin twice. He simple admitted that he was the shooter and told the LEO he was armed. He complied with all of the LEO's commands. Following the shooting he did everything right from the point of arriving law enforcement. He didn't have the gun out brandishing it.

He was not enraged contrary to the folks that would have you believe Zimmerman was a racist that stalked and shot Martin. Zimmerman didn't pull the gun out and go hunting for Martin. He did everything correctly from a CCW requirement point of view.

Until the police arrived he retained control of the gun by reholstering and concealing it. He didn't lay it on the ground. Then when the first policeman arrived he immediaely informed the officer he was armed.

All of Zimmerman's reactions and statements are part of the reports and testimony. Many firearms instructors tell you to shoot the assailant more than once to make sure they're incapacitated. Why didn't Zimmerman?

He shot Martin once and did not know that Martin was dead.


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> I imagine a 17 year-old boy believing he was being stalked by a "cracker." I can't say for sure who started the fight, but either way Martin had to be plenty scared.


*If Martin was scared he would have gotten his butt back to the townhouse where he was staying PDQ. That did not happen.* If you read Martin's social media posts, it's quite understandable why Martin ended up on top of Martin trying to shut him up while beating him.

The kid had already put a story out there about taking a swing at a bus driver. The kid was like many kids, he wanted to impress his peers. What better way that beating the crap out of a creepy cracker? What better way to impress a girl than getting back at a creepy cracker for disrespecting you? Kids a that age have no sense of mortality. 

Rather than serving as a lesson to other kids, Crump phonied him up as a martyr going for the big bucks. He already got the home owners' insurance company to cough up the cash.

IMNSHO, Trayvon Martin is not a martyr.


----------



## Lazaryss

Nevada said:


> I imagine a 17 year-old boy believing he was being stalked by a "cracker." I can't say for sure who started the fight, but either way Martin had to be plenty scared.


Then why did he choose to confront Zimmerman? If he has scared by the cracker, why did he not get to his destination and close the door? Why did he not call the police?


----------



## Darren

Lazaryss said:


> Then why did he choose to confront Zimmerman? If he has scared by the cracker, why did he not get to his destination and close the door? Why did he not call the police?


That is the one single point that can't be explained given the attack on Zimmerman. Martin wasn't scared. He was a tough guy. He was going to give the creepy cracker a beat down and then brag about it to the friends his mother was trying to keep him away from.

The gangsta wannabe learned too late that life is fragile. Unfortunately the good that could have come from Martin's death has been buried by an avaricious lawyer, a couple of media suckup race baiters and a state that feels that Zimmerman must pay for another's sins because the assailant couldn't do any wrong.


----------



## Nevada

Darren said:


> IMNSHO, Trayvon Martin is not a martyr.


I never considered Martin to be a martyr. I consider him to be a victim.


----------



## Nevada

Lazaryss said:


> Why did he not call the police?


You really don't know why a young black man wouldn't call the police?


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> I never considered Martin to be a martyr. I consider him to be a victim.


Martin wasn't a victim to start with. The word victim implies not contributing to the final result. He was the recipient of old fashioned street justice. He could have stopped the beating and gotten off Zimmerman and he would have gotten off with a battery charge.

If he had been scared of the creepy cracker he would have taken the Skittles and tea home to the other kid and gone back to watching the game. But no, Martin had to try and score some points with his friends. 

Crump was the one who sanctified and portrayed Martin as a martyr.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> You really don't know why a young black man wouldn't call the police?


He wasn't afraid enough to call the police OR to just keep going when he had the chance.
He WANTED to confront Zimmerman, or he wouldn't have turned around to follow Zimmerman:



> Testifying in the Geoge Zimmerman trial, prosecution witnessRachel Jeantel, 19, who says she was on the phone with Trayvon Martin before he was shot, explained that Martin told her that a âcreepy ass crackerâ was following him.
> 
> According to Jeantel, Martin was worried that Zimmerman was a rapist, and said to âstop playing with him like that.â
> 
> He also told Jeantel, she said, that *the ân----- is now following him.â*


http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/zimmerman-witness-gets-twitter-scrub-748092


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> He WANTED to confront Zimmerman, or he wouldn't have turned around.


Maybe he didn't. Maybe Zimmerman confronted him.


----------



## Lazaryss

Nevada said:


> You really don't know why a young black man wouldn't call the police?


Really? No, I don't.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> Maybe he didn't. Maybe Zimmerman confronted him.


 There's *no doubt* he turned around, because he was already ahead when Zimmerman started back to his truck

His "girlfriend " told a different story, but feel free to show your EVIDENCE that Zimmerman confronted him first



> He also told Jeantel, she said, that *the ân----- is now following him.â
> *





http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/zimmerman-witness-gets-twitter-scrub-748092


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> Maybe he didn't. Maybe Zimmerman confronted him.


You keep forgetting about the recordng of the call to the dispatcher. Zimmerman didn't do any confronting until he got the KelTec out of the holster. At that point Saint Trayvon was out of time and his so-called girl friend would refer him to as "That kid." when discussing his death. The sad part is he was nothing to her. She didn't call the police. His father wasn't worried enough to check the 711 to see if Martin made it to the store.

The father said he figured Martin either went to the movies on less than five dollars when he knew he was supposed to buy something at the 711 or he called his friends around 7:00 pm to drive all the way from Orlando to Sandord to pick him up. That's is plain out lame. None of it fits the facts.

The father was probably hoping Martin wasn't going to get his ex ----ed at him by getting into more trouble.


----------



## vicker

T


Darren said:


> Zimmerman had two black eyes, a broken nose, cuts on the back of the head plus a minor back injury. We have no idea what Martin was saying as he beat Zimmerman. Was that in the police interview of Zimmerman?
> 
> If you were a witness to a beating like that would you try and help or just call 911? If one of the witnesses had gotten involved perhaps Zimmerman wouldn't have felt he had no choice.
> 
> Everything happened in a very short time starting with Martin confronting Zimmerman from behind, knocking Zimmerman down, beating him as he laid on the ground and then getting killed with one shot.
> 
> It's telling that Zimmerman didn't try to pump Martin full of lead. Unlike Martin, it appears Zimmerman reacted from desperation and not rage.


I'm very sure that GZ'S did not have black eyes. He may have had some blackening due to that one punch in the nose, but they weren't black. He was desperate. Desperate to not let the cops arrive and find him on the bottom, bested by a kid that weighed 158lbs., a kid he outweighed by just shy of 30 lbs.


----------



## farmrbrown

Is like like saying "She was only a _little_ pregnant"?
:smack


----------



## CesumPec

painterswife said:


> Dr Roa said the smashed nose was not serious. She said the swelling was almost gone the next day. She basically minimized the injuries as minor and not life threatening.


And was Dr Roa there to assure GZ it is nothing serious at the time of the beating? A nose smashed that bad hurts and what reason would GZ have had to assume the beating would stop at that? I don't understand why you think Roa's comments are relevant.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by *painterswife*
> _Dr Roa said the smashed nose was not serious. She said the swelling was almost gone the next day. She basically minimized the injuries as minor and *not life threatening.*_


It doesn't really matter what the Dr said, and it doesn't matter if the injuries were not "life threatening"

What MATTERS is Zimmerman was in FEAR of beng *injured severely or killed*, and took action to stop the brutal attack* BEFORE* serious injuries occurred.

The Dr's testimony is more GAME PLAYING by the prosecution, because they already know the* extent* of his injuries means nothing at all, other than to prove he was indeed attacked.

Zimmerman had no obligation to LET Martin injure him* more* before stopping him


----------



## vicker

TM was 17 years and 21 days old. TM was not a strapping young buck. His height to weight was not far from being underweight. GZ was training in mixed martial arts several hours a week, and out weighed TM by 30 pounds (%20) and quite a few years of experience. If he wanted to defend himself, why didn't he try something other than firing his weapon? Where is the evidence of a "beating"? Where is the evidence of TM repeatedly slamming GZ's head into a concrete sidewalk? His injuries are consistent with receiving a decent punch on the nose, and a bump on the head. Maybe a couple of other *minor* blows.


----------



## katydidagain

vicker said:


> TM was 17 years and 21 days old. TM was not a strapping young buck. His height to weight was not far from being underweight. GZ was training in mixed martial arts several hours a week, and out weighed TM by 30 pounds (%20) and quite a few years of experience. If he wanted to defend himself, why didn't he try something other than firing his weapon? Where is the evidence of a "beating"? Where is the evidence of TM repeatedly slamming GZ's head into a concrete sidewalk? His injuries are consistent with receiving a decent punch on the nose, and a bump on the head. Maybe a couple of other *minor* blows.


GZ was described as being obese by a medical person. Fat man has years of "experience? Yet he's still obese? Doesn't sound like he's serious about training to me--he may know some stuff but can he perform? Really?. Teenaged boy vs fat man? I'm not fat but have been clocked by an 18 year old "boy"....it's not fun...it's scary how much power they have.


----------



## vicker

Sumo wrestlers are obese too. I know triathlon athletes who are medically classified as obese. Zimmerman had been training.


----------



## vicker

Heck, I'm obese, but when my 19 yo old nephew challenged me, in a not so nice way, I grounded him in less than 10 seconds and kissed him on the lips. I didn't even have to shoot him.  or bump his head.


----------



## katydidagain

vicker said:


> Sumo wrestlers are obese too. I know triathlon athletes who are medically classified as obese. Zimmerman had been training.


And what makes you think the kid hadn't honed his skills? Look at GZ in the courtroom...I have...he looks like a pasty out of shape wannabee. I'm not defending anyone because I wasn't there but I don't think a kiss on the lips would have solved this matter.


----------



## vicker

We agree. GZ has also added 100 lbs. (I think that is right)
ETA: I was close  110lbs
http://www.hlntv.com/video/2013/06/07/whats-behind-george-zimmermans-weight-gain


----------



## katydidagain

vicker said:


> We agree. GZ has also added 100 lbs. (I think that is right)
> ETA: I was close  110lbs
> http://www.hlntv.com/video/2013/06/07/whats-behind-george-zimmermans-weight-gain


He may be yet fatter now but the medical testimony described him as obese THEN. The trial isn't on daily here but was in Cocoa when I was there Friday and he was called obese THEN. I guess now he could have just sat on the kid instead of shooting him. (Again, I have no opinion on the case--I wasn't there!)


----------



## vicker

We've covered all of that.


----------



## katydidagain

I keep thinking of a song about a fat man in a bathtub....not appropriate to this discussion. Night.


----------



## vicker

Lol! I'm sure it would be funny. 
Anyway, at least we'll soon have some new options. 
View attachment 11947


----------



## katydidagain

Heavens, if you want an old lady to comment on "pictures" you post, you need to make them bigger.


----------



## davel745

I cant see them either


----------



## mmoetc

katydidagain said:


> I keep thinking of a song about a fat man in a bathtub....not appropriate to this discussion. Night.


Love me some Little Feat.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Nevada said:


> Zimmerman has more to worry about that just convincing the jury he feared for his life when he fired the shot. They are also going to consider that he was following Martin, which in itself might be considered aggression.


 Here, again, I think you're wrong. No cause for a beating.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Nevada said:


> Zimmerman still followed Martin against police dispatcher recommendation. That's the one thing the defense hasn't been able to shake. That could cause the jury to consider Zimmerman to be the aggressor.
> 
> The thing you keep forgetting about is Martin's right to defend himself. If Martin believed he was being followed by someone who might do him harm, which was evidently true, then Martin had justification to defend himself. The jury could look at this case that way.


 Where do you get the idea that Martin has the right to beat GZ so visously? No marks on Martin from Z. You CANNOT justify beating someone like that for being in the neighborhood w/you, following or not.


----------



## MJsLady

When some one is following a normal person, the normal person's first thought is get to safety. Not turn and hit them.
The turn and hit them response was called when I was a kid, looking for trouble.


----------



## mmoetc

MJsLady said:


> When some one is following a normal person, the normal person's first thought is get to safety. Not turn and hit them.
> The turn and hit them response was called when I was a kid, looking for trouble.


Or looked at another way, trouble was following him around.


----------



## davel745

I am afraid Zimmerman is in trouble the judge is very predigest against GZ. All her rulings have been against the defense. I feel that it wont matter what is presented by the defense. She will instruct the jury to return a manslaughter verdict. I don't think he will be acquitted. Lord please prove me wrong again.


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> Sorry but I have yet to see any evidence that it happened like you described. Zimmerman may say it did but I need to hear all the evidence because I don't trust his judgement as he got out of his vehicle when he should not have.


 In his own neighborhood, he was NOT supposed to get out of his vehicle? Are you serious? This deserves a beating like you see in those pics? 
So just how do you think GZ got to lookin' like that? How long would you have laid there w/o defending yourself? Really.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Lazaryss said:


> So if someone is following you, do you have the legal right to beat the hell out of them? I haven't seen that law. Can you show it to me?


----------



## Tricky Grama

Darren said:


> *If Martin was scared he would have gotten his butt back to the townhouse where he was staying PDQ. That did not happen.* If you read Martin's social media posts, it's quite understandable why Martin ended up on top of Martin trying to shut him up while beating him.
> 
> The kid had already put a story out there about taking a swing at a bus driver. The kid was like many kids, he wanted to impress his peers. What better way that beating the crap out of a creepy cracker? What better way to impress a girl than getting back at a creepy cracker for disrespecting you? Kids a that age have no sense of mortality.
> 
> Rather than serving as a lesson to other kids, Crump phonied him up as a martyr going for the big bucks. He already got the home owners' insurance company to cough up the cash.
> 
> IMNSHO, Trayvon Martin is not a martyr.












By all reports of Martin, he wasn't afraid of anything. Not of anything.


----------



## Old John

farmrbrown said:


> It shows when some know about firearms and some don't, doesn't it?
> 
> For those that don't, as the prosecution outlined in it's opening statements, Martin was so close, that there was zero distance between him and the muzzle of the gun. That is one of the few things that will cause the slide not to have enough recoil to chamber the next round.


One of the problems with those Keltek firearms is that they are light in weight. If you don't grip them properly, i.e., firmly or "limp-wrist" them they will not cycle properly. My DSWife has a couple. And, they require a bit of practice to get use to. Or, you'll get failure to completely cycle.
They work fine, after you get use to them.


----------



## Hollowdweller

Lazaryss said:


> Then why did he choose to confront Zimmerman? If he has scared by the cracker, why did he not get to his destination and close the door? Why did he not call the police?


 
A black guy call the police because he's being followed by a white guy?:hysterical:

Yeah they'd have shown right up:cowboy:


I don't think he WAS scared by Zimmerman since apparently he approached Zimmermans car and Zimmerman rolled the window up.


----------



## Darren

vicker said:


> T
> 
> I'm very sure that GZ'S did not have black eyes. He may have had some blackening due to that one punch in the nose, but they weren't black. He was desperate. Desperate to not let the cops arrive and find him on the bottom, bested by a kid that weighed 158lbs., a kid he outweighed by just shy of 30 lbs.


BTW, the physician's assistant that actually examined Zimmerman testified to the black eyes. I take her word and testimony over opinion.

Don't forget that Trayvon's father, before Crump beatified Trayvon, told the police that it wasn't his son screaming on the tape. If Zimmerman was desparate not to be seen on the bottom he wouldn't have been screaming for help.

Before he finally pulled the KelTec out, two witnesses had seemingly abandoned him and the police were no-shows. 

Vicker, have you read about the knock out game in the news.


----------



## Darren

painterswife said:


> Dr Roa said the smashed nose was not serious. She said the swelling was almost gone the next day. She basically minimized the injuries as minor and not life threatening.


Dr Rao doesn't have skeletons in the closet, a closet is too small to hold all of them. Why do you thing the prosecution called Rao instead of the medical examiner that did the autopsy?

Apparently Dr. Rao's chief ability is slanting testimony. She was hired by Corey when no once else would hire her due to her history. She also has some current issues.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/03/m...ries-insignificant-no-stranger-to-controversy


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> In his own neighborhood, he was NOT supposed to get out of his vehicle? Are you serious? This deserves a beating like you see in those pics?
> So just how do you think GZ got to lookin' like that? How long would you have laid there w/o defending yourself? Really.


You quote my post but you are not discussing what I actually said but instead going on to your suppositions. I feel not need to debate something I never said.


----------



## painterswife

Darren said:


> Dr Rao doesn't have skeletons in the closet, a closet is too small to hold all of them. Why do you thing the prosecution called Rao instead of the medical examiner that did the autopsy?
> 
> Apparently Dr. Rao's chief ability is slanting testimony. She was hired by Corey when no once else would hire her due to her history. She also has some current issues.
> 
> http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/03/m...ries-insignificant-no-stranger-to-controversy


They have called the medical examiner so I don't see the point of this post.


----------



## partndn

Been following not all, but when I can. 
I'm trying hard to hear what is presented without my previous impression slanting what is given in testimony.

1. I think the judge seems to favor the prosecution for sure. So much so, that I believe if he is convicted, GZ would have reason for mistrial or appeal.

2. Now we have Dr. Rao and Dr. Bao. Geez. How coincidental, just odd. LOL

3. I believe everyone knows the DA would never had pursued this without the media hyping before charges were brought. That doesn't mean guilty or innocent, just that it's very demonstrative of the power of the media. Since I haven't seen anything to discredit that DA specifically, you have to ask why charges are deserved based on publicity if they are not deserved by normal processes.

4. I doubt any of us will ever really know the degree of guilt, if any, GZ should bear, even when this is all over. 

Just for fun.. if I put myself in GZ's position, and take what all he has said for truth, I would feel that I'm not sorry I did what I thought necessary at the time, but I would deeply wish the kid had not died. I wonder if that happened, we would be looking at a lawsuit by TM against GZ, and would have to decide who to believe between the two. Just interesting thought.


----------



## partndn

My gosh this Dr. Bao is incredibly annoying.


----------



## Lazaryss

Hollowdweller said:


> A black guy call the police because he's being followed by a white guy?:hysterical:
> 
> Yeah they'd have shown right up:cowboy:


Sorry but this isn't the 1950s anymore.


----------



## TheMartianChick

We've been watching quite a bit of the case, though we have missed some of the testimony. One thing that stands out to me is that everyone seems to assume that Zimmerman's account of the beginning of the altercation is accurate. Trayvon Martin isn't here to be able to weigh in on his side of the story and barring some surprise witness who watched it all wearing night vision goggles, we'll never have another perspective on the story.

ADMITTED PURE D SPECULATION FOLLOWS:

I was watching Headline News' coverage of the case and they have a mock jury set up each night to answer a different question.One of the jurors has a degree in criminal justice and she pointed out that she doesn't know of anyone who only speaks of a gun as a firearm. She felt that Zimmerman was a cop wannabe. Her opinion spurred a conversation in my household.

We could picture another scenario based upon the language and actions of George Zimmerman that night. GZ repeatedly referred to Trayvon as being a suspect in a written statement (as a police officer might do). He also only refers to his gun as his firearm ( as a police officer might do in a report). Those two things struck me as being odd from the beginning and I have continually wanted to know what Trayvon was suspected of. We know that GZ got out of his truck with a flashlight (as a police officer might do). 

GZ claims ( in the video re-enactment)that he went looking for an address to give to police officers/dispatch, but there was a number on the townhouse visible in the video. There was no need to go looking for one. That coupled with the fact that GZ couldn't remember the name of all 3 streets in his subdivision, make that portion of his story less than credible.

What if Zimmerman did something else that a police officer might do? What if he decided to continue following Trayvon, but with his hand on his pistol? Anytime that I've seen an officer go into a dark area, they put one hand on the pistol because they don't know what might be lurking in the dark.

What if he confronted Trayvon in the dark and things went badly from there?Confronting Trayvon is something else that a police officer would do.

Also...HLN has a crime scene re-creation set. When they go through the various stories that GZ has given, Trayvon's body never ends up where he was actually found. I would try to explain it better than that, but I can't figure out how to put it into words. Has anyone else been watching HLN After Dark to know what I am speaking about?


----------



## vicker

I've tried to watch some the talking head debates, but can't stand seeing everyone trying to out talk each other. I did see that show with the mock jury once. They do have a nice mock up of the neighborhood.


----------



## Darren

painterswife said:


> They have called the medical examiner so I don't see the point of this post.


Neither medical examiner saw Zimmerman after the incident. The ploy is to use their supposed medical expertise to sway the jury. We all know of people who have survived horiffic accidents without injury while ohers died in much less extreme incidents.

At that time of the year it was dark at that time and overcast and possibly raining. Put yourself in Zimmerman's place. He was knocked down by an unknown assailant who then climbed on and proceeded to beat him. Martin had his hand over his mouth and nose.

What do you think Martin was saying to Zimmerman as he beat him, "Hello, my name is Trayvon. SMACK. I just went to the store for some Skittles and tea. SMACK. What's your name? SMACK. Please don't call for help. SMACK. I'm not going to hurt you. SMACK.".

Do you honestly think Martin beat Zimmerman, the creepy cracker, in silence? Turned out, to the media's horror, Zimmerman wsn't a cracker.


----------



## painterswife

Darren said:


> Neither medical examiner saw Zimmerman after the incident. The ploy is to use their supposed medical expertise to sway the jury. We all know of people who have survived horiffic accidents without injury while ohers died in much less extreme incidents.
> 
> At that time of the year it was dark at that time and overcast and possibly raining. Put yourself in Zimmerman's place. He was knocked down by an unknown assailant who then climbed on and proceeded to beat him. Martin had his hand over his mouth and nose.
> 
> What do you think Martin was saying to Zimmerman as he beat him, "Hello, my name is Trayvon. SMACK. I just went to the store for some Skittles and tea. SMACK. What's your name? SMACK. Please don't call for help. SMACK. I'm not going to hurt you. SMACK.".
> 
> Do you honestly think Martin beat Zimmerman, the creepy cracker, in silence? Turned out, to the media's horror, Zimmerman wsn't a cracker.


You are speculating. I am not. I am listening to the evidence presented. Your speculation means nothing to the truth as mine would not. Our legal system only allows deliberation on the evidence presented in court. I am discussing the court case not what people who have not seen the evidences think or speculate happened.


----------



## Nevada

Lazaryss said:


> Sorry but this isn't the 1950s anymore.


No, but it's still a reality today that a black man will fear the police. They don't feel that they will get fair treatment from the police. They may be right too, judging by the disproportionate number of blacks behind bars.

Blacks see the police arrive, then somehow a black man ends-up in handcuffs and taken away. The perception is that the police often bring more trouble then they cure.

I think there was zero chance Martin would have called the police for help.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> One thing that stands out to me is that everyone seems to assume that Zimmerman's account of the beginning of the altercation is accurate.


All the *evidence* presented backs his story.
No one is "assuming" anything


----------



## Nevada

Darren said:


> The ploy is to use their supposed medical expertise to sway the jury.


Why is that a problem?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I think there was zero chance Martin would have called the police for help.


That's because he wasn't "afraid"
He had already escaped, so all lhe needed to do was keep walking towards home.

He CHOSE to turn around to confront Zimmerman


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> Why is that a problem?


Because the severity of his imjuries have nothing to do with whether or not he could defend himself
They are just trying to confuse the gullible


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> Because the severity of his imjuries have nothing to do with whether or not he could defend himself
> They are just trying to confuse the gullible


Isn't that what lawyers do?

But either way, I don't see the problem with presenting expert testimony.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Isn't that what lawyers do?
> 
> But either way, I don't see the problem with presenting expert testimony


It's what DISHONEST lawyers do.
"Expert testimony" about *irrelevent *topics is disingenuous, but if *misrepresentation* is your best case............


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> Why is that a problem?


 Anytime you take advanage of human psychology to get folks to do something they might not otherwise is fraudulant. The entire field of marketing is based on it. So are celebrity endorsements. Picking a medical examiner that the boss hired when no one else would, who is obviously indebted to Angela Corey and who slanted testimony in the past is especially suspect when she's screwed up so many times in the past.

Rao will say exactly what Corey wants and the way Corey wants it said. You have to wonder why Corey felt the need to have two medical examiners testify. Neither one is qualified to discuss Zimmerman's injuries except in a general way. They can say nothing definite. On the other hand the physicians assistant who did examine Zimmerman personally was qualified to testify on the nature of his injuries.

I didn't believe the ads with Muhammed Ali pushing auto parts. Especially not the taxi tested tough part. The prosecutor is playing on emotions. So was Crump when he launched this charade. Crump used tactics straight out of marketing 101. Why would a lawyer hire a publicist?

I'm beyond thrilled that Crump will have to testify. I'm hoping O'Mara gets him disbarred.


----------



## TheMartianChick

Nevada said:


> No, but it's still a reality today that a black man will fear the police. They don't feel that they will get fair treatment from the police. They may be right too, judging by the disproportionate number of blacks behind bars.
> 
> Blacks see the police arrive, then somehow a black man ends-up in handcuffs and taken away. The perception is that the police often bring more trouble then they cure.
> 
> I think there was zero chance Martin would have called the police for help.


To go further along this vein, we are often pulled over for no reason. Some of you have heard some of the stories of things that my family has gone through at the hands of police, but I don't hesitate to call them. 

Despite our police experiences, I still have a pretty good relationship with our city law enforcement but it has taken a lot of effort on my part to keep things that way. If I were not involved in a lot of community activities and loosely affiliated with local government, I would imagine that I would hesitate before calling the police. 

My husband will also call the police, but he prefers not to interact with them because he is treated differently than I am. In many ways, a black man is viewed as being the suspect even when he made the phone call. One daughter wants no interaction with the police due to her experiences and the other would probably call the police if she needed help for something. My children's black friends all have horrible stories about their police encounters while doing mundane things.


----------



## TheMartianChick

HLN is showing a piece now called Was Zimmerman "Playing Cop"? This is one of the pieces that I was talking about on HLN.


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's what DISHONEST lawyers do.


Not so fast. Zimmerman's lawyers presented expert testimony to dispute voice recognition technology.


----------



## mmoetc

partndn said:


> Been following not all, but when I can.
> I'm trying hard to hear what is presented without my previous impression slanting what is given in testimony.
> 
> 1. I think the judge seems to favor the prosecution for sure. So much so, that I believe if he is convicted, GZ would have reason for mistrial or appeal.
> 
> 2. Now we have Dr. Rao and Dr. Bao. Geez. How coincidental, just odd. LOL
> 
> 3. I believe everyone knows the DA would never had pursued this without the media hyping before charges were brought. That doesn't mean guilty or innocent, just that it's very demonstrative of the power of the media. Since I haven't seen anything to discredit that DA specifically, you have to ask why charges are deserved based on publicity if they are not deserved by normal processes.
> 
> 4. I doubt any of us will ever really know the degree of guilt, if any, GZ should bear, even when this is all over.
> 
> Just for fun.. if I put myself in GZ's position, and take what all he has said for truth, I would feel that I'm not sorry I did what I thought necessary at the time, but I would deeply wish the kid had not died. I wonder if that happened, we would be looking at a lawsuit by TM against GZ, and would have to decide who to believe between the two. Just interesting thought.


You're probably correct that charges wouldn't have been brought without outside pressure but the politics of that work both ways. It is equally conceivable that the prosecutors office didn't want to pursue charges because they felt Zimmerman was in the right, but because they didn't think they could win. Prosecutors can be political animals. A good won-lost record helps in getting that judgeship or political office so most won't prosecute cases they don't think they can win. And this case is a tough win especially with no physical evidence to refute Zimmerman's account. Of course there's also no evidence to support much of Zimmerman's account either.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Not so fast. Zimmerman's lawyers presented expert testimony to dispute *voice recognition technology*.


That's never been allowed in court anyway, so that too is irrelevent.
The only recording was over the phone, and could hardly be conclusive

Just more smoke and mirrors to make up for the State's lack of REAL proof of any crime


----------



## Darren

mmoetc said:


> You're probably correct that charges wouldn't have been brought without outside pressure but the politics of that work both ways. It is equally conceivable that the prosecutors office didn't want to pursue charges because they felt Zimmerman was in the right, but because they didn't think they could win. Prosecutors can be political animals. A good won-lost record helps in getting that judgeship or political office so most won't prosecute cases they don't think they can win. And this case is a tough win especially with no physical evidence to refute Zimmerman's account. Of course there's also no evidence to support much of Zimmerman's account either.


I would disagree especially after the grilling Zimmerman got that night and the fact he passed the lie detector test. The investigators tried to trip Zimmerman up by challenge interviewing while they held him for hours.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Of course there's also *no evidence to support much of Zimmerman's account* either.


*All *the evidence including eyewitnesses, support his version of events.
Zimmerman doesn't have to "prove" anything at all.

That burden is on the State


----------



## Nevada

partndn said:


> My gosh this Dr. Bao is incredibly annoying.


I'm not sure where this guy is coming from. Expert testimony is normally pretty straightforward, but he seems to want to tell his own story in his own way. He's even being abrasive to the judge. This isn't typical of a professional witness like a ME.

Maybe West can figure this guy out during cross examination.


----------



## mmoetc

Bearfootfarm said:


> *All *the evidence including eyewitnesses, support his version of events.
> Zimmerman doesn't have to "prove" anything at all.
> 
> That burden is on the State


Thanks for making my point. The eyewitnesses only viewed the altercation after it was on the ground. How it got there we have only Zimmerman's word.


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> *All *the evidence including eyewitnesses, support his version of events.
> Zimmerman doesn't have to "prove" anything at all.
> 
> That burden is on the State


That's simply not true. His girlfriend's testimony challenges Zimmerman's story.


----------



## painterswife

Bearfootfarm said:


> *All *the evidence including eyewitnesses, support his version of events.
> Zimmerman doesn't have to "prove" anything at all.
> 
> That burden is on the State


That is your opinion and as you are not on the jury, your opinion is not relevant. Now I expect next you will ask me for proof or evidence. I don't need to provide either to you. The only people who require it are the jury and I am sure you are not on the jury.


----------



## Hollowdweller

Bearfootfarm said:


> All the *evidence* presented backs his story.
> No one is "assuming" anything


 


> Put yourself in Zimmerman's place. He was knocked down by an unknown assailant who then climbed on and proceeded to beat him. Martin had his hand over his mouth and nose.


This statement assumes that Zimmermans account of the encounter is true. 

It may very well BE true but to then go on and speculate off of something that is not truly proven is assuming.


----------



## dixiegal62

I don't understand how this ME is even capable of holding on to his job.


----------



## Txsteader

davel745 said:


> I am afraid Zimmerman is in trouble the judge is very predigest against GZ. All her rulings have been against the defense. I feel that it wont matter what is presented by the defense. She will instruct the jury to return a manslaughter verdict. I don't think he will be acquitted. Lord please prove me wrong again.


Frankly, I don't see how Zimmerman can get a fair trial anywhere in this country after POTUS tainted the case on national TV.


----------



## watcher

davel745 said:


> We were taught 15 feet and they can move in on you in less than a second. We were told to have your gun out and issue a warning at about 15 to 20 feet and if they don't stop to do two center mass and one to the head. It sounds harsh but that is what they taught. Ask any police officer what they were taught.


Might have changed but back in the stone age it was taught someone could close 21 feet and inflect a fatal blow with a contact weapon before you could draw your weapon and fire a stopping round.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> How are you so sure that Martin attacked Zimmerman?


As any lawyer will tell you: What really happened doesn't matter, all that matters is what you can PROVE.

Without the state being able to prove a lot of things they can never reach the legal standard to convict for 2nd murder.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

mmoetc said:


> Thanks for making my point. The eyewitnesses only viewed the altercation after it was on the ground. How it got there we have only Zimmerman's word.


There's still *no evidence* to support any other versions


----------



## partndn

dixiegal62 said:


> I don't understand how this ME is even capable of holding on to his job.


I don't recall ever seeing anything more frustrating than this dude.

I am ABSOLUTELY sure I do not have the control required to properly question a witness. gre: I would have konked him in the head by now, and be charged myself with assault on an idiot.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

painterswife said:


> *That is your opinion* and as you are not on the jury, your opinion is not relevant. Now I expect next you will ask me for proof or evidence. I don't need to provide either to you. The only people who require it are the jury and I am sure *you are not on the jury*.


No, its merely a statement of the facts.

Either there is evdence, or there is not, and it makes no difference who is on a jury



> as you are not on the jury, *your opinion is not relevant*.


Doesn't that apply to you also?


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> The fact that Zimmerman might have been on the bottom at one point of the fight doesn't tell us a lot. It doesn't tell how the fight got started. The fact that someone was on the losing end of a fight doesn't give him the right to use deadly force as an equalizer.


Ahh. . .wrong. If we get into an argument and I punch you in the nose and you knock me down and pick up a 2X4 and start to swing it at my head I have the right to use deadly force to protect myself.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> That's simply not true. His girlfriend's testimony challenges Zimmerman's story.


Her testimony has changed so many times she is no longer credible.
She ALSO said Martin told her HE was following Zimmerman, and the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE supports that.


----------



## partndn

You know.. if West keeps this guy on the stand long enough, the jury could become so annoyed that they don't care what he said in any portion of his testimony.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> . The fact that someone was on the losing end of a fight doesn't give him the right to use deadly force as an equalizer.


What *evidence* is there Martin was justified in attacking Zimmerman?
We KNOW he did, so what's his justification?


----------



## Nevada

dixiegal62 said:


> I don't understand how this ME is even capable of holding on to his job.


If his claim that he can't recall ANTHING is to be believed, then his testimony is pointless. They should rely solely on the ME report.


----------



## painterswife

Bearfootfarm said:


> No, its merely a statement of the facts.
> 
> Either there is evdence, or there is not, and it makes no difference who is on a jury
> 
> 
> Doesn't that apply to you also?


Yes, it applies to me as well.

You stating that, "No, its merely a statement of the facts." is mute. You are not party to the facts, all you have is what is reported on the news or internet. You have decided what you believe the facts are but in reality that makes no difference to the court case.


----------



## painterswife

Bearfootfarm said:


> What *evidence* is there Martin was justified in attacking Zimmerman?
> We KNOW he did, so what's his justification?


No we do not know that for a fact. We only have Zimmerman's statements and that has not been proven true or false.


----------



## watcher

jtbrandt said:


> The person who brought the "rule" into this discussion used a different version. He didn't mention a weapon of any kind in the other person's hand. I don't think he really meant it quite the way he said it, though.


You don't need to see a weapon only feel threatened.


----------



## partndn

Did I hear right? that the toxicology results are part of the Med Examiner's autopsy report, but that the judge will not allow the jury to know there was marijuana found in results?


----------



## Nevada

partndn said:


> Did I hear right? that the toxicology results are part of the Med Examiner's autopsy report, but that the judge will not allow the jury to know there was marijuana found in results?


Yes, Martin's drug use is not allowed to be presented to the jury. The judge ruled on that before the trial began.


----------



## mmoetc

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's still *no evidence* to support any other versions


Once again, this is why most prosecutors would have run far from this case. There is also no evidence to support that Martin threw the first punch.


----------



## dixiegal62

partndn said:


> Did I hear right? that the toxicology results are part of the Med Examiner's autopsy report, but that the judge will not allow the jury to know there was marijuana found in results?


That's the way I understood it


----------



## dixiegal62

This ME using another case to base his testimony on.. he says the cases are the same... but the other man was able to call 911 for help... but Martin wouldn't have been able to move.. Why is this man even on the stand? 

This is the first real trial I've ever watched so admittedly I don't know how this whole thing works, but is an ME usually this hostile for lack of a better word? All this back and forth and his comment awhile ago about of he remembered something about where the blood was drawn and he said "yes", then "I don't know, I don't remember".. then "You're trying to trick me" I'm having a hard time believing anything he says.


----------



## partndn

One time, M.E. even said "but his question was wrong." hilarious


----------



## CesumPec

watcher said:


> Might have changed but back in the stone age it was taught someone could close 21 feet and inflect a fatal blow with a contact weapon before you could draw your weapon and fire a stopping round.


You were taught right. 

I'm decently fast on the draw, nothing brag worthy, just faster than most. I always manage to go deep into the few competitive concealment, draw, aim, shoot exercises I've participated in. One day we set up a paper body target on a draw string at 20, 25, and 30 feet. the guy pulling the draw string was behind me. Once given a sign I could not see, the puller would start running away from me which pulled the target to me. Once I saw the target move I was free to draw and fire.

Even if I was in a good ready stance, but still concealed in strong side hip holster, I could not beat the 20 foot target; it would be touching me before i could get the gun to a safe shooting position and the paper target didn't have arms that could reach out to stab me. In some cases I might have gotten off a shot that would have hit the target in the leg or lower abdomen. But since those aren't target stopping shots and the game here is that the target is armed with a knife, I would have been stabbed in every case. 

I couldn't beet a young speedy guy at 25 feet but I could beat an over weight middle aged man. At 30 feet I could deliver a probably deadly torso shot in all cases but that didn't mean in every case I would not have also received a stab in the process.


----------



## CesumPec

davel745 said:


> We were taught 15 feet and they can move in on you in less than a second. We were told to have your gun out and issue a warning at about 15 to 20 feet and if they don't stop to do two center mass and one to the head. It sounds harsh but that is what they taught. Ask any police officer what they were taught.


That is a sure fire ticket to prison. Two center mass torso shots, yes. But you don't intentionally do the cranial ocular cavity shot unless you have reason to believe 2 torso shots failed to stop the eminent danger to you or an innocent. A shot to the hear is an execution and you don't get to make that decision without additional justification. 

Cops will go direct to a head shot but only in limited situations like multiple bad guys in a hostage situation.


----------



## unregistered353870

Nevada said:


> If his claim that he can't recall ANTHING is to be believed, then his testimony is pointless. They should rely solely on the ME report.


True, but they need a witness to question about the medical report. The report itself cannot be cross-examined. They would have been lucky if the ME had died before trial and another ME could have testified about the report.


----------



## unregistered353870

Darren said:


> Why do you thing the prosecution called Rao instead of the medical examiner that did the autopsy?


I think it's clear to everyone who has seen the testimony of the ME who did the autopsy why the prosecution did not want him testifying any more than they needed him to.


----------



## dixiegal62

never mind


----------



## unregistered353870

davel745 said:


> I am afraid Zimmerman is in trouble the judge is very predigest against GZ. *All her rulings have been against the defense.* I feel that it wont matter what is presented by the defense. She will instruct the jury to return a manslaughter verdict. I don't think he will be acquitted. Lord please prove me wrong again.


Most judges do favor the prosecution and this one is no different, but all of her rulings have NOT been against the defense. The defense has won some.


----------



## unregistered353870

watcher said:


> You don't need to see a weapon only feel threatened.


So do you agree with the poster who said Zimmerman should have shot Martin before he got close to him?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

painterswife said:


> Yes, *it applies to me as well.*
> 
> You stating that, "No, its merely a statement of the facts." is mute. *You are not party to the facts*, all you have is what is reported on the news or internet. *You have decided what you believe the facts are* but in reality that makes no difference to the court case.


The facts have been presented multiple times over the last year or so.
They haven't changed.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

painterswife said:


> No we do not know that for a fact. We only have Zimmerman's statements and that *has not been proven true or false*.


Once more, ALL the *evidence presented* backs his version.
The case can ONLY be decided on* evidence* PRESENTED.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

mmoetc said:


> Once again, this is why most prosecutors would have run far from this case. There is also no evidence to support that Martin *threw the first punch*.


There's no evidence Zimmerman threw* any* punches at all.
Martin's only injuries were to *his knuckles* and from the gunshot


----------



## Bearfootfarm

jtbrandt said:


> So do you agree with the poster who said Zimmerman should have shot Martin before he got close to him?


That's not legal without Martin being armed.
All this "20 ft rule" discussion has* nothing* to do with *self defense* for the average person in most situations, and certainly doesn't apply here


----------



## painterswife

Bearfootfarm said:


> Once more, ALL the *evidence presented* backs his version.
> The case can ONLY be decided on* evidence* PRESENTED.


In your opinion. That means the jury may believe different based on the evidence presented. In other words your opinion has no relevance to this case.


----------



## Nevada

Prosecution is going to rest when the jury is back. They've just got a few arguments before they bring the jury back in.

****Edited to Add****
O'Mara is arguing for an immediate acquittal, based on the prosecution not making their case.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

painterswife said:


> *In your opinion*. That means the jury may believe different based on the evidence presented.
> 
> No, it's how trials work. My opinion has nothing to do with it





> In other words *your opinion has no relevance to this case*


*Neither does yours*, so please give it a rest.


----------



## mmoetc

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's no evidence Zimmerman threw* any* punches at all.
> Martin's only injuries were to *his knuckles* and from the gunshot


I've seen many a punch thrown that didn't connect.


----------



## painterswife

Bearfootfarm said:


> *Neither does yours*, so please give it a rest.


I agree, neither does mine. Everything I have said in this thread in entirely my opinion and has no relevance to the outcome of this case.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

mmoetc said:


> I've seen many a punch thrown that didn't connect.


So all you have is *speculation.*
*Evidence* is all that matters now


----------



## painterswife

Bearfootfarm said:


> So all you have is *speculation.*
> *Evidence* is all that matters now


As all you have is speculation. Yes, I agree


----------



## Nevada

Nevada said:


> O'Mara is arguing for an immediate acquittal, based on the prosecution not making their case.


O'Mara is presenting case law to support immediate acquittal.


----------



## mmoetc

Bearfootfarm said:


> So all you have is *speculation.*
> *Evidence* is all that matters now


And there is no evidence as to who made the first move.


----------



## unregistered353870

Nevada said:


> O'Mara is arguing for an immediate acquittal, based on the prosecution not making their case.


That's standard procedure in most criminal trials. I'll buy you dinner in Vegas if he gets the immediate acquittal.


----------



## unregistered353870

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's not legal without Martin being armed.
> All this "20 ft rule" discussion has* nothing* to do with *self defense* for the average person in most situations, and certainly doesn't apply here


I agree that it has nothing to do with this case, but some of the keyboard cowboys have made some pretty crazy statements to that effect.


----------



## dixiegal62

Does who made the first move even matter? The way they explained Stand Your Ground earlier was, even if you're the aggressor and the tables turn and you are now the one in danger of being killed you have the right to use deadly force.


----------



## Nevada

dixiegal62 said:


> Does who made the first move even matter? The way they explained Stand Your Ground earlier was, even if you're the aggressor and the tables turn and you are now the one in danger of being killed you have the right to use deadly force.


Yes, because the law says that the defense can't be used if you put yourself in the position of being in danger.


----------



## mmoetc

dixiegal62 said:


> Does who made the first move even matter? The way they explained Stand Your Ground earlier was, even if you're the aggressor and the tables turn and you are now the one in danger of being killed you have the right to use deadly force.


And I'm sure had Martin succeeded in beating Zimmerman to death he could have argued that Zimmerman reached for his gun and he feared for his life necessitating the use of deadly force. As in war, the victor gets to write the history.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

mmoetc said:


> And there is no evidence as to who made the first move.


The evidence shows ONE made a "move"
The evidence shows Martin COULD have escaped, but CHOSE to confront Zimmerman.

He told his "girlfriend": "the n____a is folowing HIM now"


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's not legal without Martin being armed.
> All this "20 ft rule" discussion has* nothing* to do with *self defense* for the average person in most situations, and certainly doesn't apply here





jtbrandt said:


> I agree that it has nothing to do with this case, but some of the keyboard cowboys have made some pretty crazy statements to that effect.




It's true that the 21 ft. rule has little to do with this case, and that it comes from standard's training for LEO's. It is a fact though that they drill into you. A man with a knife WILL beat a man with a gun if he gets closer than 21 ft. Until you see it in a drill or real life, it's hard to believe, but very true.

The only relevance it has in Zimmerman's case is that it shows that he allowed himself to be in a position of danger that any LEO would not have allowed. The shot to Martin's chest was a contact shot. No reasonable person would conclude that Zimmerman broke his own nose, blackened his own eyes and slammed his own head on the sidewalk. It's pretty obvious who did that.

But that isn't enough for some people apparently.

OK.

So then, according to the only eyewitness alive in this case, Martin then tries for Zimmerman's gun. He didn't say he actually got it, but he was trying.....so he says. 
And if we are to presume the man innocent unless there is proof that it didn't happen that way, then we have a man who let someone get inside his safe zone, put him down, beat him and tried to get his gun........

And yet some believe he had another choice......:smack


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> Yes, because the law says that the defense *can't be used* if you put yourself in the position of being in danger.


The version posted here didn't say that at all.
Scroll back and read it slowly


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> The version posted here didn't say that at all.
> Scroll back and read it slowly


There's only one version of the 776 law.

_776.041&#8195;Use of force by aggressor.&#8212;The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who
2)&#8195;Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself
http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/776.041

_


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> There's only one version of the 776 law.
> 
> _776.041&#8195;Use of force by aggressor.âThe justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who_
> _2)&#8195;Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself_
> _http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/776.041_


LOL

Once more you've FAILED to read what it says, even though it was pointed out to you long ago in Post 414:



> The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
> 
> (1)&#8195;Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
> 
> (2)&#8195;Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, *unless:*
> 
> (a)&#8195;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)&#8195;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.


You can't just stop in the middle of a sentence, and assume everyone else will too


----------



## painterswife

I thought the defense may get an acquittal from his last argument. Now that the defense is talking, I don't believe that the trial will end here. The defense will have to prevent their case.


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> I thought the defense may get an acquittal from his last argument. Now that the defense is talking, I don't believe that the trial will end here. The defense will have to prevent their case.


 
The judge really has no choice but to keep this trial going. Can you imagine the carnage if she acquitted?


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> The judge really has no choice but to keep this trial going. Can you imagine the carnage if she acquitted?


If the defense could have made the case and the judge had gone with it, I think the carnage could be minimized. However that would require the people who like to stir things up( on both sides) to stop all the crap.


----------



## partndn

Well that was quick. (her judgement that state had presented both direct and circumstantial evidence sufficiently).

It sorta takes the integrity away from the judge's authority when you know the media attention required her to do so.


----------



## unregistered353870

Regardless of the "carnage" that might or might not happen, it is extremely rare for a judge to grant such a motion. They almost always let the jury decide.


----------



## Darren

painterswife said:


> You are speculating. I am not. I am listening to the evidence presented. Your speculation means nothing to the truth as mine would not. Our legal system only allows deliberation on the evidence presented in court. I am discussing the court case not what people who have not seen the evidences think or speculate happened.


The fact is Martin could have just gone back to the house. The fact is Zimmerman lost sight of Martin. The fact is Martin was next seen by a witness on top of Zimmerman beating him The fact is the physician's assistant who examined Zimmerman testified to his injuries. 

Sure I'm speculating that Martin ambushed Zimmerman. It's the only outcome that fits the dispatcher's tape, the layout of the buildings, Zimmerman's interview and Martin's own posts to the internet.

As much has people have tried to make Zimmerman out as a cop wannabe especially since he had a gun which btw the cops told him to buy to deal with a dog that had threatend him, his instructor blew that away by testifing he wanted to be a lawyer.

Martin on the other hand assumed the persona of a gansta by word, including photos, and deed. If you look objectively at the histories of both individuals Zimmerman comes across as the kind of person you'd want around for a friend. Martin? NOPE!

Add in Crump who planned a money making scam and Zimmerman was setup for a railroad job. If there wasn't an angle for money Crump would have never gotten involved.

It's fortunate that by the time he did get involved to go for the gold. The truth about Martin was already archived and preserved for anyone to review.


----------



## Nevada

painterswife said:


> I thought the defense may get an acquittal from his last argument.


Actually, I thought that the defense made a good argument for acquittal. Moreover, the prosecution's argument was weak. Due to the timing I was a little surprised that the judge didn't take it under consideration over the weekend. Her turning it down on the spot was a sharp denial.

I can't blame the judge for leaving this one to the jury though. I don't think any judge wants a repeat of the L.A. riots after the Rodney King verdict. There are tensions in this case too.


----------



## painterswife

Darren said:


> The fact is Martin could have just gone back to the house. The fact is Zimmerman lost sight of Martin. The fact is Martin was next seen by a witness on top of Zimmerman beating him The fact is the physician's assistant who examined Zimmerman testified to his injuries.
> 
> Sure I'm speculating that Martin ambushed Zimmerman. It's the only outcome that fits the dispatcher's tape, the layout of the buildings, Zimmerman's interview and Martin's own posts to the internet.
> 
> As much has people have tried to make Zimmerman out as a cop wannabe especially since he had a gun which btw the cops told him to buy to deal with a dog that had threatend him, his instructor blew that away by testifing he wanted to be a lawyer.
> 
> Martin on the other hand assumed the persona of a gansta by word, including photos, and deed. If you look objectively at the histories of both individuals Zimmerman comes across as the kind of person you'd want around for a friend. Martin? NOPE!
> 
> Add in Crump who planned a money making scam and Zimmerman was setup for a railroad job. If there wasn't an angle for money Crump would have never gotten involved.
> 
> It's fortunate that by the time he did get involved to go for the gold. The truth about Martin was already archived and preserved for anyone to review.


Again you are saying "the fact is'. You have no idea what what is fact and what is not. I have looked at the same evidence you have and I don't come to the same conclusions you do.


----------



## Lazaryss

Nevada said:


> Yes, Martin's drug use is not allowed to be presented to the jury. The judge ruled on that before the trial began.


That is such a joke...


----------



## unregistered353870

Nevada said:


> Actually, I thought that the defense made a good argument for acquittal. Moreover, the prosecution's argument was weak. Due to the timing I was a little surprised that the judge didn't take it under consideration over the weekend. Her turning it down on the spot was a sharp denial.


Like I said, standard procedure. Judges rarely take any time to think about such motions after oral arguments are presented. She knew the motion was coming and probably had all the written arguments and case law to read beforehand. The fact that her decision was immediate says nothing. That is how it happens nearly 100% of the time, regardless of any outside factors such as media attention or potential rioting.


----------



## davel745

watcher said:


> Might have changed but back in the stone age it was taught someone could close 21 feet and inflect a fatal blow with a contact weapon before you could draw your weapon and fire a stopping round.


Please note I said to have your gun out.


----------



## Darren

painterswife said:


> Again you are saying "the fact is'. You have no idea what what is fact and what is not. I have looked at the same evidence you have and I don't come to the same conclusions you do.


Everything I posted in the post you copied is fact. 

You can choose your opinions but you _can't choose your facts_.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Again you are saying "the fact is'. *You have no idea what what is fact* and what is not. I have looked at the same evidence you have and I don't come to the same conclusions you do.


There is only one conclusion that can be reached from the *facts presented*.
I'm not sure why you think you're "qualified" to decide what is a "fact", but no one else is


----------



## painterswife

Darren said:


> Everything I posted in the post you copied is fact.
> 
> You can choose your opinions but you _can't choose your facts_.


"Martin ambushed Zimmerman" not proven, just his word.


----------



## painterswife

Bearfootfarm said:


> There is only one conclusion that can be reached from the *facts presented*.
> I'm not sure why you think you're "qualified" to decide what is a "fact", but no one else is


You seem to think you are but others are not.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> "Martin ambushed Zimmerman" not proven, just his word


All the evdence supports is, NO evidence refutes if

THAT is a fact


----------



## Karen

Darren said:


> Everything I posted in the post you copied is fact.
> 
> You can choose your opinions but you _can't choose your facts_.


Being in the legal field and setting for years in a courtroom, I do need to correct this thought. In a trial, there are _no facts_. There is only evidence. It's how each of us interpret that evidence and then come to a conclusion (verdict) that determines our belief of guilty or innocent. 

In other words, unless you were personally at the scene and saw it all go down, there are no facts for evaluation. You only have 'evidence' to rely on. Evidence is rarely black and white. There are not only many spins on how to interpret the evidence, opinions of it, and bias. It's why it's called "Blind Justice".

I also need to remind a couple of you to please try to debate a bit nicer. It's getting rather snippy out there. :icecream:


----------



## painterswife

Karen said:


> Being in the legal field and setting for years in a courtroom, I do need to correct this thought. In a trial, there are _no facts_. There is only evidence. It's how each of us interpret that evidence and then come to a conclusion (verdict) that determines our belief of guilty or innocent.
> 
> In other words, unless you were personally at the scene and saw it all go down, there are no facts for evaluation. You only have 'evidence' to rely on. Evidence is rarely black and white. There are not only many spins on how to interpret the evidence, opinions of it, and bias. It's why it's called "Blind Justice".


My point exactly


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> . There are not only many* spins on how to interpret the evidence*, opinions of it, and bias. It's why it's called "Blind Justice".


No matter how you "spin" the evidence, it shows Zimmerman *was attacked*, and Martin could have escaped without any confrontation.


----------



## unregistered353870

painterswife said:


> "Martin ambushed Zimmerman" not proven, just his word.


To be fair, Darren did say that was speculation, not fact. The whole quote is:



Darren said:


> Sure I'm speculating that Martin ambushed Zimmerman.


----------



## mmoetc

Bearfootfarm said:


> All the evdence supports is, NO evidence refutes if
> 
> THAT is a fact


An ambush is defined as an attack from a concealed position. According to Zimmermans own account Martin was standing in front of him and they exchanged words. Hardly the classic definition of ambush.


----------



## unregistered353870

Darren said:


> The fact is Martin could have just gone back to the house. The fact is Zimmerman lost sight of Martin. The fact is Martin was next seen by a witness on top of Zimmerman beating him The fact is the physician's assistant who examined Zimmerman testified to his injuries.


Reworded more accurately:

The fact is Martin *possibly* could have just gone back to the house. The fact is Zimmerman *says he* lost sight of Martin. The fact is *a witness says* Martin was next seen by a witness on top of Zimmerman beating him The fact is the physician's assistant who examined Zimmerman testified to his injuries.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Zimmerman still *followed Martin against police dispatcher recommendation*. That's the one thing the defense hasn't been able to shake. That could cause the jury to consider Zimmerman to be the aggressor.


I can't believe you're still parroting that line when its been proven so many times that the request came AFTER he followed Martin, and that he STOPPED IMMEDIATELY upon being told.


----------



## Darren

Karen said:


> Being in the legal field and setting for years in a courtroom, I do need to correct this thought. In a trial, there are _no facts_. There is only evidence. It's how each of us interpret that evidence and then come to a conclusion (verdict) that determines our belief of guilty or innocent.
> 
> In other words, unless you were personally at the scene and saw it all go down, there are no facts for evaluation. You only have 'evidence' to rely on. Evidence is rarely black and white. There are not only many spins on how to interpret the evidence, opinions of it, and bias. It's why it's called "Blind Justice".
> 
> I also need to remind a couple of you to please try to debate a bit nicer. It's getting rather snippy out there. :icecream:


That's exactly right Since we're not part of the trial we have the ability to view everyhing including that information that the jury is not allowed to see. We can review Zimmerman's life prior to the encounter and we can review the information that Trayvon Martin chose to post on the internet. We can also chose to look at Martin's and Zimmerman's respective families.

We can look at the recordings of the statements and actions of each of the families. As I said before we can have different opinions but the facts meaning that which can be confirmed by anyone acting independently do not change.

We can ignore those facts that son;t support our opinion. So far I haven't seen anything that has changed my opinion. I see a lot of irrelevant side tracks that some consider viable. None of that is fact.

We're dealing with a black box situation. While no one except Zimmerman knows what happened and even he may have been confused by how fast things happened, there are plenty of facts to use as a basis for a sound opinion.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> An ambush is defined as an attack from a concealed position. According to Zimmermans own account Martin was standing in front of him and they exchanged words. Hardly the classic definition of *ambush*.


"Ambush" is your word. I didn't use it
Zimmerman said Martin first approached him *from behind*


----------



## Darren

mmoetc said:


> An ambush is defined as an attack from a concealed position. According to Zimmermans own account Martin was standing in front of him and they exchanged words. Hardly the classic definition of ambush.


The recording of the call to 911 shows that Zimmerman lost sight of Marin. When you look at the layout and the final position of the body that doesn't make sense (speculation) unless Martin hid behind one of the privacy screens on the patios. Zimmerman turned and went back towards his truck. Martin then appeared from behind Zimmerman. Neither the tape of the call or the testimony from Martins friend cover the start of the confrontation. The key is Martin did not go home. That was a choice.

Then somehow Zimmerman ended up on the ground (fact) with Martin pounding him (fact). In my opinion Martin would have ambushed Zimmerman if he had continued into the commons area. Zimmerman (again my opinion) was sucker punched after Martin confronted him.

There was no reason for the two to come face to face. Martin could have easily made in back to the house. So why did he end up on top of Zimmerman beating him? We have the rapist theory. Add the story that maybe Zimmerman grabbed Martin. I haven't read any stories about white guys attacking black kids on the street and raping them. There's plenty of stories of black youths attacking whites in what has been termed the knock out game.

We can quibble over word definitions. The fact remains that Martin when encouraged by his friend to just go home, did not.


----------



## mmoetc

Not my word- you quoted it as "fact " in post 675.


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> No matter how you "spin" the evidence, it shows Zimmerman *was attacked*


No, it shows he was hit, but not necessarily attacked.


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> No, it shows he was hit, but not necessarily attacked.


Are you saying someone receiving a beating is not being attacked?


----------



## mmoetc

Darren said:


> The recording of the call to 711 shows that Zimmerman lost sight of Marin. When you look at the layout and the final position of the body that doesn't make sense (speculation) unless Martin hid behind one of the privacy screens on the patios. Zimmerman turned and went back towards his truck. Martin then appeared from behind Zimmerman. Neither the tape of the call or the testimony from Martins friend cover the start of the confrontation. The key is Martin did not go home. That was a choice.
> 
> Then somehow Zimmerman ended up on the ground (fact) with Martin pounding him (fact). In my opinion Martin would have ambushed Zimmerman if he had continued into the commons area. Zimmerman (again my opinion) was sucker punched after Martin confronted him.
> 
> There was no reason for the two to come face to face. Martin could have easily made in back to the house. So why did he end up on top of Zimmerman beating him? We have the rapist theory. Add the story that maybe Zimmerman grabbed Martin. I haven't read any stories about white guys attacking black kids on the street and raping them. There's plenty of stories of black youths attacking whites in what has been termed the knock out game.
> 
> We can quibble over word definitions. The fact remains that Martin when encouraged by his friend to just go home, did not.


But they did come face to face according to Zimmerman's statement. As to why. Because you had a testosterone filled teenager with bad decision making powers( defines most of them in my experience) who was tired of being followed around for no apparent reason. Should he have, no. This is where the story can go different ways. When did Martin realize Zimmerman was armed? Did he suspect that Zimmerman was reaching for this weapon, not a cell phone as stated? Answers to this and a lot more we'll never really know. I suspect Zimmerman will go free and based on the evidence I've seen presented that will be the correct verdict. I will still have personal doubts about the events that night.


----------



## Karen

Darren said:


> That's exactly right Since we're not part of the trial we have the ability to view everyhing including that information that the jury is not allowed to see. We can review Zimmerman's life prior to the encounter and we can review the information that Trayvon Martin chose to post on the internet. We can also chose to look at Martin's and Zimmerman's respective families.
> 
> We can look at the recordings of the statements and actions of each of the families. As I said before we can have different opinions but the facts meaning that which can be confirmed by anyone acting independently do not change.
> 
> We can ignore those facts that son;t support our opinion. So far I haven't seen anything that has changed my opinion. I see a lot of irrelevant side tracks that some consider viable. None of that is fact.
> 
> We're dealing with a black box situation. While no one except Zimmerman knows what happened and even he may have been confused by how fast things happened, there are plenty of facts to use as a basis for a sound opinion.


I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying and I don't see anyone trying to change anyone else's opinion. 

My point was that there is a huge difference between opinion and fact. There are no facts, only evidence - especially what you view on the internet, from the media, etc. You can take those things into account to form your opinion, but those will forever remain evidence, not facts. The only absolute fact is that Martin is dead.

Anyone is free to give an opinion based upon what evidence they see; but, the point was that people are presenting their opinions as facts. Others were just trying to explain that what some of you are saying is 'fact' is not fact at all. Opinions, assumptions, and reading between the lines is not what makes up facts. 

It was just a correction to hopefully get a better understanding of the misunderstanding of words we're all throwing out there. We're all not so far apart on this issue as it seems. Some of you have already made up your mind, and I don't see anyone trying to get you to change it. They are only saying they haven't made up their mind yet because there's more evidence to come. 

Mostly, those you oppose are only saying they aren't crazy for having their opinion in _questioning_ whether Zimmerman is guilty; there is a reason why they still have questions at this point because there are no facts - only evidence and opinions. Not pushing that on you at all, just trying to make you understand _why_ some don't see it in same light as you.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> No, it shows he was* hit, but not necessarily attacked*.


LOL 
OK , we'll get technical and say he was ASSAULTED.
He's still justified in defending himself


----------



## Nevada

Darren said:


> Are you saying someone receiving a beating is not being attacked?


Yes. Zimmerman's concern was that Martin might get away, so I leave open the possibility that Zimmerman tried to detain Martin. Martin could have seen being detained as aggression, so he did what he had to do to escape.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I leave open the possibility that *Zimmerman tried to detain Martin*


Based on NO EVIDENCE at all.


----------



## CesumPec

Nevada said:


> Yes. Zimmerman's concern was that Martin might get away, so I leave open the possibility that Zimmerman tried to detain Martin. Martin could have seen being detained as aggression, so he did what he had to do to escape.


Given that you have to leave open these possibilities because you are not sure of some other scenario, doesn't that mean that you have reasonable doubt? 

Could you convict GZ for murder 2 based on what you have seen and heard?


----------



## Karen

Bearfootfarm said:


> Based on NO EVIDENCE at all.


That's absolutely correct and an extremely valid point. It's also one reason I've not made a conclusion of guilt. There actually are a lot things on both sides that don't add up and I still think more went down than what is known. I suspect that both of them egged on the other and it got out of hand and ended up going where neither of them intended. But without Martin's testimony to compare accounts, all of it is just trying to reconstruct speculation.


----------



## Karen

CesumPec said:


> Given that you have to leave open these possibilities because you are not sure of some other scenario, doesn't that mean that you have reasonable doubt?
> 
> Could you convict GZ for murder 2 based on what you have seen and heard?


People misunderstand what 'reasonable doubt' is. A jury can only use 'reasonable doubt' in the legal definition. Reasonable doubt doesn't mean you have valid doubts. It means that: 
In view of the evidence *only* (not speculation, not gut feelings, not opinion), that no other logical explanation can be derived from the evidence except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.​


----------



## 7thswan

This case would have never gone to court- but people assumed Zimmerman was guilty of being racist. So much for presumption of innocence.


----------



## Darren

Karen said:


> People misunderstand what 'reasonable doubt' is. A jury can only use 'reasonable doubt' in the legal definition. Reasonable doubt doesn't mean you have valid doubts. It means that:In view of the evidence *only* (not speculation, not gut feelings, not opinion), that no other logical explanation can be derived from the evidence except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.​


That certainly confuses me. I always thought that reasonable doubt applied to finding a defendant innocent. In other words, if a jurior had any doubt other than something extraordinary about the guilt of the defendant then that jurior had to vote for acquital.

"The term connotes that evidence establishes a particular point to a moral certainty and that it is beyond dispute that any reasonable alternative is possible. It does not mean that no doubt exists as to the accused's guilt, but only that no Reasonable Doubt is possible from the evidence presented."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Beyond+a+Reasonable+Doubt

In this incident it's possible that Martin sucker punched Zimmerman, knocked him down and then continued beating him while straddling him.

Based on discussions here, there there at least two possibilities. Either Zimmerman attacked Martin or Martin attacked Zimmerman. If the evidence can't prove one or the other, then reasonable doubt exists. *Someone threw the first blow.* Was it Zimmerman, could have been, or was it Martin? The fact remains that Martin was seen beating Zimmerman.

While some may think the two may have argued and danced around, the time frame was way too short to allow any extended argument. What ever happened, happened very fast. From the time Martin decided not to continue to the house, his death was a few minutes away.

There's a lot of potential reasonable doubt for the juriors. The biological mother who testified it was Martin's voice contradicted her husband's answer and her other son's answer when first questioned by the police before Crump got involved.

OTH, both Zimmerman's father and his uncle identified the voice as belonging to George. George often played with his cousins. In Trayvon's case his mother supposedly ceased taking care of him a three when the father's fiance Alicia Stanley helped raise him. That in itself seems odd since Trayvon was not going to school in Sandford. Did Stanley recently move?

As you said there are a lot of things that don't add up.



​


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> You quote my post but you are not discussing what I actually said but instead going on to your suppositions. I feel not need to debate something I never said.


Here is what you said: "Zimmerman may say it did but I need to hear all the evidence because I don't trust his judgement as he got out of his vehicle when he should not have."

So why in his own neighborhood should he NOT GET OUT of his truck?


----------



## Tricky Grama

Darren said:


> Neither medical examiner saw Zimmerman after the incident. The ploy is to use their supposed medical expertise to sway the jury. We all know of people who have survived horiffic accidents without injury while ohers died in much less extreme incidents.
> 
> At that time of the year it was dark at that time and overcast and possibly raining. Put yourself in Zimmerman's place. He was knocked down by an unknown assailant who then climbed on and proceeded to beat him. Martin had his hand over his mouth and nose.
> 
> What do you think Martin was saying to Zimmerman as he beat him, "Hello, my name is Trayvon. SMACK. I just went to the store for some Skittles and tea. SMACK. What's your name? SMACK. Please don't call for help. SMACK. I'm not going to hurt you. SMACK.".
> 
> Do you honestly think Martin beat Zimmerman, the creepy cracker, in silence? Turned out, to the media's horror, Zimmerman wsn't a cracker.


----------



## Tricky Grama

mmoetc said:


> Once again, this is why most prosecutors would have run far from this case. There is also no evidence to support that Martin threw the first punch.


 Hmmm...seems I read that there was no evidence that GZ punched anyone...? Did they show that? Isn't the prosecution done?


----------



## Tricky Grama

mmoetc said:


> I've seen many a punch thrown that didn't connect.


 If that were the case, then its all the more reason for martin NOT to beat the crap outta GZ! Tnx for makin' our point.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Darren said:


> The fact is Martin could have just gone back to the house. The fact is Zimmerman lost sight of Martin. The fact is Martin was next seen by a witness on top of Zimmerman beating him The fact is the physician's assistant who examined Zimmerman testified to his injuries.
> 
> Sure I'm speculating that Martin ambushed Zimmerman. It's the only outcome that fits the dispatcher's tape, the layout of the buildings, Zimmerman's interview and Martin's own posts to the internet.
> 
> As much has people have tried to make Zimmerman out as a cop wannabe especially since he had a gun which btw the cops told him to buy to deal with a dog that had threatend him, his instructor blew that away by testifing he wanted to be a lawyer.
> 
> Martin on the other hand assumed the persona of a gansta by word, including photos, and deed. If you look objectively at the histories of both individuals Zimmerman comes across as the kind of person you'd want around for a friend. Martin? NOPE!
> 
> Add in Crump who planned a money making scam and Zimmerman was setup for a railroad job. If there wasn't an angle for money Crump would have never gotten involved.
> 
> It's fortunate that by the time he did get involved to go for the gold. The truth about Martin was already archived and preserved for anyone to review.


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> Here is what you said: "Zimmerman may say it did but I need to hear all the evidence because I don't trust his judgement as he got out of his vehicle when he should not have."
> 
> So why in his own neighborhood should he NOT GET OUT of his truck?


It simply does not make sense to me. 

He is talking to the police and says that Trayvon is is watching him
Trayvon walks towards him, he has something in his hands
Zimmerman rolls up his window as Trayvon walks around him
Trayvon is running

All the above are Zimmermans words. Why would he get out of his vehicle when the police are on the way. He is part of Neighborhood watch and they are not suppose to confront people just to watch and report.


----------



## farmrbrown

Common sense maybe?
When a person you suspect is trying to avoid being seen, for the next step of ambushing you, do you passively wait in a seated position for your moment of execution or harm, or do you become mobile and keep them in sight?
Those that know the answer to this will likely be the only ones alive to agree with it.
As I said previously, unless you've ever been in a dangerous encounter with a stranger, you won't have a complete picture of how it REALLY goes down.


----------



## painterswife

farmrbrown said:


> Common sense maybe?
> When a person you suspect is trying to avoid being seen, for the next step of ambushing you, do you passively wait in a seated position for your moment of execution or harm, or do you become mobile and keep them in sight?
> Those that know the answer to this will likely be the only ones alive to agree with it.
> As I said previously, unless you've ever been in a dangerous encounter with a stranger, you won't have a complete picture of how it REALLY goes down.


He was in his car and Trayvon has run away from him. It makes no sense to follow him to prevent "our moment of execution or harm".

I have been in a dangerous encounter. I know that you are better off to avoid than to engage.


----------



## farmrbrown

Sounds like you were just lucky.
Now try surviving MORE than one encounter......you learn or die. If someone means to do you harm, you have to go FAR away to "avoid" it. Just like wolves or coyotes, they will track and follow you.
Which coincidentally is what the evidence shows in this case.
There is only one eyewitness left to this encounter, the one with the gun who tried to maintain the other in his sight.
Or is this all wrong too?


----------



## Darren

painterswife said:


> He was in his car and Trayvon has run away from him. It makes no sense to follow him to prevent "our moment of execution or harm".
> 
> I have been in a dangerous encounter. I know that you are better off to avoid than to engage.


The police video explains that. The dispatcher needed an address. That's why Zimmerman got out of the truck. Note that Zimmerman doesn't have a particulally deep voice. You can also see that Martin had a choice of hiding places.

[YOUTUBE]PX1sxARNq_c[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## painterswife

farmrbrown said:


> Sounds like you were just lucky.
> Now try surviving MORE than one encounter......you learn or die. If someone means to do you harm, you have to go FAR away to "avoid" it. Just like wolves or coyotes, they will track and follow you.
> Which coincidentally is what the evidence shows in this case.
> There is only one eyewitness left to this encounter, the one with the gun who tried to maintain the other in his sight.
> Or is this all wrong too?


There is a jury who will decide and they just might think like I do or they might see things like you do. We will see.

You make statements like "Sounds like you were just lucky.
Now try surviving MORE than one encounter......you learn or die." with no information at all to base it on. That does give me cause to trust your opinion and your version of what happened.


----------



## farmrbrown

painterswife said:


> There is a jury who will decide and they just might think like I do or they might see things like you do. We will see.
> 
> You make statements like "Sounds like you were just lucky.
> Now try surviving MORE than one encounter......you learn or die." with no information at all to base it on. That does give me cause to trust your opinion and your version of what happened.


That's fine.
Your statements and mine speak for themselves, as well as the vast volumes written through the eons of time about ambushers and ambushees.
I'll take the advice of the survivors.

And for the record, *I* don't have a "version of what happened" because I wasn't there and didn't survive what he did that night.....Zimmerman does.


----------



## farmrbrown

Darren said:


> The police video explains that. The dispatcher needed an address. That's why Zimmerman got out of the truck. Note that Zimmerman doesn't have a particulally deep voice. You can also see that Martin had a choice of hiding places.
> 
> [YOUTUBE]PX1sxARNq_c[/YOUTUBE]


Excellent.
Everyone with an opinion on this case should listen to this, it only takes 15 minutes, but has more detail than anything you'll hear in a 1,000 Media reports.
The first 5 minutes you'll realize who was following whom......and why each one was doing what they were doing.......at 7 minutes you'll get some answers as to why Zimmerman got out and if you pay close attention, you'll understand the confusion and fear that takes place during just such an incident.
At 10 minutes you get the ambush and in the next two minutes (that's all it takes, and even that seems like an eternity) you get the fight, with all the confusion and fear that goes into it.


----------



## Home Harvest

Once someone admits to the act, but claims insanity or self-defense doesn't the burden of proof then shift to the defense? Doesn't GZ have to "prove" that he was attacked and in fear for his life to be found not guilty?


----------



## farmrbrown

After all of that, I'd like to point out something of importance here amongst all of the Monday morning quarterbacking.
I don't think anyone can say that both either Martin or Zimmerman acted *perfectly*, in fact, it's obvious from the outcome, that mistakes were made.......by both of them.
But that's *not* what a criminal trial is for, to judge whether or not your actions met the standard of perfection. If you had been absolutely perfect, you wouldn't even BE in a courtroom.
The *only* point of a criminal trial, is to determine whether your imperfect actions rise to the level of criminality.
Note that I said criminality, not tragedy. 
Of course when someone is killed, it's a painful, tragic event.
But the only question the jurors have to decide, is not was it a death, not was it preventable, only was what Zimmerman did.....criminal.
Martin isn't around anymore to have his actions deemed criminal or not, and that makes the jurors job even harder. But there is evidence in all of this that at least according to Zimmerman, his injuries and a few witnesses of the fighting, that he was a victim of a criminal act before the shot was fired.
Whether you believe that version of the events or not, it seems that is what will determine whether or not you believe Zimmerman is guilty of a *criminal* act ..... or not.


----------



## farmrbrown

Home Harvest said:


> Once someone admits to the act, but claims insanity or self-defense doesn't the burden of proof then shift to the defense? Doesn't GZ have to "prove" that he was attacked and in fear for his life to be found not guilty?


Watch the 15 minute police video.
Then ask yourself what proof you still are searching for.
Unless you have a brain scan, and a chemical blood test going on at the time of the attack, with corroborating medical testimony of experts on adrenaline in the blood and blood flow in the "fight or flight" areas of your brain, how does one prove that he is afraid, other than just saying it?


----------



## AR Cattails

farmrbrown said:


> And for the record, *I* don't have a "version of what happened" because I wasn't there and didn't survive what he did that night.....Zimmerman does.



And Zimmerman has not wavered at all in what he says happened that night...since day 1.


----------



## Home Harvest

farmrbrown said:


> Watch the 15 minute police video.
> Then ask yourself what proof you still are searching for.
> Unless you have a brain scan, and a chemical blood test going on at the time of the attack, with corroborating medical testimony of experts on adrenaline in the blood and blood flow in the "fight or flight" areas of your brain, how does one prove that he is afraid, other than just saying it?


I think you misunderstand. I'm not on the jury. I'm not deciding his guilt or innocence. I'm not defending him, or finding him guilty. I don't need to seek any evidence (if you call a videotape by the accused "evidence"). I'm simply asking a technical legal questions. 

Is the jury going to find for the prosecution if GZ can't "prove" it was self defense, or must the prosecution somehow "prove" it wasn't self defense? I think that will be the key to this trial. I've always heard that once someone admits to an act, but claims self-defense, it's then up to them to prove it.


----------



## CesumPec

Karen said:


> People misunderstand what 'reasonable doubt' is. A jury can only use 'reasonable doubt' in the legal definition. Reasonable doubt doesn't mean you have valid doubts. It means that:In view of the evidence *only* (not speculation, not gut feelings, not opinion), that no other logical explanation can be derived from the evidence except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.​


Which leaves my question still open. I have not watched but a few moments of the trial and tend not to follow news summaries of trials because there is enough bias in the media that i don't know who to trust on a given case. So I'm curious of those who have followed this closely, could any of you convict for murder 2 based on what we think we know at this point.

A lot of this thread has been about whether or not GZ is a jerk, racist, liar, cop-wannabe, etc. To me all that is irrelevant to how an honest jury should rule.


----------



## painterswife

CesumPec said:


> Which leaves my question still open. I have not watched but a few moments of the trial and tend not to follow news summaries of trials because there is enough bias in the media that i don't know who to trust on a given case. So I'm curious of those who have followed this closely, could any of you convict for murder 2 based on what we think we know at this point.
> 
> A lot of this thread has been about whether or not GZ is a jerk, racist, liar, cop-wannabe, etc. To me all that is irrelevant to how an honest jury should rule.


I agree, the jury does not really care what GZ is like as a person. They will care whether this was a justifiable shooting or not.


----------



## Home Harvest

CesumPec said:


> Which leaves my question still open. I have not watched but a few moments of the trial and tend not to follow news summaries of trials because there is enough bias in the media that i don't know who to trust on a given case. So I'm curious of those who have followed this closely, could any of you convict for murder 2 based on what we think we know at this point.
> 
> A lot of this thread has been about whether or not GZ is a jerk, racist, liar, cop-wannabe, etc. To me all that is irrelevant to how an honest jury should rule.


"second degree murder n. a non-premeditated killing, resulting from an assault in which death of the victim was a distinct possibility. Second degree murder is different from First Degree Murder which is a premeditated, intentional killing, or results from a vicious crime such as arson, rape, or armed robbery. Exact distinctions on degree vary by state." http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/second+degree+murder

If I read this definition correctly, the assault is integral to the charge of 2nd degree murder. In my opinion the prosecution hasn't proven that GZ assaulted TM. Based on what I've heard up to now I would have trouble with Murder 2.

On the other hand, had the state charged him with Manslaughter: "The unjustifiable, inexcusable, and intentional killing of a human being without deliberation, premeditation, and malice. The unlawful killing of a human being without any deliberation, which may be involuntary, in the commission of a lawful act without due caution and circumspection." http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/manslaughter I think they would have a much stronger case, but still no slam dunk. However, he's not charged with manslaughter, so I think he walks.


----------



## farmrbrown

Home Harvest said:


> I think you misunderstand. I'm not on the jury. I'm not deciding his guilt or innocence. I'm not defending him, or finding him guilty. I don't need to seek any evidence (if you call a videotape by the accused "evidence"). I'm simply asking a technical legal questions.
> 
> Is the jury going to find for the prosecution if GZ can't "prove" it was self defense, or must the prosecution somehow "prove" it wasn't self defense? I think that will be the key to this trial. I've always heard that once someone admits to an act, but claims self-defense, it's then up to them to prove it.


I understand.
But in a criminal trial, the burden of proof never shifts to the defendant.
It is always on the state to prove their charges. The defense's only obligation is to plea guilty or not guilty.
Once I say I'm not guilty, it's up to them to prove that I am. I can *offer* evidence on my behalf, but I'm not obligated to do so.
And there is a lesser charge of manslaughter that will be given to the jury to decide, not just 2nd degree murder, that's fairly common. The prosecution doesn't like to put all its eggs in one basket, just in case they can't prove the more serious charge.
I agree Zimmerman has a chance of being convicted of manslaughter, if the jury doesn't believe the story that he was attacked first. If they do believe it, then they should conclude that it was an act of self defense.
And yes, I do call a videotape of Zimmerman going thru the events with detectives within a few days of it, without counsel or hesitation a pretty darn good piece of "evidence." Any testimony by a witness is evidence.


----------



## Karen

Darren said:


> That certainly confuses me. I always thought that reasonable doubt applied to finding a defendant innocent. In other words, if a jurior had any doubt other than something extraordinary about the guilt of the defendant then that jurior had to vote for acquital.
> 
> "The term connotes that evidence establishes a particular point to a moral certainty and that it is beyond dispute that any reasonable alternative is possible. It does not mean that no doubt exists as to the accused's guilt, but only that no Reasonable Doubt is possible from the evidence presented."
> 
> http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Beyond+a+Reasonable+Doubt
> 
> In this incident it's possible that Martin sucker punched Zimmerman, knocked him down and then continued beating him while straddling him.
> 
> Based on discussions here, there there at least two possibilities. Either Zimmerman attacked Martin or Martin attacked Zimmerman. If the evidence can't prove one or the other, then reasonable doubt exists. *Someone threw the first blow.* Was it Zimmerman, could have been, or was it Martin? The fact remains that Martin was seen beating Zimmerman.
> 
> While some may think the two may have argued and danced around, the time frame was way too short to allow any extended argument. What ever happened, happened very fast. From the time Martin decided not to continue to the house, his death was a few minutes away.
> 
> There's a lot of potential reasonable doubt for the juriors. The biological mother who testified it was Martin's voice contradicted her husband's answer and her other son's answer when first questioned by the police before Crump got involved.
> 
> OTH, both Zimmerman's father and his uncle identified the voice as belonging to George. George often played with his cousins. In Trayvon's case his mother supposedly ceased taking care of him a three when the father's fiance Alicia Stanley helped raise him. That in itself seems odd since Trayvon was not going to school in Sandford. Did Stanley recently move?
> 
> As you said there are a lot of things that don't add up.
> 
> 
> 
> ​


That's not really the legal definition of 'reasonable doubt' that any judge would give the jury. Before the jury deliberates, they are given jury instructions by the judge. There are pages of these instructions and the judge goes over each point. The judge will also explain 'reasonable doubt' and the definition I provided is what the judge will explain. It's a universal definition used in the actual courtroom to a jury. 

It's important to note that you walk into the jury room with the assumption that the defendant is innocent. You then discuss the evidence and come to conclusion. You often hear of a jury entering the jury room and taking a vote right away. That is totally wrong and against the jury instructions (although sadly, it does happen). 'Reasonable doubt' is a *'logical'* conclusion that a jury must come to based on all the evidence -- not just a single point. It cannot be an emotional conclusion, a gut feeling, or any other type of 'feeling'. It must be based on the whole of the evidence only. 

Taking your for-instance of the lack of knowing who jumped who, that's not legally reasonable doubt in itself. In other words you don't have this point that equals reasonable doubt; that point that equals reasonable doubt, etc. Reasonable doubt would be that when you put together _all the evidence as a whole_, is it then logical that defendant is innocent or guilty. 

If you can't draw a conclusion with that evidence, then you look back at other points in which you can't draw a conclusion from in itself. So you would look at your example -- provided it is one of the strongest point of the case that are questionable. If after discussing it, you feel it does create a strong point of doubt, then you would vote innocent. If on the other hand, the rest of the evidence is just too strong but that your example, although leaving a hole in the reconstruction of the case and you feel it doesn't overshadow the rest of the evidence, then you would vote guilty. 

In a trial, there are always holes in reconstructing what happened, what intent there was, does it all add up, etc. You don't have to have all the holes filled in to come to a conclusion based on the evidence as a whole. Not meaning you ignore them, rather you look at the _whole picture of all the evidence_ _put all together_. Sometimes you don't need those holes to come to logical conclusion because the other evidence is way too strong. 

Those holes do, however, come into major play when you just can't come to a conclusion. That's where 'reasonable doubt' comes into the picture. The jury can then only discuss it some more and determine if the hole is just too large to come to any other logical conclusion that the defendant is innocent. If the hole is just too small, based on the other evidence, then they would come to the logical conclusion he is guilty.

Remember that guilt or innocence is always an opinion. Opinions will always be flawed, but it's the best we can do and still the finest and fairest system in the world. We're very fortunate in this country to have a legal basis for 'reasonable doubt'. It means we recognize that we can't ignore the holes in the story, we're only human and we weren't there. In most other countries, there is no human factor of being able to question the evidence. Reasonable doubt gives us the legal ability, and responsibility, to question the evidence and evidence also can be holes in the story.


----------



## dixiegal62

Unless the jury has been on Mars they probably already know what their verdict will be. Most people made up their minds before the trial even started. I felt he was innocent when this all came out on the news and haven't seen anything to change my mind. I'm pretty sure most that thought he was guilty still do.


----------



## Pearl B

dixiegal62 said:


> Unless the jury has been on Mars they probably already know what their verdict will be. Most people made up their minds before the trial even started. I felt he was innocent when this all came out on the news and haven't seen anything to change my mind. I'm pretty sure most that thought he was guilty still do.


 I tend to think its impossible for him to get a fair trail because of that. I dont think its right he got an all female jury either.


----------



## Karen

Pearl B said:


> I tend to think its impossible for him to get a fair trail because of that. I dont think its right he got an all female jury either.


The attorneys on each side pick the jury so it's fair to both sides.


----------



## Karen

With regards to the video, it's only Zimmerman's account of what happened and why. If Martin were alive to do the same video, his would have an entirely different version of what happened and why. So it can't really be considered reliable, untainted, nor unbiased. It should just be something to 'consider' and not base someone's guilt nor innocence on.


----------



## dixiegal62

Karen said:


> The attorneys on each side pick the jury so it's fair to both sides.


 
I don't think that matters in such a high profile case that even the president gave his opinion about. People can misrepresent themselves and do all the time. Hard to imagine some that could only want to see him punished or set free couldn't have gotten through the process.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> Unless the jury has been on Mars they probably already know what their verdict will be. Most people made up their minds before the trial even started. I felt he was innocent when this all came out on the news and haven't seen anything to change my mind. I'm pretty sure most that thought he was guilty still do.


There are many, many people who are capable of looking at the evidence presented with fresh eyes because they know it is important to the justice system. I don't have such a dim view of the people in this country.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Home Harvest said:


> Once someone admits to the act, but claims insanity or self-defense doesn't the* burden of proof* then shift to the defense? Doesn't GZ have to "prove" that he was attacked and in fear for his life to be found not guilty?


The STATE has to prove he committed murder.
Zimmerman doesn't have to "prove" anything at all

The evidence proves he was being beaten which is all the proof needed for "self defense"


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> There are many, many people who are capable of looking at the evidence presented with fresh eyes because they know it is important to the justice system. I don't have such a dim view of the people in this country.


 
True and there are many, many people who claim they can but they're only fooling themselves.


----------



## Pearl B

Karen said:


> The attorneys on each side pick the jury so it's fair to both sides.


 True enough. I still think the jury is stacked. The chances/odds of an all female, or male, or race, seem to high, to me.

I want the jury-thus the verdict beyond reproach, in this case. I dont think it is.


----------



## CesumPec

Karen said:


> The attorneys on each side pick the jury so it's fair to both sides.


:umno:

It might be the best we can do, but that does not mean it is always fair to both sides. There are reasons for change of venue, jury nullification, over turned convictions, etc.


----------



## Pearl B

dixiegal62 said:


> I don't think that matters in such a high profile case that even the president gave his opinion about. People can misrepresent themselves and do all the time. Hard to imagine some that could only want to see him punished or set free couldn't have gotten through the process.


I was called to jury duty. In this particular case is was an individual suing a bank. They felt the bank financially ripped them off. I was a customer of that same bank once. I left cause I felt it tried to rip me off to. To the tune of $600. I eventually got it back, still it was a hassle. I really think they were hoping I would give up. Turned out it was they're mistake, no question.

I could have easily hid that info & got on the jury, which did find the bank guilty.


----------



## unregistered353870

Believe it or not, there are actually people out there (even in the area local to the case) who had very little prior knowledge about it. Some people don't watch or read the news or discuss current events with friends. Sure, it's possible somebody could have faked their way onto the jury with an agenda, but the chances are pretty slim for one person to do it, let alone six. Besides, criminal attorneys on both sides are pretty good at ferreting out those people.


----------



## Karen

CesumPec said:


> :umno:
> 
> It might be the best we can do, but that does not mean it is always fair to both sides. There are reasons for change of venue, jury nullification, over turned convictions, etc.


Exactly, but it's still a part of our court process. The best in the world, IMHO.


Pearl B said:


> I was called to jury duty. In this particular case is was an individual suing a bank. They felt the bank financially ripped them off. I was a customer of that same bank once. I left cause I felt it tried to rip me off to. To the tune of $600. I eventually got it back, still it was a hassle. I really think they were hoping I would give up. Turned out it was they're mistake, no question.
> 
> I could have easily hid that info & got on the jury, which did find the bank guilty.


Of course you could, but that would be perjury. Believe it or not, most people do care about perjuring themselves. There will always be the ones who already have it in their mind of guilt or innocence or are biased, but would you rather have a corrupt judge alone decide your fate rather than your peers? Although the system is flawed, there is no better way.


----------



## JeffreyD

The nice thing about being a jurior is that you don't have to follow any instructions from anybody, ever. Judges don't like the jury having that much power, so they issue instructions, that's wrong. So is not allowing ALL the evidence to be presented.


----------



## Pearl B

I truly believe everyone deserves a fair trial. I do think people being honest as to wether they can render a fair & impartial verdict, as I did, is our only hope.

The power they have given to judges in the last 5 years or so, the judge pretty much does determine the outcome of any given trial anymore, imo.


----------



## Darren

Karen said:


> With regards to the video, it's only Zimmerman's account of what happened and why. If Martin were alive to do the same video, his would have an entirely different version of what happened and why. So it can't really be considered reliable, untainted, nor unbiased. *It should just be something to 'consider' and not base someone's guilt nor innocence on.*


Fact is, it will enter into the jury's decision to acquit or convict. What the video does do is explain a lot of the questions that have been raised here.

1. It explains, when taken with the 911 tape, why Zimmerman got out of the truck and when and why he turned around and started back.

2. It shows how Martin could have easily hidden.

3. It explains the mention of bushes.

4. It provides a view of the sidewalk that lacerated Zimmerman's head and shows ha it is plausible that Zimmerman could have had his head on the sidewalk and his body on the grass.

5. It provides a view of how close the beating took place to where people could witness it.

6. It does explain but does not prove why Zimmerman felt Martin was suspicious. For more on this view the video of Martin in the 711. That will bring questions to mind. There's a marked reaction of the clerk as Martin approaches the checkout. Martin looks out of it as he meanders around the store. You get to watch Martin pull a small amount of money out of his pocket and count it. I'm still wondering why his father thought he had enough money to go to a movie.

The other point is Zimmerman was questioned for hours after the incident. He didn't have time to think up any BS. Add that to the fact he immediately identified himself as he shooter upon the arrival of the police. Zimmerman has been nothing but cooperative through the whole ordeal.

His overall demeanor doesn't come across as that of a criminal. He seems very cooperative. As I said previously I'd have Zimmerman as a neighbor any day. Martin with his documented delinquency, no way.


----------



## Lazaryss

Pearl B said:


> I tend to think its impossible for him to get a fair trail because of that. I dont think its right he got an all female jury either.


But 6 women are clearly his peers.


----------



## Lazaryss

Karen said:


> The attorneys on each side pick the jury so it's fair to both sides.


Attorneys should have nothing to do with the jury selection process in my opinion.


----------



## unregistered353870

> I'm still wondering why his father thought he had enough money to go to a movie.


I've seen this mentioned several times. Have you been a father of a 17-year-old? I never knew how much money my kids had in their pockets when they were 17.


----------



## Darren

jtbrandt said:


> I've seen this mentioned several times. Have you been a father of a 17-year-old? I never knew how much money my kids had in their pockets when they were 17.


I knew about what they had. Neither worked, same as Martin. They made a point of telling me frequently how much they had as in, "Dad, I only have ****. I need ***."

Between the 711 purchases and the inventoried contents of his pockets, Martin had about $5 when he left the house. He was an unusual kid if he didn't ask the old man for money.


----------



## farmrbrown

Karen said:


> With regards to the video, it's only Zimmerman's account of what happened and why. If Martin were alive to do the same video, his would have an entirely different version of what happened and why. So it can't really be considered reliable, untainted, nor unbiased. It should just be something to 'consider' and not base someone's guilt nor innocence on.


I think that was the point of your post about the difference between Facts and evidence.
Of course it's his story and bound to be at least a little biased, as to whether it's unreliable, that's one of things a juror decides, based on whatever criteria they choose.
As I watched it and listened to him go through the neighborhood, stopping to correlate his moments on the phone with the operator, the different places he stopped, got out, walked, etc. it never conflicted with the timeline. The tenseness in his voice was thick enough to cut with a knife. Even when he forgot a detail, he immediately backed up and retold it. The whole event only took a few minutes and yet there are a mountain of feelings, thoughts and emotions that well up when you retell story like that. It's like an action movie scene with everything going on at once.
I did not get the feeling that any of it was false.



Karen said:


> Exactly, but it's still a part of our court process. The best in the world, IMHO.
> 
> Of course you could, but that would be perjury. Believe it or not, most people do care about perjuring themselves. There will always be the ones who already have it in their mind of guilt or innocence or are biased, but would you rather have a corrupt judge alone decide your fate rather than your peers? Although the system is flawed, there is no better way.


I agree that it's the best system we could have, but my wife witnessed an entire jury pool tell an obvious lie during the questioning process.
She couldn't believe that she was the only one in the room that raised their hand when asked, "Has anyone ever lied to you or deceived you?"


----------



## unregistered353870

Darren said:


> I knew about what they had. Neither worked, same as Martin. They made a point of telling me frequently how much they had as in, "Dad, I only have ****. I need ***."
> 
> Between the 711 purchases and the inventoried contents of his pockets, Martin had about $5 when he left the house. He was an unusual kid if he didn't ask the old man for money.


I guess I just didn't get it because my kids never asked for money...at least not from me...they probably asked their mother. But they also worked so they had their own money.

Anyway, I don't see how this fact is relevant at all. You seem intent on making the father out to be a liar for thinking his kid may have gone to a movie. Seems pointless to me, since it was after the shooting and had absolutely nothing to do with Zimmerman's innocence or guilt.


----------



## greg273

Bearfootfarm said:


> The STATE has to prove he committed murder.
> Zimmerman doesn't have to "prove" anything at all
> 
> The evidence proves he was being beaten which is all the proof needed for "self defense"


 The EVIDENCE shows Zimmermans injuries to be non-life threatening. Maybe he was simply a coward who followed the wrong guy, and shot him when it got too heavy. It would be nice to get Trayvons side of the story, but Zimmerman took care of that. And by your logic, since Zimmerman had a loaded pistol during this fight, Trayvon could be considered justified in beating Zimmerman, being that he was 'in fear for his life'. Sounds like they were BOTH at fault. Travyon Martin paid with his life, what cost will Zimmerman be forced to pay?


----------



## Home Harvest

Bearfootfarm said:


> The STATE has to prove he committed murder.
> Zimmerman doesn't have to "prove" anything at all
> 
> The evidence proves he was being beaten which is all the proof needed for "self defense"


Are you really a lawyer or did you just play one on TV? Seriously, I've talked to dozens of people about this trial, and most conclude (as I did) that GZ since GZ admits to killing TM, it's up to him to prove self defense. They also believe (as I did) that the aggressor can never claim self defense, and that it is crucial to know who started the fight. 

Can I say this loudly enough...I WAS WRONG!

Honestly, I questioned your 2 claims above so I searched online and found these articles:

http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3571&context=jclc
http://www.csustan.edu/cj/evidence/chap6.htm
http://www.ohioverticals.com/blogs/...burden-of-proof-on-the-issue-of-self-defense/
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Self-Defense

Each of these articles supports BFF's statements. Thanks BFF for setting me straight. I can't promise I'll never disagree with you again, but I'll never jump to conclusions about your statements again.


----------



## po boy

It's innocent until *proven* guilty.


----------



## Home Harvest

greg273 said:


> The EVIDENCE shows Zimmermans injuries to be non-life threatening. Maybe he was simply a coward who followed the wrong guy, and shot him when it got too heavy. It would be nice to get Trayvons side of the story, but Zimmerman took care of that. And by your logic, since Zimmerman had a loaded pistol during this fight, Trayvon could be considered justified in beating Zimmerman, being that he was 'in fear for his life'. Sounds like they were BOTH at fault. Travyon Martin paid with his life, what cost will Zimmerman be forced to pay?


I feel as you do, but what you are describing are the way things could have happened. The state can't convict based on speculation. You have to ask yourself, "Could it have happened the way Zimmerman described?" If so, then that in itself presents the jury with reasonable doubt. The state hasn't proven that it couldn't have happened the way GZ described. In fact most of the prosecution witnesses supported GZ's version that TM was on top and beating GZ. It almost feels like the prosecution is just going through the motions, and never held any hope of winning. Strange trial.


----------



## greg273

Home Harvest said:


> I feel as you do, but what you are describing are the way things could have happened. The state can't convict based on speculation. You have to ask yourself, "Could it have happened the way Zimmerman described?" If so, then that in itself presents the jury with reasonable doubt. The state hasn't proven that it couldn't have happened the way GZ described. In fact most of the prosecution witnesses supported GZ's version that TM was on top and beating GZ. It almost feels like the prosecution is just going through the motions, and never held any hope of winning. Strange trial.


 BOTH of them went looking for trouble that night, both of them found it. One paid with his life, what will the other one be forced to pay?


----------



## dixiegal62

greg273 said:


> The EVIDENCE shows Zimmermans injuries to be non-life threatening. Maybe he was simply a coward who followed the wrong guy, and shot him when it got too heavy. It would be nice to get Trayvons side of the story, but Zimmerman took care of that. And by your logic, since Zimmerman had a loaded pistol during this fight, Trayvon could be considered justified in beating Zimmerman, being that he was 'in fear for his life'. Sounds like they were BOTH at fault. Travyon Martin paid with his life, what cost will Zimmerman be forced to pay?


 
Non-life threatening injuries doesn't matter, the jury just needs to believe he had reasonable fear for his life. If he's telling the truth and his head was being slammed, who is going to wait until they're sure they're going to black out to try and save their life?

I keep wondering why no witness's stepped in. You must live in a pretty scary place if you fear helping someone could cost you your life. Who walks away from someone screaming for help? It could also explain why Zimmerman was so zealous about helping stop crimes. Seems nobody else cared. Says a lot about the mentality of the residents. Why so fearful?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

greg273 said:


> *The EVIDENCE shows Zimmermans injuries to be non-life threatening.*
> 
> Maybe he was simply a coward who followed the wrong guy, and shot him when it got too heavy. It would be nice to get Trayvons side of the story, but Zimmerman took care of that.
> 
> *And by your logic, since Zimmerman had a loaded pistol during this fight, Trayvon could be considered justified in beating Zimmerman*, being that he was 'in fear for his life'.
> 
> Sounds like they were BOTH at fault. Travyon Martin paid with his life, what cost will Zimmerman be forced to pay?


The "seriousness" of his injuries means *nothing *at all

The fact Zimmerman was armed is NOT justification for Martin to attack him, since he couldn;t have known about the gun

Nothing Zimmerman did was illegal, nor "threatening" to the point of allowing a physical response. by Martin.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Are you really a lawyer or did you just play one on TV? Seriously, I've talked to dozens of people about this trial, and most conclude (as I did) that GZ since GZ admits to killing TM, *it's up to him to prove self defense*. They also believe (as I did) that the aggressor can never claim self defense, and that *it is crucial to know who started the fight.
> *


It's up to the STATE to prove it was murder.
If you read the FLA law, (it's been posted more then once) "who started the fight" really *doesn't matter*


----------



## Bearfootfarm

greg273 said:


> BOTH of them went looking for trouble that night, both of them found it. One paid with his life, what will the other one be forced to pay?


Zimmerman wasn't looking for trouble.
That's just empty rhetoric.
Why not just stick to the facts of the case?


----------



## greg273

Bearfootfarm said:


> Zimmerman wasn't looking for trouble.
> That's just empty rhetoric.
> Why not just stick to the facts of the case?


 The neighborhood watch guy with the pistol following around a 'suspicious' man wasn't looking for trouble? Lol!!!


----------



## painterswife

Bearfootfarm said:


> Zimmerman wasn't looking for trouble.
> That's just empty rhetoric.
> Why not just stick to the facts of the case?


Your "facts" mean nothing to the court case. Only the evidence that is presented to the jury. Just as you can post what you believe so can anyone else.


----------



## greg273

Bearfootfarm said:


> Zimmerman wasn't looking for trouble.
> That's just empty rhetoric.
> Why not just stick to the facts of the case?


 Yes, lets stick to the facts. Zimmerman followed a guy who ended up giving him a bloody nose and two non life threatening cuts to the head, so he shot and killed him.


----------



## farmrbrown

You forgot the last important detail.
When he reached for Zimmerman's gun and said, "You're gonna die tonight "
That's like when someone posts half a statute instead of the whole thing.


----------



## unregistered353870

dixiegal62 said:


> I keep wondering why no witness's stepped in. You must live in a pretty scary place if you fear helping someone could cost you your life. Who walks away from someone screaming for help? It could also explain why Zimmerman was so zealous about helping stop crimes. Seems nobody else cared. Says a lot about the mentality of the residents. Why so fearful?


How does a bystander know which one is the "bad guy"? Unless you know one of the parties involved in a fight it can be very difficult to know which side to take. The bad guy is sometimes the one getting beaten and screaming for help. If you step in and save him you never know what's going to happen next.


----------



## greg273

And of course many of these things you are calling 'facts' bearfoot, are more properly termed 'testimony'.


----------



## greg273

farmrbrown said:


> You forgot the last important detail.
> *When he reached for Zimmerman's gun *and said, "You're gonna die tonight "


 So says the survivor of the fight.

But hey, if I was fighting with someone and they pulled a pistol, I would darn sure be 'reaching for that gun'!


----------



## katydidagain

greg273 said:


> So says the survivor of the fight.!


I agree. Also I believe they tested the gun for DNA and found none of Martin's on it. So maybe TM was reaching or maybe GZ thought he was. I don't know; I wasn't there. I think it happened pretty fast and adrenaline was pumping in addition to a lot of testosterone. I do think GZ was surprisingly cool and collected. Which probably means nothing but I doubt I would have been.


----------



## farmrbrown

Yep.
Something well worth considering before getting into a fight.....a CCW.
It could mean *your* testimony is never heard in court.......


----------



## dixiegal62

jtbrandt said:


> How does a bystander know which one is the "bad guy"? Unless you know one of the parties involved in a fight it can be very difficult to know which side to take. The bad guy is sometimes the one getting beaten and screaming for help. If you step in and save him you never know what's going to happen next.


 
Hard to imagine 2 men rolling around fighting in your yard at night and not doing anything is all I'm saying.


----------



## katydidagain

dixiegal62 said:


> Hard to imagine 2 men rolling around fighting in your yard at night and not doing anything is all I'm saying.


Somebody did call 911. We have a history in this country of not getting involved dating back at least to 1964. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese


----------



## unregistered353870

Multiple people called 911. That's almost nothing, but not quite. We've been conditioned not to get involved, just call the police. I like to think I would try to help, but I don't know that I would be able to if I had been in Zimmerman's neighborhood.


----------



## JeffreyD

GZ will be set free, and their will be some civil unrest.


----------



## unregistered353870

JeffreyD said:


> GZ will be set free, and their will be some civil unrest.


I was thinking they should have scheduled the trial for winter to keep the rioting to a minimum, but now that I think about it, right now is probably the best for keeping people indoors in Florida.


----------



## Nevada

greg273 said:


> The neighborhood watch guy with the pistol following around a 'suspicious' man wasn't looking for trouble? Lol!!!


He found trouble alright -- legal trouble.


----------



## Karen

You have to remember that this happened in central Florida and there probably isn't a single person in that condo complex that is from Florida. Since most of central Florida is now predominately from Metro cities of New York/Long Island, New Jersey, Chicago, Cleveland, Toledo, and Detroit. Most people from large cities have been raised to not get involved because of things like lawsuits, vengeance, etc.


----------



## katydidagain

Karen said:


> You have to remember that this happened in central Florida and there probably isn't a single person in that condo complex that is from Florida. Since most of central Florida is now predominately from Metro cities of New York/Long Island, New Jersey, Chicago, Cleveland, Toledo, and Detroit. Most people from large cities have been raised to not get involved because of things like lawsuits, vengeance, etc.


You'd be surprised how many people in FL were born and raised here. Perhaps not in that development but there are many natives living in this state. Not getting involved has nothing to do with where you were raised IMO but more that as the world has changed people have become less likely to take a plate of cookies to a new neighbor or even bother meeting them. (Is there even a Welcome Wagon now?)


----------



## Bearfootfarm

greg273 said:


> The neighborhood watch guy with the pistol following around a 'suspicious' man wasn't looking for trouble? Lol!!!


No he wasn't.
He was simply trying to keep sight of him until the police arrived.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

painterswife said:


> Your "facts" mean nothing to the court case. Only the evidence that is presented to the jury. Just as you can post what you believe so can anyone else.


Is there a reason you feel compelled to keep *repeating* yourself?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

greg273 said:


> Yes,* lets stick to the facts*. Zimmerman followed a guy who ended up giving him a bloody nose and two non life threatening cuts to the head, so he shot and killed him.


You're pretending the severity of the injuries means something, when in fact they mean nothing at all.

He killed him in SELF DEFENSE


----------



## Bearfootfarm

greg273 said:


> And of course many of these things you are calling 'facts' bearfoot, are more properly termed 'testimony'.


Without refuting evidence, they *are* the facts.
You can play silly word games, but it doesn't change reality


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> He found trouble alright -- legal trouble.


If the *media and politicians* had stayed out of it, there would have been no charges filed.

They already knew no crime was committed


----------



## katydidagain

Bearfootfarm said:


> If the *media and politicians* had stayed out of it, there would have been no charges filed.
> 
> They already knew no crime was committed


Maybe it's a good thing charges were filed because a jury will determine whether or not a crime was committed. Period.. Some will not agree with their findings but it will be a legal determination based on the evidence; this is how.our system works. Will it settle matters in the minds of those who seek to make this a polarizing event? No but in the end it's the best way IMO.


----------



## painterswife

Bearfootfarm said:


> Is there a reason you feel compelled to keep *repeating* yourself?


Just following your lead.


----------



## CesumPec

Karen said:


> You have to remember that this happened in central Florida and there probably isn't a single person in that condo complex that is from Florida. Since most of central Florida is now predominately from Metro cities of New York/Long Island, New Jersey, Chicago, Cleveland, Toledo, and Detroit. Most people from large cities have been raised to not get involved because of things like lawsuits, vengeance, etc.


My house is in Daytona 30 min east of Sanford, my farm is an hour north west of Sanford. While I don't have any info on that condo, I think you would be surprised at how many folks in this area are florida natives. many of my farm neighbors have never even been outside of the state. Orlando is a whole nuther story, but Sanford is still pretty old world Florida. 

South Florida east coast is mostly NY, NJ, new England sorts. 20 years ago when I lived an hour north of Fort Lauderdale, native NYers actually outnumbered native Floridians. South Florida west coast has long been more attractive to the upper midwest types or at least it was 20 years ago.


----------



## CesumPec

katydidagain said:


> Maybe it's a good thing charges were filed because a jury will determine whether or not a crime was committed. Period.. Some will not agree with their findings but it will be a legal determination based on the evidence; this is how.our system works. Will it settle matters in the minds of those who seek to make this a polarizing event? No but in the end it's the best way IMO.


But what if GZ is really innocent? Think how much his life has been turned upside down, having to live in hiding from threatening nut jobs, so much of his private life revealed on CNN and the websites of all sorts of haters. That is a whole lot of punishment if he is an innocent man. 

Yes, I know TM paid a much higher price, but if this is nothing more than a circus act to appease the masses, it is morally wrong and not the proper use of gov't resources. 

Back when the charges were filed, I expected there must be more that the gov't knew and had yet to be released. I'm still waiting for that evidence or witness that shows a serious reason to try GZ for murder 2.


----------



## katydidagain

CesumPec said:


> But what if GZ is really innocent? Think how much his life has been turned upside down, having to live in hiding from threatening nut jobs, so much of his private life revealed on CNN and the websites of all sorts of haters. That is a whole lot of punishment if he is an innocent man.
> 
> Yes, I know TM paid a much higher price, but if this is nothing more than a circus act to appease the masses, it is morally wrong and not the proper use of gov't resources.
> 
> Back when the charges were filed, I expected there must be more that the gov't knew and had yet to be released. I'm still waiting for that evidence or witness that shows a serious reason to try GZ for murder 2.


And what life would GZ have had without the trial? I don't know why this happened to him; I don't know why things happened in my life either. I don't know why I wasn't born into a meager life in India nor do I understand why I was not the child of extreme wealth. I try to consider my struggles to be my life's lessons; perhaps this is GZ's path.


----------



## davel745

I now think that he will be found guilty because the certain groups want him to be guilty. I now think that this is a witch hunt and he is going to loose. The facts don't matter. If they did he wouldn't be on trial. The judge is biased for the government.


----------



## Tricky Grama

greg273 said:


> The EVIDENCE shows Zimmermans injuries to be non-life threatening. Maybe he was simply a coward who followed the wrong guy, and shot him when it got too heavy. It would be nice to get Trayvons side of the story, but Zimmerman took care of that. And by your logic, since Zimmerman had a loaded pistol during this fight, Trayvon could be considered justified in beating Zimmerman, being that he was 'in fear for his life'. Sounds like they were BOTH at fault. Travyon Martin paid with his life, what cost will Zimmerman be forced to pay?


For self defense, GZ's pretty much paid a price already.

I heard Elvis singing "...In the Getto..." the other day & wow, this is sooo similar! Its a rotten shame things have not gotten better than that-decades ago. They've actually gotten worse.
Like I said b/4, I had 2 teenage boys. They go do dumb things, they get off the right path at times & have to be parented/mentored/coached to grow up properly. Some just follow 'gansta' rules, think they're invincible, never learn respect, carry hate in their hearts.
Such a shame.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Bearfootfarm said:


> The "seriousness" of his injuries means *nothing *at all
> 
> The fact Zimmerman was armed is NOT justification for Martin to attack him, since he couldn;t have known about the gun
> 
> Nothing Zimmerman did was illegal, nor "threatening" to the point of allowing a physical response. by Martin.


----------



## Tricky Grama

greg273 said:


> Yes, lets stick to the facts. Zimmerman followed a guy who ended up giving him a bloody nose and two non life threatening cuts to the head, so he shot and killed him.


 Yup. Self-defense. See how that works? 
Its a real shame Martin is dead, really. Horrible.
Would've been a great life lesson if he'd just been wounded.


----------



## Tricky Grama

CesumPec said:


> But what if GZ is really innocent? Think how much his life has been turned upside down, having to live in hiding from threatening nut jobs, so much of his private life revealed on CNN and the websites of all sorts of haters. That is a whole lot of punishment if he is an innocent man.
> 
> Yes, I know TM paid a much higher price, but if this is nothing more than a circus act to appease the masses, it is morally wrong and not the proper use of gov't resources.
> 
> Back when the charges were filed, I expected there must be more that the gov't knew and had yet to be released. I'm still waiting for that evidence or witness that shows a serious reason to try GZ for murder 2.


----------



## Darren

katydidagain said:


> Maybe it's a good thing charges were filed because a jury will determine whether or not a crime was committed. Period.. Some will not agree with their findings but it will be a legal determination based on the evidence; this is how.our system works. Will it settle matters in the minds of those who seek to make this a polarizing event? No but in the end it's the best way IMO.


I wish I could agree with that. The reality is that Martin's death has been used as an excuse for assaults elsewhere. The investigator testified there wasn't enough facts to file charges.

The made up publicity that triggered the outpouring of hate has probably set race relations back. Whether or no it triggered more applications for CCW can't be known. I'll probably get mine before year's end simply because of the amount of hate generated over this and the growing drug problem. Until this incident I had no idea how bad it was in some cities. This case was an eye opener.

No matter what the jury decides the hate isn't going away. The creepy cracker is rather mild compared to the potential.

I's not just whites that are a risk. Not long ago a bunch of white kids murdered an older Black man in Jackson, MS whose only offense was being in the vicinity. He was employed in a factory and I believe walking some where when a group passing by in a pickup subjected him to a horrific death. He wasn't drunk. He was minding his own business. There was absolutely nothing he did to the whites except he was born Black.

More killing will come out of this thanks to the politicization of the incident. Anyone of us can be caught in the aftermath of this when you least expect it.


----------



## Darren

CesumPec said:


> But what if GZ is really innocent? Think how much his life has been turned upside down, having to live in hiding from threatening nut jobs, so much of his private life revealed on CNN and the websites of all sorts of haters. That is a whole lot of punishment if he is an innocent man.
> 
> Yes, I know TM paid a much higher price, but if this is nothing more than a circus act to appease the masses, it is morally wrong and not the proper use of gov't resources.
> 
> Back when the charges were filed, I expected there must be more that the gov't knew and had yet to be released. I'm still waiting for that evidence or witness that shows a serious reason to try GZ for murder 2.


There's nothing else. The prosecution rested. They laid everything out that they had. There's nothing further to show why they went for murder 2.


----------



## farmrbrown

The fact of the matter is, and yes this is a fact, not "evidence", is that the FIRST state's atty refused to file charges against Zimmerman, because he felt they did not have a case.
Months later when they got a different prosecutor involved, THAT one filed charges for political reasons.
That's why you have such a weak case today.

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2013/07/...ssured-him-to-file-charges-against-zimmerman/
Serino had pursued manslaughter charges for Zimmerman, 29, for the Miami Gardens teen's death but the investigator's bosses rejected his recommendation. Serino later said he was pressured by black officers into filing charges and did not believe there was enough evidence to support charges. That shift in stance could raise questions about the credibility of the law-enforcement witness in the murder trial.

Controversy swirled around Serino, a former Sanford major-crimes investigator, when evidence revealed that he had filed an arrest affidavit for Zimmerman -- about the same time then-Police Chief Bill Lee stated there was no probable cause to support an arrest.

Gov. Rick Scott appointed a special prosecutor from Jacksonville to take over the investigation; State Attorney Angela Corey's office filed second-degree murder charges against Zimmerman in April 2012.

The 44-day period before Zimmerman's arrest prompted Justice for Trayvon protests and marches in Sanford and in other cities as well as accusations that race played a role in the shooting.



Another interesting link, that not only backs up my post, but again has Zimmerman's statements to the police hours after the incident, given without hesitation or counsel, that are EXACTLY the same as the police videotape a few days later, EXACTLY the same as at his trial and haven't changed one bit.


THIS should be a warning sign to anyone who knows anything about LEO's. A lead detective asking for transfer to nightshift patrol?


"After the interviews were made public, Serino requested a transfer to patrol duty, including the overnight shift. He later told FBI investigators that he felt pressured by his colleagues, three African-American officers, to file charges"


----------



## TheMartianChick

Darren said:


> The fact is Martin could have just gone back to the house. The fact is Zimmerman lost sight of Martin. The fact is Martin was next seen by a witness on top of Zimmerman beating him The fact is the physician's assistant who examined Zimmerman testified to his injuries.
> 
> Sure I'm speculating that Martin ambushed Zimmerman. It's the only outcome that fits the dispatcher's tape, the layout of the buildings, Zimmerman's interview and Martin's own posts to the internet.
> 
> As much has people have tried to make Zimmerman out as a cop wannabe especially since he had a gun which btw the cops told him to buy to deal with a dog that had threatend him, his instructor blew that away by testifing he wanted to be a lawyer.
> 
> Martin on the other hand assumed the persona of a gansta by word, including photos, and deed.* If you look objectively at the histories of both individuals Zimmerman comes across as the kind of person you'd want around for a friend. Martin? NOPE!*
> 
> *Add in Crump who planned a money making scam and Zimmerman was setup for a railroad job*. If there wasn't an angle for money Crump would have never gotten involved.
> 
> *It's fortunate that by the time he did get involved to go for the gold. The truth about Martin was already archived and preserved for anyone to review.*



I guess that I have to disagree with the statement about Zimmerman being the kind of guy that I'd want as a friend. This "friendly" guy had an order of protection against him for domestic violence issues against an ex-girlfriend and he slugged an undercover officer and was ordered to undergo counseling/ alcohol treatment. If he hadn't followed the courts order, he would have never been able to enter into law enforcement. When I add in the fact that he followed a teen through a neighborhood for no good reason...Well you can probably understand why I wouldn't want him as a friend or a neighbor. I have a lot of family members and I'd hate to think that he might shoot one who was visiting for the Martian Family Reunion. Hoodies are standard attire in NY, despite the college degrees that many of us have. People also often look around at the houses on our block because we have a lot of ornate carvings and ornamentation on the Victorian structures on our block.

You can accuse Crump of turning this into a money-making scheme, but Zimmerman set up a Paypal account to solicit donations and didn't tell the court about it though there was more than $100,000 in it. His wife is still facing charges due to her involvement in this money-making scheme. Zimmerman's cop friend wrote a book to capitalize on the notoriety and Zimmerman's father has also written a book to do the same. Robert Zimmerman, Jr. (George Zimmerman's brother) has been all over social media spreading hate which seems to contradict his father's assertion that blacks are the real racists. Hmmm... if George's brother sends out racist tweets, it seems logical that George MIGHT share some of the same views. (Ya know...fruit from the same poisonous tree and all of that.)

http://mashable.com/2012/04/27/george-zimmerman/

http://thegrio.com/2012/06/13/court...n-said-hell-no-to-using-paypal-cash-for-bond/

http://communities.washingtontimes....-zimmermans-father-writes-book-race-and-mart/

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/zimmerman-fbi-docs

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/27/us/florida-zimmerman-brother-tweets

As for Trayvon's social media postings...Many of the ones that are floating out there were NOT from his account. There is one in particular that showed a kid that looked NOTHING like Trayvon with his pants down around his knees and many tried to misrepresent it as being a photo of Trayvon Martin in an attempt to justify the shooting of a child. (A 17 year old is still a minor.) Children post a lot of immature stuff on social media. It is possible that Trayvon felt the need to "represent" that he was tough on Facebook, etc... Some kids also just post things that they think others want to see on their pages. 

Note to parents: Many kids have more than one Facebook account, Twitter account, etc... Lots of parents have been shocked to find out what their kids post on their REAL pages. How do I know this? Kids really haven't changed much over the years, though technology has.

I was a kid who lived in the boonies without cable tv. Despite their parent's best efforts, my friends used to practice their acting skills by calling the various crisis hotlines. The one for rape was a favorite to call because they would talk for a long time and wouldn't call the cops. As the resident saint among my friends, I would listen in on the calls via 3 way and try to keep from giggling. Yeah... I was every bit as immature as my friends were. My parents would have been appalled if they'd known.


----------



## farmrbrown

It's fairly obvious after almost thirty pages, that there are 3 camps of people here, and their opinions are not going to change, no matter what.

1. Think Martin was a "gangsta", Zimmerman was a saint and Martin deserved to be shot.

2. Think Zimmerman was a profiling racist and Martin was a saint, and Zimmerman deserves to get a murder charge and prison.

3. Those that know that the only relevant issue NOW, is whether Zimmerman's acts qualify as a crime under the statute or he acted lawfully in self defense.
Nothing else, nada.


----------



## painterswife

farmrbrown said:


> It's fairly obvious after almost thirty pages, that there are 3 camps of people here, and their opinions are not going to change, no matter what.
> 
> 1. Think Martin was a "gangsta", Zimmerman was a saint and Martin deserved to be shot.
> 
> 2. Think Zimmerman was a profiling racist and Martin was a saint, and Zimmerman deserves to get a murder charge and prison.
> 
> 3. Those that know that the only relevant issue NOW, is whether Zimmerman's acts qualify as a crime under the statute or he acted lawfully in self defense.
> Nothing else, nada.


The only relevant issue to the verdict is what the sitting jury decides after they have seen all the evidence, received instructions and have deliberated.


----------



## katydidagain

painterswife said:


> The only relevant issue to the verdict is what the sitting jury decides after they have seen *all the evidence*, received instructions and have deliberated.


Only the evidence they were allowed to see. Sat on a jury once--only once. We heard no evidence in a civil case; 90% was sidebars with a loud buzzer going off so we couldn't hear.. Someone suing worker's comp for benefits denied. (This was in the early 80s when nobody ever got turned down.) I tried to follow the directions which said to base my decision only on the evidence; the other 11 voted for the plaintiff because they felt sorry for him. I finally gave up and went along. Insurance company lawyer, curious about how we could possibly have found against them, asked jurors afterwards and explained what had been left out--the guy had 2 back surgeries before going he went to work as a steel worker, failed to mention that on his app and also, despite training, lifted materials improperly and was injured.. My fellow jurors were horrified that we hadn't known the truth because they would have voted differently.

A judge who is biased can keep relevant evidence from being presented.


----------



## Pearl B

> It's fairly obvious after almost thirty pages, that there are 3 camps of people here, and their opinions are not going to change, no matter what.


I agree completely. Thats why I have mostly refrained from posting for/against either side. It was that way on this board when it first happened.
Jmo; I dont think either party was/is a saint or satan. Again Jmo; Z is mentally unbalanced & is the kind of person that shouldnt have access to a gun. I believe with Z's particular mind set an incident of this nature was bound to happen. If it wasnt T, it would have been another.
People claim if T would have done anything different than what he did, the outcome would have been different. Well you can say the same for Z. I do think Z deserves to face charges for his actions. I just am not sure to what extent he deserves incarceration.

This trial leaves me no satisfaction either way that it goes. The all female jury suggests stacking to me. The level of authority the judge has & has exercised leads me to believe this is just a media circus event for the masses. I do believe it was completely wrong for the judge to disallow that T may well have been stoned at the time. If I was on a jury, that would be very relevant info for me.

This farce of a trial will not accomplish anything relevant to anyone. I do not want to see Z go to jail because thats what the mob demands.


----------



## painterswife

katydidagain said:


> Only the evidence they were allowed to see. Sat on a jury once--only once. We heard no evidence in a civil case; 90% was sidebars with a loud buzzer going off so we couldn't hear.. Someone suing worker's comp for benefits denied. (This was in the early 80s when nobody ever got turned down.) I tried to follow the directions which said to base my decision only on the evidence; the other 11 voted for the plaintiff because they felt sorry for him. I finally gave up and went along. Insurance company lawyer, curious about how we could possibly have found against them, asked jurors afterwards and explained what had been left out--the guy had 2 back surgeries before going he went to work as a steel worker, failed to mention that on his app and also, despite training, lifted materials improperly and was injured.. My fellow jurors were horrified that we hadn't known the truth because they would have voted differently.
> 
> A judge who is biased can keep relevant evidence from being presented.


That is the lawyers job to work at overcoming. You don't have to trust in the system but you do have to work at it.

As we can see on this very thread many will have a biases for many different reasons. This case is the perfect example of working through the system. We have to second guess it and it's players at every step. We have to watch the judges, the jurors, the lawyers and the defendants as well as the system itself. 

There will be some here that won't accept either verdict because it goes against what they believe is the truth even if the law does not allow that truth to be presented in court.

We play a game of odds when we have court cases and we have to keep working towards making those odds favor getting to the truth.


----------



## katydidagain

painterswife said:


> That is the lawyers job to work at overcoming. .


And an attorney can only fight so hard if the judge has made up his/her mind. Objections, often invalid, are ruled on by one party. The only recourse is filing an appeal. Often the cost of further litigation is greater than the potential benefit.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Maybe it's a good thing charges were filed because a jury will determine whether or not a crime was committed


The State already KNEW no crime had been committed, which is why they never filed charges to begin with.

This is all a POLITICAL and RACIST circus for the gullible


----------



## katydidagain

Bearfootfarm said:


> The State already KNEW no crime had been committed, which is why they never filed charges to begin with.
> 
> This is all a POLITICAL and RACIST circus for the gullible


Just because the state chose not to file charges initially didn't mean they couldn't do so in the future. Which they did. If GZ is found not guilty, he cannot be tried again. If he is convicted, he has the right to appeal. I'm not particularly fond of the system but it's what we have.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Bearfootfarm said:


> The State already KNEW no crime had been committed, which is why they never filed charges to begin with.
> 
> This is all a POLITICAL and RACIST circus for the gullible


----------



## Bearfootfarm

katydidagain said:


> Just because the state chose not to file charges initially didn't mean they couldn't do so in the future. *Which they did*. If GZ is found not guilty, he cannot be tried again. If he is convicted, he has the right to appeal. I'm not particularly fond of the system but it's what we have.


They only did it because of POLITICAL PRESSURE
The FACTS of the case prove it was self defense under the law.

If he's convicted *based on the EVIDENCE*, the jury is comprised of idiots


----------



## Karen

katydidagain said:


> And an attorney can only fight so hard if the judge has made up his/her mind. Objections, often invalid, are ruled on by one party. The only recourse is filing an appeal. Often the cost of further litigation is greater than the potential benefit.


That's not true. People say these things all the time because it's how it looks to those who have no legal training, don't know the laws regarding court procedure, and how the system works. There is a great deal an attorney can do. The reason they don't is:

If a judge makes their ruling based on law (or caselaw) that is already in place regarding the reason for that ruling, attorney won't pursue it because he knows the judge made the right ruling, even if he doesn't like the outcome.

Sometimes, however, an attorney is just too lazy to pursue it as it does require a lot of time, paperwork, and efforts to get the ruling changed.

Sometimes, if it is a bad ruling when his case is not going well, he will let it slide to build up a list of bad rulings for a case for appeal. You see, you can't just appeal a case. You have to have a legal argument for appeal.

With regards to sidebars. They are essential! If you didn't have sidebars, a trial would go on for months or years because they are discussing law or caselaw about the topic at hand. If they didn't discuss it as a sidebar, the attorney would have to file for a separate hearing. Now that sounds easy, but here's what it means to have a hearing:
1. You have to put into writing your objections and reason for the hearing in the form of a formal written Motion. I don't know any attorney who actually does this himself. He usually either dictates it for a legal secretary to transcribe (and attorneys are usually not to fast on getting this done), or it is done without the attorney by the paralegal who has to fit it into their caseload.

2. You have to schedule a hearing before the judge. This is also not as easy as it sounds. It means trying to coordinate a time when the judge and all attorneys are free to do meet for the hearing - as well as when a court reporter is free.

3. You then have to prepare a Notice of Hearing which states when the hearing date and time is.

4. All of these have to prepared in duplicates for every attorney involved in both sides of the case. Mailed with a Certificate of Certification.

5. The original paperwork has to be taken to the courthouse to be filed.

6. The hearing takes place; usually in the judge's chambers.

7. After the hearing, whichever attorney won his argument, has to prepare the Order on the Motion which states however the judge ruled.

8. The Order goes back to the judge.

9. The judge signs the Order in their spare time when they are present at their office and not in court days on end.

10. Then, and only then, can the trial be put back on the docket; which could be weeks or months from then if there is no available time for however many consecutive days the remainder of the trial is expected to take.​So if a trial was done without sidebars, a jury could be tied up for years. So whenever you are on jury duty and have a sidebar, think of it as something good!


----------



## CesumPec

katydidagain said:


> And what life would GZ have had without the trial? I don't know why this happened to him; I don't know why things happened in my life either. I don't know why I wasn't born into a meager life in India nor do I understand why I was not the child of extreme wealth. I try to consider my struggles to be my life's lessons; perhaps this is GZ's path.


None of those Qs about your life involve what seems more and more like an improper use of gov't resources to persecute, yes persecute, an individual for political reasons. I expect better from my gov't.


----------



## katydidagain

CesumPec said:


> None of those Qs about your life involve what seems more and more like an improper use of gov't resources to persecute, yes persecute, an individual for political reasons. I expect better from my gov't.


Heavens you're naive!

I fully understand the reason for sidebars. I mentioned it because the jury heard no actual evidence in the case; they awarded the plaintiff money because they felt sorry for him. They paid no attention to the instructions; a bunch of college grads many possessing higher degrees did what they wanted.

ETA: I have no doubt the defense is keeping a list of all rulings not in their client's favor. Raising the issue now would do nothing but further tick off the judge.


----------



## CesumPec

Darren said:


> There's nothing else. The prosecution rested. They laid everything out that they had. There's nothing further to show why they went for murder 2.


Agreed as far as the trial goes, but sometime in the coming months, I predict that the details, emails, and conversations will be revealed that explain how gov't officials changed this from no charge to murder 2.


----------



## katydidagain

CesumPec said:


> Agreed as far as the trial goes, but sometime in the coming months, I predict that the details, emails, and conversations will be revealed that explain how gov't officials changed this from no charge to murder 2.


And it will make no difference.


----------



## vicker

Bearfootfarm said:


> They only did it because of POLITICAL PRESSURE
> The FACTS of the case prove it was self defense under the law.
> 
> If he's convicted *based on the EVIDENCE*, the jury is comprised of idiots


In sure glad we got that cleared up.


----------



## CesumPec

katydidagain said:


> Heavens you're naive!
> 
> I fully understand the reason for sidebars. I mentioned it because the jury heard no actual evidence in the case; they awarded the plaintiff money because they felt sorry for him. They paid no attention to the instructions; a bunch of college grads many possessing higher degrees did what they wanted.
> 
> ETA: I have no doubt the defense is keeping a list of all rulings not in their client's favor. Raising the issue now would do nothing but further tick off the judge.


I'm naive and confused. Did you mean to write that reply to my message or someone else's?


----------



## 7thswan

Darren said:


> I wish I could agree with that. The reality is that Martin's death has been used as an excuse for assaults elsewhere. The investigator testified there wasn't enough facts to file charges.
> 
> The made up publicity that triggered the outpouring of hate has probably set race relations back. Whether or no it triggered more applications for CCW can't be known. I'll probably get mine before year's end simply because of the amount of hate generated over this and the growing drug problem. Until this incident I had no idea how bad it was in some cities. This case was an eye opener.
> 
> No matter what the jury decides the hate isn't going away. The creepy cracker is rather mild compared to the potential.
> 
> I's not just whites that are a risk. Not long ago a bunch of white kids murdered an older Black man in Jackson, MS whose only offense was being in the vicinity. He was employed in a factory and I believe walking some where when a group passing by in a pickup subjected him to a horrific death. He wasn't drunk. He was minding his own business. There was absolutely nothing he did to the whites except he was born Black.
> 
> More killing will come out of this thanks to the politicization of the incident. Anyone of us can be caught in the aftermath of this when you least expect it.


Kinda like this:


----------



## CesumPec

katydidagain said:


> And it will make no difference.


Maybe. But maybe we will find the same sort of abuse that happened in the Duke Lacrosse rape case where the DA was eventually fired, disbarred, and convicted of criminal contempt. I should think every American would expect better from their gov't, but heck, I'm naive like that.


----------



## Darren

TheMartianChick said:


> I guess that I have to disagree with the statement about Zimmerman being the kind of guy that I'd want as a friend. This "friendly" guy had an order of protection against him for domestic violence issues against an ex-girlfriend and he slugged an undercover officer and was ordered to undergo counseling/ alcohol treatment. If he hadn't followed the courts order, he would have never been able to enter into law enforcement. When I add in the fact that he followed a teen through a neighborhood for no good reason...Well you can probably understand why I wouldn't want him as a friend or a neighbor. I have a lot of family members and I'd hate to think that he might shoot one who was visiting for the Martian Family Reunion. Hoodies are standard attire in NY, despite the college degrees that many of us have. People also often look around at the houses on our block because we have a lot of ornate carvings and ornamentation on the Victorian structures on our block.
> 
> You can accuse Crump of turning this into a money-making scheme, but Zimmerman set up a Paypal account to solicit donations and didn't tell the court about it though there was more than $100,000 in it. His wife is still facing charges due to her involvement in this money-making scheme. Zimmerman's cop friend wrote a book to capitalize on the notoriety and Zimmerman's father has also written a book to do the same. Robert Zimmerman, Jr. (George Zimmerman's brother) has been all over social media spreading hate which seems to contradict his father's assertion that blacks are the real racists. Hmmm... if George's brother sends out racist tweets, it seems logical that George MIGHT share some of the same views. (Ya know...fruit from the same poisonous tree and all of that.)
> 
> http://mashable.com/2012/04/27/george-zimmerman/
> 
> http://thegrio.com/2012/06/13/court...n-said-hell-no-to-using-paypal-cash-for-bond/
> 
> http://communities.washingtontimes....-zimmermans-father-writes-book-race-and-mart/
> 
> http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/zimmerman-fbi-docs
> 
> http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/27/us/florida-zimmerman-brother-tweets
> 
> As for Trayvon's social media postings...Many of the ones that are floating out there were NOT from his account. There is one in particular that showed a kid that looked NOTHING like Trayvon with his pants down around his knees and many tried to misrepresent it as being a photo of Trayvon Martin in an attempt to justify the shooting of a child. (A 17 year old is still a minor.) Children post a lot of immature stuff on social media. It is possible that Trayvon felt the need to "represent" that he was tough on Facebook, etc... Some kids also just post things that they think others want to see on their pages.
> 
> Note to parents: Many kids have more than one Facebook account, Twitter account, etc... Lots of parents have been shocked to find out what their kids post on their REAL pages. How do I know this? Kids really haven't changed much over the years, though technology has.
> 
> I was a kid who lived in the boonies without cable tv. Despite their parent's best efforts, my friends used to practice their acting skills by calling the various crisis hotlines. The one for rape was a favorite to call because they would talk for a long time and wouldn't call the cops. As the resident saint among my friends, I would listen in on the calls via 3 way and try to keep from giggling. Yeah... I was every bit as immature as my friends were. My parents would have been appalled if they'd known.


Each of us is assigning a relative importance to facts. That and how much we read into that largely determines our opinions of both Zimmerman and Martin. Crump tried to portray Martin as a young innocent and the media bought the release. That got the attention desired and led to the media firestorm.

That portrayal put another man's life in jeopardy. You can't ignore that a couple with no connection to the incident whose address was mistakenly released was forced to move to protect themselves. That shows the amount of hate Crump generated. One group offered a reward. That is unconscionable.

Each fact about either man can be construed for or against him depending on your point of view. He pushed an *undercover* cop. Obviously he couldn't tell the man was a cop. How many of us have seen cops ring up an extended list of charges? The lesson? Don't disrespect a cop even when you can't tell he's a cop.

He had a restraining order placed against him. Must be a real violent guy. Right? How many of us have seen that done routinely to hurt the one we used to love? Add that he had a CCW. The guy must be a real desperado. 

Martin without doubt had problems at school that had nothing to do with academics. Crump's moves to get that sealed is interesting. It obviously conflicts with his made up St. Trayvon image As much as some may want to not believe his growing problem, some of the pictures and all of the social media posts were his. At a minimum that information can be looked at as a young man with a testosterone problem. Couple that with the school issues and the problem looks more serious.

Depending on experience a person could support either individual. That doesn't mean you are correct in your opinion. Have you looked at every thing available and looked at it as a positive and a negative or only considered the viewpoint that supported your native bias?

We're all prejudiced. It's basic human nature handed down from our ancestors that survived being killed and in some cases eaten. It's an essential human trait that can be so subtle we don't recognize it. Yet it benefits us and simplifies our lives every day.

I never went through what Zimmerman did. There was an incident at a rest stop when three young men feeling frisky came out of the building. I was sitting in my truck. One of them wanted to get better acquainted with me. Fortunately for all of us, one of the others talked him out of it. What none of the three ever knew was that I had a .45 in my lap. The three young men were white. So stupidity isn't racial. 

Nothing hardens an opinion like someone arguing the opposite position when prejudice is involved. Just remember, we're all prejudiced. For those who think you're not prejudiced, you're denying a basic human trait that was instilled millions of years ago.


----------



## 7thswan

It is very "amusing" to me that the same people here that find TM innocent, are the ones that refuse to even look at the evidence that supports/and PROVES Obamas birth cert. that he posted on a Government site is FAKE. Not to mention his Selective service card/number is FAKE and his Social Security # is a # that belongs to a DEAD man. The same ones ignore the Gun running scheme by O and the Bengazi mess, the Obamamacare LIES, lies after Lies... and it meens nothing, NOTHING,,, because as long as he can promote his division/hatred/demoralization of this Country. God help us all.


----------



## painterswife

7thswan said:


> It is very "amusing" to me that the same people here that find TM innocent, are the ones that refuse to even look at the evidence that supports/and PROVES Obamas birth cert. that he posted on a Government site is FAKE. Not to mention his Selective service card/number is FAKE and his Social Security # is a # that belongs to a DEAD man. The same ones ignore the Gun running scheme by O and the Bengazi mess, the Obamamacare LIES, lies after Lies... and it meens nothing, NOTHING,,, because as long as he can promote his division/hatred/demoralization of this Country. God help us all.


No more amusing than those people who believe in having to bring it up in any and every thread they can.Why not start your own "I am against Obama" thread instead of making everything in the universe about it. That was definitely not a "post of the day".


----------



## Tricky Grama

I just 're-learned' that GZ took a 'few' lie detector tests & passed all w/flying colors.
Some will say he's a pathilogical liar' others will say he's credible.

I stand by my "angry young man" feeling...as well as a stronger distaste for the leftlame media. I was caught in the 'OMG look what a cracker-cop-wannabe did to a innocent beautiful youngster' at 1st.


----------



## 7thswan

painterswife said:


> No more amusing than those people who believe in having to bring it up in any and every thread they can.Why not start your own "I am against Obama" thread instead of making everything in the universe about it. That was definitely not a "post of the day".


 
This case is the same, Judges can be just as corrupt as our political system. But go ahead and pretend that evidence matters.


----------



## dixiegal62

Came across this, may have been in the news already but it's the first I've heard of it. if it's true it sure doesn't sound like something a racist would do. 



"A white man, the son of a local police officer, sucker punched a black man in an unprovoked attack, and was not charged with any crime. It was just one act of violence among many, of course, and although apparently some people were outraged by it, nobody did much of anything about it.
Except George Zimmerman....."



http://crybelovedcountry.com/2013/07/george-zimmerman-racial-attitudes/


----------



## Karen

Darren said:


> Just remember, we're all prejudiced. For those who think you're not prejudiced, you're denying a basic human trait that was instilled millions of years ago.


I feel very sorry for people who believe this. It's just an excuse to justify their thoughts and actions. 

Prejudice *a choice*. You either choose to believe someone is inferior than you, or you can choose to believe all men are equal but often fail.

There are many many people who don't have a prejudice bone in their body. Thank God!


----------



## Karen

7thswan said:


> This case is the same, Judges can be just as corrupt as our political system. But go ahead and pretend that evidence matters.


Although a judge can be corrupt, doesn't mean that they are. Not even close to many judges; there are only a very very small handful. 

If you haven't worked in the legal system, you don't know and are basing your opinion only on what you hear from others or read. 

Kind of reminds me of the State Farm commercial about believing what you hear on the internet. :happy2:


----------



## Darren

dixiegal62 said:


> Came across this, may have been in the news already but it's the first I've heard of it. if it's true it sure doesn't sound like something a racist would do.
> 
> "A white man, the son of a local police officer, sucker punched a black man in an unprovoked attack, and was not charged with any crime. It was just one act of violence among many, of course, and although apparently some people were outraged by it, nobody did much of anything about it.
> Except George Zimmerman....."
> 
> http://crybelovedcountry.com/2013/07/george-zimmerman-racial-attitudes/


I've posted that information before. It's obvious that some here have bought Crump's "Zimmerman's is a racist" theme hook, line and sinker. The media release was obviously biased. Apparently Crump couldn't get out of testifying. I'm hoping O'Mara will be able to lay the groundwork for getting the man disbarred.

If anyone takes the time to study all of the material available on Zimmerman, you can see the problem with what Crump did. Zimmerman coming to the defense of a black homeless person wasn't the only act like that to his credit. There were many instances when he could be called a good Samaritan.

Can you be a good Christian and ignore those acts in reaching your judgement of the man?


----------



## painterswife

7thswan said:


> This case is the same, Judges can be just as corrupt as our political system. But go ahead and pretend that evidence matters.


I don't pretend. I don't need people to tell me how to think or what to believe. I have a mind and an intellect and I am free to use them to figure out things for myself. That you feel the need to put me down by implying I pretend because I see things different that you instead of proving your position is not the way to win people over to your side.


----------



## 7thswan

Karen said:


> I feel very sorry for people who believe this. It's just an excuse to justify their thoughts and actions.
> 
> Prejudice *a choice*. You either choose to believe someone is inferior than you, or you can choose to believe all men are equal but often fail.
> 
> There are many many people who don't have a prejudice bone in their body. Thank God!


 Prejudice doesn't always meen someone thinks/feels another is inferior. There are other feelings that come up, fear , envy, ect.


----------



## 7thswan

Karen said:


> Although a judge can be corrupt, doesn't mean that they are. Not even close to many judges; there are only a very very small handful.
> 
> If you haven't worked in the legal system, you don't know and are basing your opinion only on what you hear from others or read.
> 
> Kind of reminds me of the State Farm commercial about believing what you hear on the internet. :happy2:


I am working with the State Bar on a case right now, what a Attorney did to me and charges against me for the Attorneys mistakes. The Judge I had to deal with refused to look at what was going on, I had to PAY for the Judges investigation, and Pay for my 2nd Attorney to defend myself against the Ruleing. Ya, I won, but had to learn way more about the law than I wanted.


----------



## Lazaryss

If evidence actually mattered, shouldn't ALL of the evidence be allowed to be presented?


----------



## painterswife

Lazaryss said:


> If evidence actually mattered, shouldn't ALL of the evidence be allowed to be presented?


She is free to provide her evidence. Putting me down is not evidence.


----------



## Darren

Karen said:


> I feel very sorry for people who believe this. It's just an excuse to justify their thoughts and actions.
> 
> Prejudice *a choice*. You either choose to believe someone is inferior than you, or you can choose to believe all men are equal but often fail.
> 
> There are many many people who don't have a prejudice bone in their body. Thank God!


Karen, I suggest you read the book, "The Nature of Prejudice." Prejudice is simply making a decision without thinking through everything. Our ancestors that took off running away from the water hole when they heard something in the grass were preforming a prejudiced act. In our society prejudice. as you are alluding to, has come to be almost entirely associated with racism when in fact it's a very small example.

Prejudice is using learned experience to simply your life. For those things with which we have a repeated history, prejudice shortcuts the process for getting things done in our life. Something as simple as unlocking your car, getting in and starting it can be a prejudiced act. I don't think about which pocket holds the key. That is prejudice and for the most part it is good.

As I've said before not understanding the nature and mostly beneficial nature of prejudice cuts us off from understanding how to make better decisions. From that perspective I'll have to disagree with the statement. that some don't have a prejudiced bone in their body. It's basic human nature. It's a shame that its association with racism has blinded people to its true qualities both good and bad. It can help or hinder.

That was brought home to me when I was troubleshooting an electrical problem. Prejudice in that instance clouded my thinking. Only after the solution became more obvious did I understand why I couldn't fix the problem. I hadn't considered all of the facts.

Like I said, read the book. It's an eye opener if you want to understand human nature and decision making or acting without consciously making a decision. Contrary to what you think. predjudice is acting without thinking. It is not a choice.


----------



## Lazaryss

painterswife said:


> She is free to provide her evidence. Putting me down is not evidence.


I will remove the quote as I was trying to go along the lines of evidence mattering in a case and the travesty of not allowing certain evidence. My post was supposed to be nothing to do with you but apparently it is too early for me to see where that line of discussion is going. My apologies.

So putting the original question back into play.

If evidence truly mattered in a case, shouldn't all of the evidence be allowed to be presented.


----------



## painterswife

Lazaryss said:


> I will remove the quote as I was trying to go along the lines of evidence mattering in a case and the travesty of not allowing certain evidence. My post was supposed to be nothing to do with you but apparently it is too early for me to see where that line of discussion is going. My apologies.
> 
> So putting the original question back into play.
> 
> If evidence truly mattered in a case, shouldn't all of the evidence be allowed to be presented.


The problem I see with that statement is the same reason the court system have restrictions on what and how evidence can be presented. Not everything that people think is evidence is really evidence. This works to benefit both the defendant's case as well the prosecutions case. It is not always perfect but the rules are the same for both.


----------



## MJsLady

> If evidence truly mattered in a case, shouldn't all of the evidence be allowed to be presented.


Yes. If you do not have all the evidence (General you not aimed at any person) you can not make a decision based solely on the evidence. Something, emotion, logic, extrapolation, something besides evidence will fill in the missing information.


----------



## watcher

CesumPec said:


> That is a sure fire ticket to prison. Two center mass torso shots, yes. But you don't intentionally do the cranial ocular cavity shot unless you have reason to believe 2 torso shots failed to stop the eminent danger to you or an innocent. A shot to the hear is an execution and you don't get to make that decision without additional justification.
> 
> Cops will go direct to a head shot but only in limited situations like multiple bad guys in a hostage situation.


Not so. You shoot to stop an attacker. If he has not stopped after X number of shots to the body you can reasonably assume only a head shot will stop him. He could be wearing body armor or be so high on something that you could hit him center mass for several minutes before his brain realizes his body is dead.

Once you start firing you don't stop until the threat is ended.


----------



## Darren

watcher said:


> Not so. You shoot to stop an attacker. If he has not stopped after X number of shots to the body you can reasonably assume only a head shot will stop him. He could be wearing body armor or be so high on something that you could hit him center mass for several minutes before his brain realizes his body is dead.
> 
> Once you start firing you don't stop until the threat is ended.


To his credit Zimmerman fired only one shot. Afterwards he didn't know Martin was dead.


----------



## watcher

jtbrandt said:


> So do you agree with the poster who said Zimmerman should have shot Martin before he got close to him?


IDK, it depends on the level of threat Zimmerman felt. 

Read the scenario I used here: http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/6644127-post208.html


If you feel someone is a threat to you, you do not have to wait until they have attacked you before you defend yourself.


----------



## dixiegal62

As far as I'm concerned the more I hear GZ's voice on the 911 call, the more I'm convinced the person screaming is GZ. He has a higher pitch voice just like the person yelling for help does.


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> IDK, it depends on the level of threat Zimmerman felt.
> 
> Read the scenario I used here: http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/6644127-post208.html
> 
> 
> If you feel someone is a threat to you, you do not have to wait until they have attacked you before you defend yourself.


Not quite true. It has to be a reasonable threat. I could not say that suspect #1 was across the street with a knife raised so I had to shoot him if I was 50 feet away.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> Prosecution is going to rest when the jury is back. They've just got a few arguments before they bring the jury back in.
> 
> ****Edited to Add****
> O'Mara is arguing for an immediate acquittal, based on the prosecution not making their case.


SOP, almost never happens. But in this case I seriously thought the judge might do it.


----------



## Darren

dixiegal62 said:


> As far as I'm concerned the more I hear GZ's voice on the 911 call, the more I'm convinced the person screaming is GZ. He has a higher pitch voice just like the person yelling for help does.


 I noticed that too in the police reenactment tape. Zimmerman does not have a low pitched voice. The fact that the witness who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman and heard Zimmerman calling for help nails that part of the incident.

Another poster related that in Africa a mother wildebeest can pick out its baby's cry out from the others in the herd. Since Martin's biological mother hadn't raised him since he was three years old, that's another loose end. Alicia Stanley raised Trayvon for fourteen years. Why didn't they ask her to testify whose voice was on the tape?

http://newsone.com/2622820/trayvon-martin-alicia-stanley/


----------



## CesumPec

Karen said:


> I feel very sorry for people who believe this. It's just an excuse to justify their thoughts and actions.
> 
> Prejudice *a choice*. You either choose to believe someone is inferior than you, or you can choose to believe all men are equal but often fail.
> 
> There are many many people who don't have a prejudice bone in their body. Thank God!


Thales, a greek philosopher said, "The most difficult thing in life is to know yourself." 

Similarly, a preacher once told me something along the lines that a wise man must not only learn to admit to his own failings, he must also learn that he will never know of all his failings. He said it better than me and I was young so I thought he was full of it.


----------



## watcher

Lazaryss said:


> But 6 women are clearly his peers.


The old joke is a jury is filled with people too stupid to get out of jury duty.

Not getting selected for jury duty is easy. Easiest way is to state you have knowledge of the case and have already made up your mind.


----------



## watcher

greg273 said:


> Yes, lets stick to the facts. Zimmerman followed a guy who ended up giving him a bloody nose and two non life threatening cuts to the head, so he shot and killed him.


You have to use the "reasonable man" line of thought. If a "reasonable man" was laying on the ground with another man on top of him 'pounding' his head into a concrete side walk would that "reasonable man" feel that he is facing death or grievous bodily harm?

If so then the use of deadly force was legally justified.

I don't know if I'm all that reasonable but if it were me I'd think that.


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> Not quite true. It has to be a reasonable threat. I could not say that suspect #1 was across the street with a knife raised so I had to shoot him if I was 50 feet away.


As I said you don't have to wait until they stab you either.


----------



## CesumPec

watcher said:


> Not so. You shoot to stop an attacker. If he has not stopped after X number of shots to the body you can reasonably assume only a head shot will stop him. He could be wearing body armor or be so high on something that you could hit him center mass for several minutes before his brain realizes his body is dead.
> 
> Once you start firing you don't stop until the threat is ended.


Reread what I wrote and you'll see you just agreed with me. 

In my training, X body shots = 2.


----------



## dixiegal62

How does everyone feel about GZ's choice of words? Sounded to me like he was speaking to a group of trouble makers as a whole. While TM's choice of words where targeted at GZ, more personal.


----------



## mmoetc

dixiegal62 said:


> How does everyone feel about GZ's choice of words? Sounded to me like he was speaking to a group of trouble makers as a whole. While TM's choice of words where targeted at GZ, more personal.


We don't know TM's words. We only have Zimmerman's report of what those words were and he wasn't under oath at the time. It will be up to the jury to judge the veracity of that statement.


----------



## dixiegal62

mmoetc said:


> We don't know TM's words. We only have Zimmerman's report of what those words were and he wasn't under oath at the time. It will be up to the jury to judge the veracity of that statement.


 
We have his friend/girl friend's testimony of what TM said to her on the phone. She was under oath at the time.


----------



## mmoetc

dixiegal62 said:


> We have his friend/girl friend's testimony of what TM said to her on the phone. She was under oath at the time.


But I thought none if you found her to be a credible witness. Or is she only credible when it comes to what you already agree to?


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> How does everyone feel about GZ's choice of words? Sounded to me like he was speaking to a group of trouble makers as a whole. While TM's choice of words where targeted at GZ, more personal.


That in itself is part of the problem. CZ was upset with a group and assumed that Trayvon was part of that group.


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> That in itself is part of the problem. CZ was upset with a group and assumed that Trayvon was part of that group.


And he was probably right. Anybody with any sense knows wondering around crime ridden neighborhoods at night, in the rain, looking into windows is asking for trouble. TM found it.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> And he was probably right. Anybody with any sense knows wondering around crime ridden neighborhoods at night, in the rain, looking into windows is asking for trouble. TM found it.


Looking in windows at night? He was walking home and looking around not up against the window peering in. He knew Zimmerman was watching him, he was likely not planning a robbery.


----------



## dixiegal62

mmoetc said:


> But I thought none if you found her to be a credible witness. Or is she only credible when it comes to what you already agree to?


 
Where did I say anything about her credibility? How did you find her testimony mmoetc?


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> Looking in windows at night? He was walking home and looking around not up against the window peering in. He knew Zimmerman was watching him, he was likely not planning a robbery.


 
You know that how?


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> You know that how?


The same way you know what you do. You don't, you were not there and you only have the word of someone that shot the person who can not tell his story.


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> The same way you know what you do. You don't, you were not there and you only have the word of someone that shot the person who can not tell his story.


 
I'm looking at all the pieces of the puzzle, not cherry picking what I want to be true. The state hasn't given one piece of evidence to prove GZ's version isn't fact.
What evidence have you heard that takes any doubt away as to why TM was innocent of any wrong doing?


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> I'm looking at all the pieces of the puzzle, not cherry picking what I want to be true. The state hasn't given one piece of evidence to prove GZ's version isn't fact.


I am looking at the same evidence and I see other possible scenarios. I have no stake in the outcome nor do I care one way or the other. No cherry picking here though everyone sure likes to think they know what I think because of other post of mine.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> What evidence have you heard that takes any doubt away as to why TM was innocent of any wrong doing?


There is no evidence that he was. I thought it was innocent until proven guilty that several here keep saying. Why is that good from Zimmerman and not the other way around?


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> I am looking at the same evidence and I see other possible scenarios. I have no stake in the outcome nor do I care one way or the other. No cherry picking here though everyone sure likes to think they know what I think because of other post of mine.


Then by all means, share your possible scenarios.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> Then by all means, share your possible scenarios.


So I can be like the rest of those that think they know what happened and judge without listening to the presented evidence? No I have no interest in that.


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> So I can be like the rest of those that think they know what happened and judge without listening to the presented evidence? No I have no interest in that.


 
So it sounds like what your saying is you just want to tell people their opinion on the case is wrong with nothing to back it up.... no problem, just wanted a better understanding of your feelings on the whole matter.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> So what your saying is you just want to tell people their opinion on the case is wrong with nothing to back it up.... no problem, just wanted a better understanding of your feelings on the whole matter.


Actually no. I am sick of people saying they know what the evidence is and what should be allowed and that Trayvon was doing something wrong and that Zimmerman can do no wrong. I wanted to discuss the evidence presented in court and see if we could see along the way how that evidence will lead to a jury decision. What I got was a bunch of people telling me what the answer should be, that there was only one way to look at it and that I pretend because I see things different or that there might be another truth than what they or I believe.


----------



## mmoetc

dixiegal62 said:


> Where did I say anything about her credibility? How did you find her testimony mmoetc?


My apologies. I'll amend my statement to say "many" instead of none. I found her testimony compelling.


----------



## Hollowdweller

So what is y'all guys summary of the DNA evidence? Do you think it supports the allegation of a prolonged struggle?


----------



## painterswife

Hollowdweller said:


> So what is y'all guys summary of the DNA evidence? Do you think it supports the allegation of a prolonged struggle?


I don't. I now have to discount all the "who is screaming" because everyone and their dog seems to know who it was even though the expert said only close family members really would know and even then it would be a maybe.


----------



## Darren

mmoetc said:


> My apologies. I'll amend my statement to say "many" instead of none. I found her testimony compelling.


Compelling? Even when the prosecutor admitted they know she perjured herself? If two documented lies exist, how many more? One of those was important to Crump's made up story.


----------



## mmoetc

Darren said:


> Compelling? Even when the prosecutor admitted they know she perjured herself? If two documented lies exist, how many more? One of those was important to Crump's made up story.


Happy to see you have no doubts about her credibility.


----------



## dixiegal62

dixiegal62 said:


> How does everyone feel about GZ's choice of words? Sounded to me like he was speaking to a group of trouble makers as a whole. While TM's choice of words where targeted at GZ, more personal.





painterswife said:


> That in itself is part of the problem. CZ was upset with a group and assumed that Trayvon was part of that group.





painterswife said:


> Actually no. I am sick of people saying they know what the evidence is and what should be allowed and that Trayvon was doing something wrong and that Zimmerman can do no wrong. I wanted to discuss the evidence presented in court and see if we could see along the way how that evidence will lead to a jury decision. What I got was a bunch of people telling me what the answer should be, that there was only one way to look at it and that I pretend because I see things different or that there might be another truth than what they or I believe.


 
I was trying to discuss the evidence and of course my opinion of it. You're answer was exactly what you state you're sick of.. you gave your opinion. Sorry but I don't see any difference in you doing it or anyone else doing it. Everyone has an opinion of this trial.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> So it sounds like what your saying is you just want to tell people their opinion on the case is wrong with nothing to back it up.... no problem, just wanted a better understanding of your feelings on the whole matter.





dixiegal62 said:


> I was trying to discuss the evidence and of course my opinion of it. You're answer was exactly what you state you're sick of.. you gave your opinion. Sorry but I don't see any difference in you doing it or anyone else doing it. Everyone has an opinion of this trial.


You did not ask me to discuss my opinion, you asked me to provide evidence to back it up and then accused me of cherry picking to support my agenda. That in my opinion came across like you did not care what my opinion was because you had already decided I was biased to a side you disagreed with. That is not a discussion.


----------



## dixiegal62

dixiegal62 said:


> How does everyone feel about GZ's choice of words? Sounded to me like he was speaking to a group of trouble makers as a whole. While TM's choice of words where targeted at GZ, more personal.





painterswife said:


> You did not ask me to discuss my opinion, you asked me to provide evidence to back it up and then accused me of cherry picking to support my agenda. That in my opinion came across like you did not care what my opinion was because you had already decided I was biased to a side you disagreed with. That is not a discussion.


 I asked for everyone's opinion and gave mine, you gave yours... then pretty much said you only wanted facts and was sick of everyone's opinion that didn't agree with yours. I just don't see how you can expect everyone else not to have an opinion. Just sayin......Either way... I just want to get back to discussing the evidence AND people's opinion of the evidence.


----------



## alpinechicken

dixiegal62 said:


> I asked for everyone's opinion and gave mine, you gave yours... then pretty much said you only wanted facts and was sick of everyone's opinion that didn't agree with yours. I just don't see how you can expect everyone else not to have an opinion. Just sayin......Either way... I just want to get back to discussing the evidence AND people's opinion of the evidence.


oops mistake


----------



## alpinechicken

miss typed


----------



## painterswife

alpinechicken said:


> Why would you ask my opinion and then discount it as cherry picking?


wrong log in


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> I asked for everyone's opinion and gave mine, you gave yours... then pretty much said you only wanted facts and was sick of everyone's opinion that didn't agree with yours. I just don't see how you can expect everyone else not to have an opinion. Just sayin......Either way... I just want to get back to discussing the evidence AND people's opinion of the evidence.


Sorry that was my husbands log in.

Why would you ask my opinion and then discount it as cherry picking?


----------



## dixiegal62

Not really buying the prosecution trying to make it like the father saying ''no'' was because of his grief and not because he was answering that no it wasn't TM screaming for help.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

mmoetc said:


> But I thought none if you found her to be a credible witness. Or is she only credible when it comes to what you already agree to?


If she's NOT credible, there is NO EVIDENCE against Zimmerman.
If she IS credible, she STILL supports Zimmerman
You tell us if she's credible or not


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> Sorry that was my husbands log in.
> 
> Why would you ask my opinion and then discount it as cherry picking?


 
Done with it, enjoy the rest of your day PW.


----------



## Darren

mmoetc said:


> Happy to see you have no doubts about her credibility.


She lost her credibility when her status changed from girlfriend to maybe a friend. That was the first sign that Crump had generated an alternative reality in his plan to rake in the bucks.

She was probably just an acquaintance based on her calling Trayvon "That kid" the day after his death. Even after being coached she ended up being a disastrous witness for the prosecution. People don't seem to understand you can't say one thing to your friends when you post on the internet and change your story talking to the police without consequences.

She lied about being in the hospital as the reason for not attending the funeral. The real reason was she didn't care. She already had a boyfriend. Fulton at least didn't ad lib on the witness stand. Since she quit taking care of Trayvon when he was three, I wonder if she could honestly testify to his voice. That brings up the question of why the prosecution didn't call Alica Stanley who was Trayvon's stepmother for fourteen years.

Do you think Trayvon's voice may have changed after puberty? Who do you think would be the best judge? His stepmother for fourteen years or his birth mother who gave up at three only to trademark his name after his death. That is cold blooded. If that didn't come from Crump, I'd be surprised.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

painterswife said:


> Looking in windows at night? He was walking home and looking around not up against the window peering in. *He knew Zimmerman was watching him*, he was likely not planning a robbery.


He didn't know at first, and you have no idea what he was looking at or in, unless you were there


----------



## Bearfootfarm

painterswife said:


> Not quite true.* It has to be a reasonable threat.* I could not say that suspect #1 was across the street with a knife raised so I had to shoot him if I was 50 feet away.


Zimmerman was under a reasonable threat
He was being BEATEN


----------



## painterswife

Bearfootfarm said:


> He didn't know at first, and you have no idea what he was looking at or in, unless you were there


No I don't. I was using Zimmerman's words and Trayvons to offer a possible scenario.


----------



## painterswife

Bearfootfarm said:


> Zimmerman was under a reasonable threat
> He was being BEATEN


Zimmerman believes that. Trayvon may have believed the same thing.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Hollowdweller said:


> So what is y'all guys summary of the DNA evidence? Do you think it supports the allegation of *a prolonged struggle*?


 It's more meaningless distraction.
It was raining, and there is no certainty DNA would have been transferred if he had grabbed for the gun

We already know the entire incident began and ended in about 2-3 minutes, so there was no "prolonged struggle"


----------



## Bearfootfarm

painterswife said:


> Zimmerman believes that. Trayvon may have believed the same thing.


 There is NO EVIDENCE shown that justifies Martin attacking Zimmerman.
You're SPECULATING on facts *not presented*


----------



## painterswife

Bearfootfarm said:


> There is NO EVIDENCE shown that justifies Martin attacking Zimmerman.
> You're SPECULATING on facts *not presented*


There is no evidence in my opinion that justified Zimmerman following Trayvon. You don't know what is fact and what is fiction only what Zimmerman story suggests.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

painterswife said:


> No I don't. I was using Zimmerman's words and Trayvons to offer *a possible scenario*.


There's no need for made-up "possible scenarios"
There is *evidence* about the REAL scenario
Martin was acting "suspiciously":



> "This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about" and "looking at all the houses"[7][8]


----------



## Bearfootfarm

painterswife said:


> There is no evidence in *my opinion* that justified Zimmerman following Trayvon. You don't know what is fact and what is fiction only what Zimmerman story suggests.


There's no law against "following" someone
The police thought it was good enough to dispatch officers to investiqate

There ARE laws against ASSAULTING someone

To say there is "no evidence" simply means you're IGNORING the* evidence presented*


----------



## painterswife

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's no need for made-up "possible scenarios"
> There is *evidence* about the REAL scenario
> Martin was acting "suspiciously":


I do not agree. Zimmerman read into his actions because of his prejudices. His own phone ( entered into evidence) leads me to believe that.


----------



## painterswife

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's no law against "following" someone
> The police thought it was good enough to dispatch officers to investiqate
> 
> There ARE laws against ASSAULTING someone
> 
> To say there is "no evidence" simply means you're IGNORING the* evidence presented*


There is no evidence that suggests that it was Trayvon hit Zimmerman first. There is no evidence presented that says that Trayvon was not defending himself from Zimmerman.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

painterswife said:


> I do not agree. Zimmerman read into his actions *because of his prejudices*. His own phone ( entered into evidence) leads me to believe that.


There is *no evidence* of that either.
You are making* assumptions* based on YOUR prejudice against Zimmerman.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

painterswife said:


> There is no evidence that suggests that it was Trayvon hit Zimmerman first. There is no evidence presented that says that Trayvon was not* defending himself* from Zimmerman.


LOL
There is LOTS of evidence to suggest that.
You just want to ignore anything you don't already agree with

Where is *ANY evidence* Martin had REASON to defend himself?


----------



## painterswife

Bearfootfarm said:


> There is *no evidence* of that either.
> You are making* assumptions* based on YOUR prejudice against Zimmerman.


That is your opinion. Mine is mine. I don't have prejudice against Zimmerman. I don't really care what the verdict is.


----------



## painterswife

Bearfootfarm said:


> LOL
> There is LOTS of evidence to suggest that.
> You just want to ignore anything you don't already agree with
> 
> Where is *ANY evidence* Martin had REASON to defend himself?


For all we know. Zimmerman tried to detain Trayvon and so he tried to get away by punching him.


----------



## partndn

wonder if it could be proposed to have a cap on number of posts per member on a thread ?

:bored:

I thought there might be some discussion here today on the witnesses the defense has called today.


----------



## partndn

I heard about half of the gym owner guy. I thought his testimony weighed well for the defense.
I was a little turned off that he couldn't seem to hide the fact that he's on GZ's side. (He may not be, but that's what it ended up looking like.)


----------



## painterswife

partndn said:


> I heard about half of the gym owner guy. I thought his testimony weighed well for the defense.
> I was a little turned off that he couldn't seem to hide the fact that he's on GZ's side. (He may not be, but that's what it ended up looking like.)


I dislike any testimony where the witness seems obviously slanted towards either side. If they were actually involved as a witness at the time of the incident I see it as relevant. I have trouble with the ones that are are really not adding more than an opinion that is helpful to the case, no matter what side.


----------



## Darren

painterswife said:


> I dislike any testimony where the witness seems obviously slanted towards either side. If they were actually involved as a witness at the time of the incident I see it as relevant. I have trouble with the ones that are are really not adding more than an opinion that is helpful to the case, no matter what side.


I take it you didn't approve of Trayvon's biological mother testifying either. 

The defense called people who knew Zimmerman and his voice. That's more appropriate than calling a biological mother who gave up her son, Trayvon, at age three and not calling the step mother who raised him for fourteen years through puberty.


----------



## kasilofhome

I miss the gym guy so here is a infomation seeking question for those who DID watch the gym guy testimoney.

Was it vetted if the gym guy had any prior knowledge/relationship of GZ before that night.

I wonder because if I did see something and what I saw was self evident to me that there was an person who was the agressore and there was the other party not being agressive I would not hide my support for the real victim.

Say I saw a 5 year old struggling against an adult male I feel that my human nature would be symathinc to the child verse the adult.


----------



## partndn

kasilofhome said:


> I miss the gym guy so here is a infomation seeking question for those who DID watch the gym guy testimoney.
> 
> Was it vetted if the gym guy had any prior knowledge/relationship of GZ before that night.
> 
> I wonder because if I did see something and what I saw was self evident to me that there was an person who was the agressore and there was the other party not being agressive I would not hide my support for the real victim.
> 
> Say I saw a 5 year old struggling against an adult male I feel that my human nature would be symathinc to the child verse the adult.


Oh, absolutely. It appeared GZ had been a customer of the gym place for months, probably longer, prior to incident. The guy was testifying as to how inadequate GZ was as a "fighter." even more so that he had been training and was not anywhere near having "skills" at all. 
GZ had lost between 50-80 pounds, I think, by time of incident. 
Gym guy saw him a few days after and also testified as to the black eyes, and other visible stuff, along with his sense that GZ had been through something very traumatic.
He described GZ physically as someone with a high percentage of body fat. Even after losing a good deal of weight, he said he was still what he would call "soft."


----------



## painterswife

Darren said:


> I take it you didn't approve of Trayvon's biological mother testifying either.
> 
> The defense called people who knew Zimmerman and his voice. That's more appropriate than calling a biological mother who gave up her son, Trayvon, at age three and not calling the step mother who raised him for fourteen years through puberty.


Her testimony , for me was equivalent to Zimmerman's mother. They cancelled each other out. I have no reason to weight one over the other.


----------



## Darren

Maybe Trayvon was prejudiced against people with a high percentage of body fat. Maybe calling Zimmerman a creepy cracker was his way of being nice. Maybe Tayvon circled back to suggest Zimmerman sign up for weight watchers and when Zimmerman accidentally tripped and fell on his back, Trayvon tried to help him out by messaging Zimmerman's face with his fists.

Zimmerman mistaking the facial message for hostiliy shot Trayvon in cold blood after becoming enregaged for being called overweight,


----------



## Darren

painterswife said:


> Her testimony , for me was equivalent to Zimmerman's mother. They cancelled each other out. I have no reason to weight one over the other.


How do you regard all of the people the defense called that verified the voice calling for help on the tape was Zimmerman's? Do you have an answer for why Trayvon's father said the voice calling for help wan't his son's as did his brother when questioned by police. That was before Crump got involved , btw.


----------



## painterswife

Darren said:


> How do you regard all of the people the defense called that verified the voice calling for help on the tape was Zimmerman's? Do you have an answer for why Trayvon's father said the voice calling for help wan't his son's as did his brother when questioned by police. That was before Crump got involved , btw.


I actually kind of weighted the prosecution experts testimony the most. He said that unless you heard the person voice in a similar situation your probability of identifying it was small. Therefore I discounted all the friends and would have placed it down to the parents identification. I then weighed the fact that I they would both be a bit biased ( I would be if it was my child) and had to have them cancel each other out.

If I was a jury member I would need something more than the screaming in this case.


----------



## Darren

painterswife said:


> I actually kind of weighted the prosecution experts testimony the most. He said that unless you heard the person voice in a similar situation your probability of identifying it was small. Therefore I discounted all the friends and would have placed it down to the parents identification. I then weighed the fact that I they would both be a bit biased ( I would be if it was my child) and had to have them cancel each other out.
> 
> If I was a jury member I would need something more than the screaming in this case.


So you don't believe the ex-combat medic's testimony that he could tell who was screaming for help in a combat situation?


----------



## kasilofhome

Thank you, Part'n.

Say I saw a 5 year old struggling against an adult male_._

Using the above setting if I had prior knowledge it could provide better info.

Say, I knew the childs mother from attending an "adult survier of incest group" and I knew at the prior meeting the mother stated that her assulter was getting out of prison and that she knew he was returning and had show the group a photo and it was a match for the man with the child I would have a position in my statement esp if the man was the uncle.

Now, say I knew the following to be true that the childs mother had just die and that the child's father was there to step up and parent the child and the the child resented her fathers due to lack of a relationship between him and false stories about him told to the child from the mother, and I knew that the two were meeting for the first time and as a family nutreal friend I was there to watch and assist the child ---

so I think that the gym guy assest GZ condistion and skills==Good info to have


----------



## unregistered353870

watcher said:


> IDK, it depends on the level of threat Zimmerman felt.


Legally it doesn't. It depends on the level of threat a reasonable person would believe they faced in the scenario. In Zimmerman's case, I tend to believe he acted as a reasonable person at the moment of the shooting, if not the entire lead-up to it.



> If you feel someone is a threat to you, you do not have to wait until they have attacked you before you defend yourself.


True, you don't have to wait for someone to attack you to defend yourself, but your "feelings" aren't enough justification to shoot someone. If you're a reasonable person, then your feelings are probably a decent indicator, but lots of people are not reasonable.


----------



## painterswife

Darren said:


> So you don't believe the ex-combat medic's testimony that he could tell who was screaming for help in a combat situation?


I was unable to hear his testimony in full so I can't comment on that.


----------



## unregistered353870

Karen said:


> I feel very sorry for people who believe this. It's just an excuse to justify their thoughts and actions.
> 
> Prejudice *a choice*. You either choose to believe someone is inferior than you, or you can choose to believe all men are equal but often fail.
> 
> There are many many people who don't have a prejudice bone in their body. Thank God!


Prejudice is not the same as racism or bigotry. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with considering someone to be inferior to you.


----------



## Hollowdweller

Bearfootfarm said:


> There is NO EVIDENCE shown that justifies Martin attacking Zimmerman.
> You're SPECULATING on facts *not presented*


 
There's no evidence that shows that Martin was the one who threw the first punch other than Zimmerman's testimoney correct?

Nobody saw the start of the thing right?


----------



## painterswife

Darren said:


> So you don't believe the ex-combat medic's testimony that he could tell who was screaming for help in a combat situation?


Did the medic testify that he had heard Zimmerman's voice in the same type of situation?

Persaonally, I wish they could do some type of CSI voice identification of the tape or actual voices but we know now that is not possible. I personally could not use the evidence presented ( that I heard) as either a guilty or not guilty. It is just not enough for me either way.


----------



## Darren

painterswife said:


> I was unable to hear his testimony in full so I can't comment on that.


Here's his testimony where he claimed to know who was screaming even in the chaos of combat.

[YOUTUBE]K-f5EqnlZ3U[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## kasilofhome

I like the facts of what the evidence was. thanks Darren


----------



## unregistered353870

Hollowdweller said:


> There's no evidence that shows that Martin was the one who threw the first punch other than Zimmerman's testimoney correct?
> 
> Nobody saw the start of the thing right?


There is no proof, but there IS evidence. Zimmerman's version is not testimony. He saw the start of the altercation and his version of events has been entered into evidence...by the prosecution, no less.


----------



## painterswife

Darren said:


> Here's his testimony where he claimed to know who was screaming even in the chaos of combat.
> 
> [YOUTUBE]K-f5EqnlZ3U[/YOUTUBE]


It is compelling and I believe the witness believes what he is saying but weighing it against the expert I don't really know if I believe he actually knows one way or another.


----------



## unregistered353870

It must have been pretty compelling if the prosecution wanted his testimony stricken. But the judge ruled to keep it. And now the THC in Trayvon's blood will be allowed, too. Some big wins for the defense. I wonder how those of you who think the trial is rigged respond to this news?


----------



## Hollowdweller

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's more meaningless distraction.
> It was raining, and there is no certainty DNA would have been transferred if he had grabbed for the gun
> 
> We already know the entire incident began and ended in about 2-3 minutes, so there was no "prolonged struggle"


 
True but do you think the lack of each others DNA on each other supports a struggle of the nature that would require deadly force?

From what I have read

Only Zimmermans DNA on the gun. Zimmerman testified he grabbed his gun correct? None on the holster either.


There was very little of Zimmerman's DNA on Martins hoodie. There was none of Zimmermans DNA under Martins nails.

There was two stains containing both mens DNA on the sweatshirt that Martin was wearing under his hoodie so apparently he and Zimmerman had their hands under Martin's hoodie?


Martins DNA was on the right cuff of Zimmerman's jacket.

Martins DNA was on the skittles bag.

Could be perfectly good explanation but it seems weird to me that if Martin was slamming Zimmerman to the pavement and beating up on him that so little of his DNA would be found on Zimmerman? I mean correct me if I'm wrong but more of Zimmerman's DNA on Martin?

They tested both of Trayvon Martins sleeves and his fingernails and no Zimmerman DNA?

Is it possible that Zimmerman had a hold of Martins arm or his sweatshirt under his hoodie when he shot him with the other hand?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Hollowdweller said:


> There's no evidence that shows that Martin was the one who threw *the first punch* other than Zimmerman's testimoney correct?
> 
> Nobody saw the start of the thing right?


There's no evidence Zimmerman did ANYTHING to justify a physical response from Martin.

The "first punch" is irrelevant if you* read* the FLA self defense law that has been posted multiple times already


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> True but do you think the* lack of each others DNA on each other* supports a struggle of the nature that would require deadly force?


One more time:
IT'S MEANINGLESS

It could have washed away in the rain.
Zimmerman's injuries and the EYEWITNESS who saw Martin beating him is all the justification needed for "deadly force"

The law doesnt' require "DNA transfer", and it's just one more DISTRACTION from the relevant facts



> if Martin was slamming Zimmerman to the pavement and beating up on him


There's no "if" involved.
There was a witness to the act, and physical evidence to support it happening that way


----------



## Darren

painterswife said:


> It is compelling and I believe the witness believes what he is saying but weighing it against the expert I don't really know if I believe he actually knows one way or another.


Which expert are you referring too?


----------



## painterswife

Darren said:


> Which expert are you referring too?


They has a speech identification or sound engineer. He testified that he could not identify the voice. He also testified that family members might be able to identify the voice but the caveat was that they would have to have heard the voice previously in such a life and death situation and even then he did not believe it would be a certainty with the quality of the recording.

It was just too "maybe" in all accounts for me to use it as any kind of definitive proof. Others may see it differently but it would the last evidence I considered when making a decision either way.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/08/justice/florida-zimmerman-trial


----------



## painterswife

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNDHriX1AHU

Audio Expert


----------



## Bearfootfarm

*Zimmerman Prosecutor Angela Corey Criminally Indicted By Citizens' Grand Jury For Allegedly Falsifying Arrest Warrant And Complaint




By Larry Klayman
Tuesday, Jul. 2, 2013 - 5:08 am
http://www.sacbee.com/2013/07/02/553...ela-corey.html

OCALA, Fla., July 2, 2013 -- /PRNewswire/ -- Florida State's Attorney Angela Corey has been indicted by a citizens' grand jury, convening in Ocala, Florida, over the alleged falsification of the arrest warrant and complaint that lead to George Zimmerman being charged with the second degree murder of African-American teenager Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida.

The indictment of Corey, which was handed down last week (see www.citizensgrandjury.com), charges Corey with intentionally withholding photographic evidence of the injuries to George Zimmerman's head in the warrant she allegedly rushed to issue under oath, in an effort to boost her reelection prospects. At the outset of this case, black activists such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who whipped up wrath against Zimmerman, demanded that he be charged with murder, after local police had thus far declined to arrest him pending investigation.

Continued...... 
__________________

Click to expand...

*


----------



## Darren

Bearfootfarm said:


> *Zimmerman Prosecutor Angela Corey Criminally Indicted By Citizens' Grand Jury For Allegedly Falsifying Arrest Warrant And Complaint
> *


Don't get your hopes up. Klayman is well known and not in a positive way.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Don't get your hopes up. Klayman is well known and not in a positive way.


Neither is she


----------



## watcher

jtbrandt said:


> Legally it doesn't. It depends on the level of threat a reasonable person would believe they faced in the scenario. In Zimmerman's case, I tend to believe he acted as a reasonable person at the moment of the shooting, if not the entire lead-up to it.
> 
> 
> True, you don't have to wait for someone to attack you to defend yourself, but your "feelings" aren't enough justification to shoot someone. If you're a reasonable person, then your feelings are probably a decent indicator, but lots of people are not reasonable.


Not quite. Example. Someone who has been raped before shoots someone who approaches them in their car in a dark parking lot could use the fact they feared being raped again even though a "reasonable" person would not fear that. In there case their state of mind and their fear could be enough to claim self defense.


----------



## davel745

Bearfootfarm said:


> *Zimmerman Prosecutor Angela Corey Criminally Indicted By Citizens' Grand Jury For Allegedly Falsifying Arrest Warrant And Complaint*


Is this real, how come she isn't arrested. I think nothing is going to happen here.


----------



## unregistered353870

watcher said:


> Not quite. Example. Someone who has been raped before shoots someone who approaches them in their car in a dark parking lot could use the fact they feared being raped again even though a "reasonable" person would not fear that. In there case their state of mind and their fear could be enough to claim self defense.


I don't think you're right about that but I don't know the law well enough. As I understand it, the reasonable person standard applies across the board.


----------



## dixiegal62

Bearfootfarm said:


> *Zimmerman Prosecutor Angela Corey Criminally Indicted By Citizens' Grand Jury For Allegedly Falsifying Arrest Warrant And Complaint*


 
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/indicted.asp
according to snoops the CGJ has no authority


----------



## unregistered353870

davel745 said:


> Is this real, how come she isn't arrested. I think nothing is going to happen here.


A citizen's grand jury is just a publicity stunt. It has no "official" authority. If they want Corey arrested they will have to do it themselves.


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> Zimmerman believes that. Trayvon may have believed the same thing.


You think GZ just 'believes' he was being beaten? There were no marks on TM. 
And you stated TM was 'walking home' but ...hmmm...why didn't he just GO HOME?


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> There is no evidence in my opinion that justified Zimmerman following Trayvon. You don't know what is fact and what is fiction only what Zimmerman story suggests.


 You do realize GZ passed a few lie detector tests.


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> For all we know. Zimmerman tried to detain Trayvon and so he tried to get away by punching him.


 Ah, the ol' Nevada reasoning!
How do you justify a beating if someone detains you? 
And we don't even have THAT evidence.


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> You do realize GZ passed a few lie detector tests.


Not part of the evidence.


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> Ah, the ol' Nevada reasoning!
> How do you justify a beating if someone detains you?
> And we don't even have THAT evidence.


Please don't use another posters name as way to try to put down my post. 

I don't believe the evidence proves there was a beating, an altercation but no proof of more than that.


----------



## kasilofhome

Paint

Did you have knowledge of the lie deteter and the results?

And if you did what did you do with that knowledge.

Dismiss it and deny that maybe you have a bias?

or

Would you have a reason to dismiss it at which it would be nice to what it is as it would be good to share that knowledge --

or you --like myself do not have that information and needed to seek it out.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> Paint
> 
> Did you have knowledge of the lie deteter and the results?
> 
> And if you did what did you do with that knowledge.
> 
> Dismiss it and deny that maybe you have a bias?
> 
> or
> 
> Would you have a reason to dismiss it at which it would be nice to what it is as it would be good to share that knowledge --
> 
> or you --like myself do not have that information and needed to seek it out.


Not part of the evidence, not part of the case presented, not to be considered by the jury. Therefore not part of my exercise to see what verdict the jury may come up with.


----------



## katydidagain

painterswife said:


> Not part of the evidence, not part of the case presented, not to be considered by the jury. Therefore not part of my exercise to see what verdict the jury may come up with.


I've only watched some of the trial and I know more than is being presented to the jury so I don't think I can determine what their verdict will be. I do understand what you're trying to do--have a discussion of what they will find based on what has been admitted.. Oh to be in a bubble!


----------



## kasilofhome

Paint 

thank you for explaining why it does not matter for you excersize. I do not get TV so I have only seen a few minute here and there while helping a neighbor. Most of what I get is from the net and here.

What happens behind the doors of the jury is up in the air. Even the judge has little impact as the six of them go over what they each understand.


----------



## joseph97297

Tricky Grama said:


> How do you justify a beating if someone detains you?


Might be a journey out to a tangent, but if someone told you that they were going to detain you, and not an officer, you wouldn't be a little worried and possibly fight your way out of it?

Not saying that is what happened at all in this case, just wanting to see if TG would just comply if some random guy stopped her at night and told her she was going to be 'detained'..... or would she have other ideas about that situation? 

I would justify a beating if someone was trying to hold me against my will to 'detain me' for no reason, but perhaps TG has a different take on it.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> Paint
> 
> thank you for explaining why it does not matter for you excersize. I do not get TV so I have only seen a few minute here and there while helping a neighbor. Most of what I get is from the net and here.
> 
> What happens behind the doors of the jury is up in the air. Even the judge has little impact as the six of them go over what they each understand.


I am watching it on the internet. I don't want to hear any of the talking heads tell me their version of what they think it means. I read and watched very little of the circus that lead up to the trial. I was very aware that people had decided what the truth was already but I was never interested in that.


----------



## farmrbrown

painterswife said:


> I don't believe the evidence proves there was a beating, an altercation but no proof of more than that.



I see. 
There it is in a nutshell.
You believe the evidence that a dishonest prosecutor presented from her dishonest ME that everything that happened to Zimmerman was "minor".

The fear in his voice doesn't matter. The pictures of his injuries don't matter. His statements that he was in fear of Martin Getting his gun and killing him during this "altercation" don't matter. Florida's laws on self defense don't matter.

Only the fact that you don't believe he was beaten.
As I've pointed out before, in my opinion, Zimmerman waited TOO long to act. If he would have acted sooner, Martin MIGHT be alive today.
But it sounds like you think he should have waited until he was beaten some more, before using self defense.


----------



## davel745

jtbrandt said:


> A citizen's grand jury is just a publicity stunt. It has no "official" authority. If they want Corey arrested they will have to do it themselves.


Thank you I miss a lot out here in the boonies.


----------



## Tricky Grama

joseph97297 said:


> Might be a journey out to a tangent, but if someone told you that they were going to detain you, and not an officer, you wouldn't be a little worried and possibly fight your way out of it?
> 
> Not saying that is what happened at all in this case, just wanting to see if TG would just comply if some random guy stopped her at night and told her she was going to be 'detained'..... or would she have other ideas about that situation?
> 
> I would justify a beating if someone was trying to hold me against my will to 'detain me' for no reason, but perhaps TG has a different take on it.


 I have sense enuf to know not to break someone's nose, knock them down & beat their head on the sidewalk. I perhaps would ask why the 'detaining'. I am stronger & fiestier than some may think...and can run as well. So, no, would not have done what TM did.


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> Please don't use another posters name as way to try to put down my post.
> 
> I don't believe the evidence proves there was a beating, an altercation but no proof of more than that.


 Gee, you'll have to agree its the same reasoning...no 'put down'.
Have to ask, did you not see pics of a beaten GZ? 
If you speculate, not based on any evidence at all, that TM was 'detained', tell us why that deserves a broken nose & cuts to the back of the head-or is even lawful.


----------



## Tricky Grama

farmrbrown said:


> I see.
> There it is in a nutshell.
> You believe the evidence that a dishonest prosecutor presented from her dishonest ME that everything that happened to Zimmerman was "minor".
> 
> The fear in his voice doesn't matter. The pictures of his injuries don't matter. His statements that he was in fear of Martin Getting his gun and killing him during this "altercation" don't matter. Florida's laws on self defense don't matter.
> 
> Only the fact that you don't believe he was beaten.
> As I've pointed out before, in my opinion, Zimmerman waited TOO long to act. If he would have acted sooner, Martin MIGHT be alive today.
> But it sounds like you think he should have waited until he was beaten some more, before using self defense.


----------



## mmoetc

Tricky Grama said:


> I have sense enuf to know not to break someone's nose, knock them down & beat their head on the sidewalk. I perhaps would ask why the 'detaining'. I am stronger & fiestier than some may think...and can run as well. So, no, would not have done what TM did.


And if I were a few feet away from someone and I saw them reaching for a gun I might punch them in the nose, follow them to the ground and incapacitate them as quickly as I could. This might include "pounding" their head into a concrete sidewalk. The possibility remains that both parties may have reasonably been afraid. I guess the law favors the survivor.


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> Gee, you'll have to agree its the same reasoning...no 'put down'.
> Have to ask, did you not see pics of a beaten GZ?
> If you speculate, not based on any evidence at all, that TM was 'detained', tell us why that deserves a broken nose & cuts to the back of the head-or is even lawful.


The pictures were entered as evidence and Doctor Roa said they were minor. I personally have had worse from getting hit with a soccer ball once in the face or by my younger brother when wrestling. I did not feel the need to shoot the soccer ball or my brother.

Feel free to point out where I have put people down in the last few days. I am definitely guilty of it before that. I will own up to my transgressions. I have been working very hard to not use language that would do that. I have deleted more than I have written for that very reason in the last couple of days.


----------



## 7thswan

Tricky Grama said:


> I have sense enuf to know not to break someone's nose, knock them down & beat their head on the sidewalk. I perhaps would ask why the 'detaining'. I am stronger & fiestier than some may think...and can run as well. So, no, would not have done what TM did.


 
Exactly. Many, Many people especially punks do not THINK that the person they attack might be a bigger bad *butt* than they are. They certinaly don't Think they might have a Gun before they attack.


----------



## copperkid3

mmoetc said:


> I guess the law favors the survivor.


* * * * * * * * * * *
it is supposed to. The 'presumption' of innocent UNTIL proven guilty

in a court of law is what should be on everyone's mind (especially the jurors)

because in the greater scheme of things, "There but for the grace of a God . . ."

and ANY of us might be in a very similar situation.


----------



## Forerunner

Originally, the LAW was given with a bent toward mercy for the accused, because it was commonly understood that a wanton violent act against another man, even if unpunished on this plane, would not go uncontested in the next.

Now the humanists are terrified to the extent they'd rather risk a good guy get the chair than ever give a bad guy the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## watcher

jtbrandt said:


> I don't think you're right about that but I don't know the law well enough. As I understand it, the reasonable person standard applies across the board.


But if that reasonable person had been through the same traumatic event how would they react in the same situation?


----------



## dixiegal62

Dr Vincent pretty much blew every one of the prosecutions theories right out of the water.


----------



## unregistered353870

watcher said:


> But if that reasonable person had been through the same traumatic event how would they react in the same situation?


No reasonable person shoots someone just for approaching them, regardless of what has happened to them in the past.


----------



## partndn

dixiegal62 said:


> Dr Vincent pretty much blew every one of the prosecutions theories right out of the water.


I missed it. I wasn't able to have the sound on. Was that the gray haired man and the pics of the injuries?


----------



## dixiegal62

partndn said:


> I missed it. I wasn't able to have the sound on. Was that the gray haired man and the pics of the injuries?


Yes.
Dr. Vincent J. M. Di Maio is a veteran of the U.S. Army Medical Corps. He has 40 years of experience as a forensic pathologist, has taught at the University of Texas, and is also *a published author*.
http://www.local10.com/news/george-...maio/-/1717324/20898176/-/r7gkfz/-/index.html


----------



## partndn

Cool, thanks Dixie


----------



## unregistered353870

I also missed it. His testimony is about to resume now.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> The pictures were entered as evidence and Doctor Roa said *they were minor*.


One more time:
The *severity* of his injuries MEANS NOTHING.
It's a distraction for the gullible.

You're allowed to use deadly force to PREVENT serious bodily injury, which is what Zimmerman did


----------



## painterswife

The prosecution seems to be doing a good job of putting holes in the Dr Vincents testimony.

Dr Vincent's initial testimony was good but I could tell when he would not elaborate because he thought it would hurt the defenses case. Most of his testimony was verbose but he would stop and give one word answers in funny places. 

Still lots to hear.


----------



## painterswife

Bearfootfarm said:


> One more time:
> The *severity* of his injuries MEANS NOTHING.
> It's a distraction for the gullible.
> 
> You're allowed to use deadly force to PREVENT serious bodily injury, which is what Zimmerman did


It means nothing to you. The jury is allowed to consider it. The judge allowed it to be presented by both sides of the case.


----------



## painterswife

The defense attorney just discounted all eye witness testimony. He got the witness to say that sometimes witnesses just get it wrong. I wish I had a way to replay what he said.


----------



## dixiegal62

Not impressed at all with the cross examination.
For the second time today the defense and Dr Vincent are blowing the prosecutions theories out of the water. The tree branch theory just doesn't make sense.


----------



## painterswife

I disagree. These are the words of the defenses own witness.

"I'm not going to base my opinions on the witnesses because witnesses are wrong all the time," said Di Maio. He says he bases his opinions on the evidence and facts. He got his own witness to say that the testimony of the eye witnesses could not be relied on. Not a good thing for a defense that is saying that the witnesses saw Trayvon beating Zimerman.

The witness said again " you can't believe Zimmerman"


----------



## CesumPec

dixiegal62 said:


> Not impressed at all with the cross examination.
> For the second time today the defense and Dr Vincent are blowing the prosecutions theories out of the water. The tree branch theory just doesn't make sense.


I have watched all of 20 minutes of the trial, which includes 15 minutes of the cross of the Army medic. So I don't know if this is representative of what has gone on, but it seemed like the prosecutor was just getting the witness to emphasize all the important points that benefited the defense. I don't know, maybe if i had watched longer the prosecutor would have done some sort of AH HA!!!! moment to show the witness was wrong, lying, or whatever. But in that narrow bit of time, it sure looked like the prosecutor just wanted to make it easy for the jury to be done and everyone, including GZ, to go home.


----------



## unregistered353870

painterswife said:


> I disagree. These are the words of the defenses own witness.
> 
> "I'm not going to base my opinions on the witnesses because witnesses are wrong all the time," said Di Maio. He says he bases his opinions on the evidence and facts. He got his own witness to say that the testimony of the eye witnesses could not be relied on. Not a good thing for a defense that is saying that the witnesses saw Trayvon beating Zimerman.


He didn't say they were all worthless to the case, just that they were of no value to his opinion of the physical evidence. It is good for the defense, since contradictory witnesses kind of cancel each other out. Neutral is great for the defense.



> The witness said again " you can't believe Zimmerman"


That, to me, makes him look unbiased. He basically said, "I can't just take Zimmerman's word for what happened. My job was to determine if the physical evidence is consistent with what he said. It is."


----------



## painterswife

jtbrandt said:


> He didn't say they were all worthless to the case, just that they were of no value to his opinion of the physical evidence. It is good for the defense, since contradictory witnesses kind of cancel each other out. Neutral is great for the defense.
> 
> 
> 
> That, to me, makes him look unbiased. He basically said, "I can't just take Zimmerman's word for what happened. My job was to determine if the physical evidence is consistent with what he said. It is."


Basically the witness said you can only trust the experts. He said he could only compare the evidence to Zimmerman's story and testify to whether it was consistent. He could not testify that there were not other possible scenarios that were supported by the same evidence.

It could really hurt the defense if he is at all relying on the eye witnesses. I don't however know that he will.


----------



## unregistered353870

I don't think it will be an issue. Both sides in their closing arguments will cherry-pick the parts favorable to their side. I don't see the jury discounting the eyewitnesses simply because of the doc's testimony.


----------



## painterswife

jtbrandt said:


> I don't think it will be an issue. Both sides in their closing arguments will cherry-pick the parts favorable to their side. I don't see the jury discounting the eyewitnesses simply because of the doc's testimony.


It is often the mistake that the lawyers make by asking a question that results in an answer they don't like that gets them. For example OJ and the gloves. The funniest thing sticks in the minds of the jury.


----------



## dixiegal62

My take on this is that he was saying eye witnesses can 'sometimes' be wrong. His job is to verify that the body evidence matches the testimony. He also said that it didn't match the testimony that GZ was on top but it did match the testimony that TM was on top... which matches GZ account. As to GZ's nose bleed, it could have started bleeding after TM had his hands covering his mouth and nose.


----------



## mmoetc

Paid experts don't make it to the witness stand unless their testimony supports those paying them.


----------



## dixiegal62

mmoetc said:


> Paid experts don't make it to the witness stand unless their testimony supports those paying them.


 
Wouldn't that be the whole point?


----------



## mmoetc

dixiegal62 said:


> Wouldn't that be the whole point?


It's also why their testimony should be taken with a grain of salt.


----------



## unregistered353870

painterswife said:


> It is often the mistake that the lawyers make by asking a question that results in an answer they don't like that gets them. For example OJ and the gloves. The funniest thing sticks in the minds of the jury.


The problem with your idea of this being bad for the defense is that it would be bad for the prosecution too. They have an eyewitness who claims Zimmerman was on top. They can't make the argument that eyewitnesses aren't reliable because they need every scrap they can get.


----------



## painterswife

mmoetc said:


> It's also why their testimony should be taken with a grain of salt.


that is exactly what I got from his testimony. He was verbose when it good for the defense and then not when it might hurt them. He did mess this up in redirect though and that could hurt the defense.


----------



## painterswife

jtbrandt said:


> The problem with your idea of this being bad for the defense is that it would be bad for the prosecution too. They have an eyewitness who claims Zimmerman was on top. They can't make the argument that eyewitnesses aren't reliable because they need every scrap they can get.


I agree that is why it is so interesting.


----------



## unregistered353870

dixiegal62 said:


> My take on this is that he was saying eye witnesses can 'sometimes' be wrong. His job is to verify that the body evidence matches the testimony. *He also said that it didn't match the testimony that GZ was on top but it did match the testimony that TM was on top... which matches GZ account.* As to GZ's nose bleed, it could have started bleeding after TM had his hands covering his mouth and nose.


That is a good point. It's common sense that Martin couldn't have been shot in the front if he were face down on the ground at the time of the gunshot, but the doc made it very clear even for people who don't have much common sense. That witness is essentially discredited if she really said that.


----------



## unregistered353870

mmoetc said:


> Paid experts don't make it to the witness stand unless their testimony supports those paying them.


All experts are paid...none are pure as the driven snow.


----------



## unregistered353870

painterswife said:


> that is exactly what I got from his testimony. He was verbose when it good for the defense and then not when it might hurt them. He did mess this up in redirect though and that could hurt the defense.


I missed the first part of his testimony so I'll have to go back and watch it. I agree with you based on what I did see. His testimony wasn't great, but on the point about eyewitnesses I don't think it will be a big issue for the defense.


----------



## dixiegal62

The fact that the family listened to the 911 call together should have made their testimony inadmissible imo. There is no record of what happened in the room, no law enforcement where present. They wouldn't have conducted a police line up in this manner so why was this allowed?


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> The fact that the family listened to the 911 call together should have made their testimony inadmissible imo. There is no record of what happened in the room, no law enforcement where present. They wouldn't have conducted a police line up in this manner so why was this allowed?


The only reason they heard it at that time was so they would not hear it without any warning. It was not part of a police investigation at that time.


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> The only reason they heard it at that time was so they would not hear it without any warning. It was not part of a police investigation at that time.


 
I understand why they heard it, but it could have been done differently and still accomplished the same thing. I would think the mayors office would know how to handle things more professionally.


----------



## unregistered353870

This animation guy is a terrible witness. The defense should just give up on having him testify.


----------



## Nevada

dixiegal62 said:


> The fact that the family listened to the 911 call together should have made their testimony inadmissible imo.


I have no idea why that might make their testimony inadmissible. If a group of cops listened the the 911 call together, are you suggesting that their testimony would also be inadmissible?


----------



## painterswife

jtbrandt said:


> This animation guy is a terrible witness. The defense should just give up on having him testify.


I agree. His testimony would only be supposition anyways.


----------



## unregistered353870

painterswife said:


> I agree. His testimony would only be supposition anyways.


And now he's caught in a lie/misstatement. He's too stupid to understand what is happening. He's worse than Dr. Bao. Putting him in front of the jury would be a disaster. They should abandon the animation. They don't need it anyway.


----------



## painterswife

jtbrandt said:


> And now he's caught in a lie/misstatement. He's too stupid to understand what is happening. He's worse than Dr. Bao. Putting him in front of the jury would be a disaster. They should abandon the animation. They don't need it anyway.


He just testified that he adjusted his animation twice according to the defense attorneys told him to. Not evidence of any kind.


----------



## unregistered353870

Nevada said:


> I have no idea why that might make their testimony inadmissible. If a group of cops listened the the 911 call together, are you suggesting that their testimony would also be inadmissible?


I don't know that the family's testimony should have been inadmissible, but police listening to it as a group would be completely different. The police didn't testify as to the identity of the screaming voice.


----------



## dixiegal62

Nevada said:


> I have no idea why that might make their testimony inadmissible. If a group of cops listened the the 911 call together, are you suggesting that their testimony would also be inadmissible?


 
A group of cops may also see a suspect at the same time but in a line up only one victim identifies the suspect at a time. This should have been treated like a line up because they where identifying the screams. If it was only about them hearing the tape before it was released on the news then why where they even asked if that was TM? The question shouldn't have come up in that setting.


----------



## dixiegal62

jtbrandt said:


> I don't know that the family's testimony should have been inadmissible, but police listening to it as a group would be completely different. The police didn't testify as to the identity of the screaming voice.


 
It's always been my understanding and I might be wrong that if a line up is compromised it can't be used in court.


----------



## unregistered353870

dixiegal62 said:


> It's always been my understanding and I might be wrong that if a line up is compromised it can't be used in court.


But it wasn't technically a line up, just people testifying what they believe about the tape. Their beliefs (on both sides) should probably be discounted by the jury but I don't know the rules of evidence.


----------



## unregistered353870

painterswife said:


> He just testified that he adjusted his animation twice according to the defense attorneys told him to. Not evidence of any kind.


I'm really surprised by how long this is going. And the judge seems to be really considering it, maybe just to avoid grounds for appeal. I wonder if she rules in favor of the defense if they can show the animation without calling this witness.


----------



## dixiegal62

jtbrandt said:


> But it wasn't technically a line up, just people testifying what they believe about the tape. Their beliefs (on both sides) should probably be discounted by the jury but I don't know the rules of evidence.


 
True but it seems to have been treated as a technical line in court. I'm just find it odd if it was only about being a courtesy to a grieving family and not politically motivated why they where asked if it was TM. 

As far as it hurting the defense, I don't really think it will. His father said no, then yes, he called 2 police liars pretty much. I don't think he was believable.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

painterswife said:


> It means nothing to you. The jury is allowed to consider it. The judge allowed it to be presented by both sides of the case.


 It means nothing* to anyone*.
The fact the judge "allowed it" doesn't give it any special meaning.

If YOU believe it has meaning, then tell us what that meaning might be, and how it changes Zimmerman's RIGHT to defend himself


----------



## painterswife

jtbrandt said:


> I'm really surprised by how long this is going. And the judge seems to be really considering it, maybe just to avoid grounds for appeal. I wonder if she rules in favor of the defense if they can show the animation without calling this witness.


I do not see how she can let it in but she has to listen to all the arguments before she rules. They are very lucky the defense is not seeing these arguments. This would be like me testifying that I think it happened a certain way.


----------



## painterswife

Bearfootfarm said:


> It means nothing* to anyone*.
> The fact the judge "allowed it" doesn't give it any special meaning.
> 
> If YOU believe it has meaning, then tell us what that meaning might be, and how it changes Zimmerman's RIGHT to defend himself


What I think it means is moot. The jury has heard it and they will decide if it is important. Not you, not Joe blow, not me. We are irrelevant to the process.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

mmoetc said:


> Paid experts don't make it to the witness stand unless their testimony supports those paying them.


 Most expert witnesses are paid for their services.
It doesn't make their testimony *untrue.*
The prosecution didn't *dispute* any of it


----------



## Bearfootfarm

painterswife said:


> What I think it means is moot*.* The jury has heard it and they will decide if it is important. Not you, not Joe blow, not me. We are irrelevant to the process.


His injuries mean nothing at all, and your answer is just dodging the question.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> I have no idea why that might make their testimony inadmissible. If a group of cops listened the the 911 call together, are you suggesting that their testimony would also be inadmissible?


The first time Trayvon's Dad said he wasn't sure it was him,
then the story changed

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...call-belonged-to-his-son-detective-testifies/


> The lead investigator probing Trayvon Martinâs death testified on Monday that his* father had answered ânoâ when the detective asked if the screams belonged to his son*.
> 
> Officer Chris Serino played the 911 call for Tracy Martin in the days immediately following Martinâs death in February 2012.
> âHe looked away and under his breath he said ânoâ,â Serino said of Tracy Martin.


It's POINTLESS to even ask the family since they will only give one answer (once *coached*)


----------



## painterswife

Bearfootfarm said:


> His injuries mean nothing at all, and your answer is just dodging the question.


Maybe you should prove to me first that they mean nothing and then maybe you should send instructions to the judge as she seems to not agree with you.


----------



## katydidagain

I'm going out on a limb and predicting the GZ will be convicted on a lesser charge. The jurors live in the area; they know what exonerating him will do to their neighborhood.. (They can't help bringing their histories and experiences into the courtroom.) I think this will be a verdict based on emotion--won't be the first or last.


----------



## dixiegal62

katydidagain said:


> I'm going out on a limb and predicting the GZ will be convicted on a lesser charge. The jurors live in the area; they know what exonerating him will do to their neighborhood.. (They can't help bringing their histories and experiences into the courtroom.) I think this will be a verdict based on emotion--won't be the first or last.


 
I pretty much think no matter if he's charged or set free his life is over. If convicted fellow prisoners will either praise him or want to kill him. If set free the same. I guess it's a lesson if we are ever in the position of having to fight for our lives and use deadly force. Die at the hands of a thug, or live to have to fight for your life over and over.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

painterswife said:


> Maybe you should prove to me first that they mean nothing and then maybe you should send instructions to the judge as she seems to not agree with you.


I've already explained why they mean nothing, and you have SHOWN nothing that supports the claims you keep making.


----------



## Darren

Bearfootfarm said:


> The first time Trayvon's Dad said he wasn't sure it was him,
> then the story changed
> 
> http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...call-belonged-to-his-son-detective-testifies/
> 
> It's POINTLESS to even ask the family since they will only give one answer (once *coached*)


Not to mention the big bucks they've already pulled in. I wonder how much money they've made by trademarking Trayvon's name.


----------



## painterswife

Darren said:


> Not to mention the big bucks they've already pulled in. I wonder how much money they've made by trademarking Trayvon's name.


The judge is mad! Sequestered witness was shown the animation.


----------



## unregistered353870

The judge seems to be getting fed up with the hearing now and taking the prosecution's side. But then when she realized she was losing the argument she backed out and pretty much indicated what her ruling will be.


----------



## Darren

Tricky Grama said:


> I have sense enuf to know not to break someone's nose, knock them down & beat their head on the sidewalk. I perhaps would ask why the 'detaining'. I am stronger & fiestier than some may think...and can run as well. So, no, would not have done what TM did.


Since many here are saying Zimmerman's wounds are minor therefore self defense wasn't called for does that mean a husband can slap his wife around as long as any wounds are minor meaning she has no right to defend herself? 

As long as he only blacks her eyes, breaks her nose and maybe she gets a cut or two it's all good? Can he knock her teeth out? That really isn't a major injury. How about dislocating various extremities?


----------



## painterswife

Did you catch which witness that was?


----------



## Darren

katydidagain said:


> I'm going out on a limb and predicting the GZ will be convicted on a lesser charge. The jurors live in the area; they know what exonerating him will do to their neighborhood.. (They can't help bringing their histories and experiences into the courtroom.) I think this will be a verdict based on emotion--won't be the first or last.


I hoping there's one hold out that will hang the jury no matter what the judge's instructions are.


----------



## unregistered353870

painterswife said:


> Did you catch which witness that was?


The one they showed the animation to? I think it was John Good but I stepped away for that moment and only heard the tail end of that part. Sounds to me like she might allow the animation without the audio.


----------



## Darren

dixiegal62 said:


> I pretty much think no matter if he's charged or set free his life is over. If convicted fellow prisoners will either praise him or want to kill him. If set free the same. I guess it's a lesson if we are ever in the position of having to fight for our lives and use deadly force. Die at the hands of a thug, or live to have to fight for your life over and over.


Obviously trying to be a good Samaritan carries a risk.


----------



## unregistered353870

Darren said:


> I hoping there's one hold out that will hang the jury no matter what the judge's instructions are.


Then they'll get another shot at him.


----------



## unregistered353870

dixiegal62 said:


> I pretty much think no matter if he's charged or set free his life is over. If convicted fellow prisoners will either praise him or want to kill him. If set free the same. I guess it's a lesson if we are ever in the position of having to fight for our lives and use deadly force. Die at the hands of a thug, or live to have to fight for your life over and over.


I think I'd rather be killed than kill someone in self-defense and have to deal with all this. Death seems less painful.


----------



## Darren

jtbrandt said:


> I think I'd rather be killed than kill someone in self-defense and have to deal with all this. Death seems less painful.


Maybe not. The Chlorox forced down the throat of the woman to destroy DNA seemed extreme. I guess the lesson is if you resign yourself to being a victim, you've given up any say in what happens. Of course these kids didn't have a chance or a choice.

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/...ristian-newsom/a-young-couple-disappears.html


----------



## Nevada

jtbrandt said:


> I think I'd rather be killed than kill someone in self-defense and have to deal with all this. Death seems less painful.


Consider the fact that if Zimmerman hadn't been carrying a gun that nobody would have died that night. Even if he had a gun, everyone will also be alive if he hadn't pursued Martin on foot.

Something to think about...


----------



## unregistered353870

> Consider the fact that if Zimmerman hadn't been carrying a gun that nobody would have died that night.


We don't know that to be true. It would have been much less likely for someone to be killed, but Trayvon could have killed him.


----------



## dixiegal62

Nevada said:


> Consider the fact that if Zimmerman hadn't been carrying a gun that nobody would have died that night. Even if he had a gun, everyone will also be alive if he hadn't pursued Martin on foot.
> 
> Something to think about...


 
There is no way of knowing how far TM would have went if GZ hadn't had a gun. He could have stopped after he thought GZ had been taught a lesson, or the next blow to GZ head could have killed him. You're statement isn't fact.


----------



## unregistered353870

Darren said:


> Maybe not. The Chlorox forced down the throat of the woman to destroy DNA seemed extreme. I guess the lesson is if you resign yourself to being a victim, you've given up any say in what happens. Of course these kids didn't have a chance or a choice.
> 
> http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/...ristian-newsom/a-young-couple-disappears.html


I don't begrudge anyone else their right to defend themselves. I was speaking solely for myself. It isn't a matter of resigning myself to being a victim...whether I defend myself or am murdered, either way I'm a victim. In the first scenario I am just more likely a living victim.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> Consider the fact that if Zimmerman hadn't been carrying a gun that nobody would have died that night. Even if he had a gun, everyone will also be alive if he hadn't pursued Martin on foot.
> 
> Something to think about...


You're speculating again

If Martin hadn't *BEATEN* him he'd still be alive.


----------



## Nevada

jtbrandt said:


> We don't know that to be true. It would have been much less likely for someone to be killed, but Trayvon could have killed him.


Deaths from fistfights are rare.


----------



## unregistered353870

Nevada said:


> Deaths from fistfights are rare.


But not unheard of...and according to witnesses this wasn't simply a fistfight. Deaths from asphyxiation and strangling are not all that rare.


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> Deaths from fistfights are rare.


 I wouldn't categorize the incident as a fist fight. Zimmerman didn't have the scraped knuckles like Martin did. The question is what would Trayvon have done if Zimmerman was kncoked unconscious? Just get off and go home? He already made the decision not to go home when he could have. 

Would he have been concerned that Zimmerman could identify him? Would he have decided to kill Zimmerman with his own hand gun? Based on Martin's social media personna, I hink Zimmerman would have been the one killed.


----------



## Nevada

Darren said:


> He already made the decision not to go home when he could have.


We don't know that.


----------



## katydidagain

Nevada said:


> We don't know that.


Okay, this has bothered me for a long time. Neighborhood watch peeps should say "I'm with the neighborhood watch; I don't recognize you. Who are you and what is your business here?" when they confront a stranger in their community. Anyone with the right to be there would answer "I'm (insert name). I'm visiting/staying with my (insert relative/friend name) at (insert address)." (I think some words were exchanged but definitely not this dialogue.) 

I've done work at gated communities; I wore a uniform, it was obvious I was weeding and it was daylight but I was still asked to identify myself and state my purposes for being there a few times. I had no issues with that. (Actually, I was questioned a couple of times by cops after there had been some breakins.)

Neither party behaved well or did I miss the "Halt who goes there?" part?


----------



## Nevada

katydidagain said:


> Okay, this has bothered me for a long time. Neighborhood watch peeps should say "I'm with the neighborhood watch; I don't recognize you. Who are you and what is your business here?" when they confront a stranger in their community. Anyone with the right to be there would answer "I'm (insert name). I'm visiting/staying with my (insert relative/friend name) at (insert address)." (I think some words were exchanged but definitely not this dialogue.)
> 
> I've done work at gated communities; I wore a uniform, it was obvious I was weeding and it was daylight but I was still asked to identify myself and state my purposes for being there a few times. I had no issues with that. (Actually, I was questioned a couple of times by cops after there had been some breakins.)
> 
> Neither party behaved well or did I miss the "Halt who goes there?" part?


We don't know for sure what was said. If Zimmerman tried to detain Martin then Martin was justified in defending himself in an attempt to escape. Sadly, we don't have Martin's testimony.


----------



## katydidagain

Nevada said:


> We don't know for sure what was said. If Zimmerman tried to detain Martin then Martin was justified in defending himself in an attempt to escape. Sadly, we don't have Martin's testimony.


 I don't think GZ tried to detain Martin; all he had to do was pull out his gun and tell him to wait for the police. Facing a gun, a reasonable person with wet panties would have stood still so I'm pretty sure that didn't happen. But since GZ had the means to enforce his authority, why didn't he ask Martin why he was there? Or did he and I missed it?


----------



## TheMartianChick

Darren said:


> Not to mention the big bucks they've already pulled in. I wonder how much money they've made by trademarking Trayvon's name.


I don't know how much they made by trademarking his name, but it does keep others from profiting from it. If I had lost a family member, I don't think I'd want to know that others were making money off of the event. you don't make money off of trademarking something. You make money off of licensing the use of the licensed material to others.

Speaking of making money...We do know that Zimmerman made more than $200K from his Paypal fundraising.


----------



## Cornhusker

jtbrandt said:


> We don't know that to be true. It would have been much less likely for someone to be killed, but Trayvon could have killed him.


If Martin had killed Zimmerman, you wouldn't have heard either name


----------



## dixiegal62

I think it was more than a coincidence that TM seemed to wait until GZ was off the phone and had pocketed it before approaching him. Seemed like he was waiting for the perfect opportunity to confront him. It gives me the impression that he was hiding, watching and waiting.


----------



## unregistered353870

Darren said:


> Not to mention the big bucks they've already pulled in. I wonder how much money they've made by trademarking Trayvon's name.





TheMartianChick said:


> I don't know how much they made by trademarking his name, but it does keep others from profiting from it. If I had lost a family member, I don't think I'd want to know that others were making money off of the event. you don't make money off of trademarking something. You make money off of licensing the use of the licensed material to others.


Statement from their attorney Natalie Jackson:


> &#8220;I want to set the record straight, the trademarks were applied for so that no one can profit from or promote their own agendas using Trayvon Martin. *Trayvon&#8217;s parents will never seek to financially profit from these trademarks, period.* I can&#8217;t emphasize that point enough. They haven&#8217;t even been able to mourn his death because they are seeking justice for his death.


Each of us can either believe it or choose not to. Personally, I choose not to speculate about the motives of grieving parents. Either way, it's irrelevant to the case.


----------



## Nevada

dixiegal62 said:


> I think it was more than a coincidence that TM seemed to wait until GZ was off the phone and had pocketed it before approaching him. Seemed like he was waiting for the perfect opportunity to confront him. It gives me the impression that he was hiding, watching and waiting.


You are aware that it was Zimmerman who was doing the following, aren't you?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> *You are aware* that it was Zimmerman *who was doing the following*, aren't you?


You are aware Martin ALSO followed Zimmerman, just before he ATTACKED him

His "girlfriend " told a different story, but feel free to show your EVIDENCE that Zimmerman confronted him first




> Quote:
> He also told Jeantel, she said, that *the ân----- is now following him.â*


----------



## po boy

Nevada said:


> Deaths from fistfights are rare.


 Nope,

Twice as many deaths for hands, fists, feet etc than with rifles. That includes those vicious assault rifles.


----------



## Darren

jtbrandt said:


> Statement from their attorney Natalie Jackson:
> 
> 
> Each of us can either believe it or choose not to. Personally, I choose not to speculate about the motives of grieving parents. Either way, it's irrelevant to the case.


It is extremely relevant given the fraudulent actions of their attorney, Crump. Jusice is one thing. Retribution, maligning, and falsification of facts in a press release is something else.


----------



## Darren

jtbrandt said:


> Each of us can either believe it or choose not to. Personally, I choose not to speculate about the motives of grieving parents. Either way, it's irrelevant to the case.


It is extremely relevant given the fraudulent actions of their attorney, Crump. Jusice is one thing. Retribution, maligning, and falsification of facts in a press release is something else. There's too much about that family, their actions before Trayvon's death, their statements immediately afer his death and how the record and their statements changed after Crump got involved.


----------



## Darren

Bearfootfarm said:


> You are aware Martin ALSO followed Zimmerman, just before he ATTACKED him
> 
> His "girlfriend " told a different story, but feel free to show your EVIDENCE that Zimmerman confronted him first


The key fact is Martin disappeared from Zimmermna's sight. He had a choice. Go back to the house or turn around and confront Zimmerman. Everything in Martin's previous history in similar situations involves confrontation. The kid had a reputation epitomozed by the nick name he assumed. 

He couldn't tell the girl on the phone he was going back to the house. That would have been circulated as him being a coward. We've all been through high school. We know how it works.

We know she told him to just go home. The way she put it, "Just run home." obviously wasn't accepable for a young male with a history of fighting.


----------



## Darren

jtbrandt said:


> We don't know that to be true. It would have been much less likely for someone to be killed, but Trayvon could have killed him.


I agree especially since Martin wanted to have another fight with one of his previous opponents since he didn't bleed enough. Anyone with that much rage isn't going to just flip a switch and stop. They'll stop when the victim isn't moving.

The cries for help should have stopped the fight.


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> You are aware that it was Zimmerman who was doing the following, aren't you?


Only at the beginning. All of the evidence points to Martin returning to confront Zimmerman. Otherwise Zimmerman would have had to drag the body a distance to match the location when the police arrived. Remember, right after the shot, a witness saw Zimmerman. Zimmerman didn't have time to move the body. Martin had to go to Zimmerman. In other words, Zimmerman never found Martin until Marin surprised him.

Zimmerman's recorded frustration about punks getting away was genuine.That was the basis for the racist label initially applied to Zimmerman. Voice analysis later revealed that the N word was not used. Martin obviously hid. He'd already scoped Zimmerman out as someone he could take. That is probably why he circled Zimmerman's truck.

The only way Zimmerman could have lost sight of Martin and then encountered him is that Martin chose to go back to Zimmerman. That matches the girls testimony too.

I would not be surprised if more young Black males die trying to play the knock out game with whites simply because this is an issue that will cause more people to get a CCW permit. I can't be the only one shocked by the casual violence on the part of young men.


----------



## Darren

Someone on another website posted that the women's jewelery and man's wrist watch found in Martin's bookbag at school had been proven to be stolen. Well what a surprise, it's true!

That hasn't been reported by the media. St. Trayvon was definitely a victim. Not of George Zimmerman but of a school superintendent that wanted to improve school crime statistics. How do you do that? Don't report it to the police. 

If the stolen jewelry had been reported to the police, Martin wouldn't have been walking around Zimmerman's neighborhood in the rain looking suspicious. He would have been incarcerated.

http://patdollard.com/2013/06/trayv...burglaries-covered-up-by-media-school-police/

At this point we can add probable burglary to Martin's resume of marijuana use, fighting, and vandalism. Since Zimmerman's past was extensively investigated by the prosecution lets hope the defense brings out Martin's past too.


----------



## dixiegal62

Nevada said:


> You are aware that it was Zimmerman who was doing the following, aren't you?


 
Yes, until Trayvon seemed to disappear then reappear to confront Zimmerman.


----------



## painterswife

Looks like two of the defense witnesses have breached the sequestered witness ruling.

"A witness who testified in the George Zimmerman trial may have been present during court proceedings weeks before he took the stand â violating a Florida law that bars witnesses in a criminal trial from being in the courtroom before they testify, prosecutors have asserted."

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...man-witness-may-have-showed-up-too-early?lite

The other one had to do with the proffered animation testimony yesterday.


----------



## painterswife

The animation can not be introduced into evidence and nor can the text messages.


----------



## Darren

painterswife said:


> The animation can not be introduced into evidence and nor can the text messages.


The question is why were text messages deleted and not turned over to the defense. What's up with the prosecution tampering with evidence?


----------



## painterswife

Darren said:


> The question is why were text messages deleted and not turned over to the defense. What's up with the prosecution tampering with evidence?


The defenses own proffered witness said that he believed Trayvon deleted them. He was the one that found them, not the prosecution. Prosecution did not tamper.


----------



## Darren

painterswife said:


> The defenses own proffered witness said that he believed Trayvon deleted them. He was the one that found them, not the prosecution. Prosecution did not tamper.


We're talking about two different things. There's no doubt the kid was into fighting.

"The Judge in the Zimmerman trial just ruled that the jury will not get to see numerous text messages on Trayvon Martin&#8217;s phone regarding his prowess at fighting, including texts as to how to punch someone in the nose and make them bleed."

That goes along with his wish for a rematch with another kid because he didn't bleed enough. I wonder what Trayvon was telling the girl on the phone to impress her. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that will never come out.

http://legalinsurrection.com/


----------



## painterswife

Darren said:


> We're talking about two different things. There's no doubt the kid was into fighting.
> 
> "The Judge in the Zimmerman trial just ruled that the jury will not get to see numerous text messages on Trayvon Martinâs phone regarding his prowess at fighting, including texts as to how to punch someone in the nose and make them bleed."
> 
> That goes along with his wish for a rematch with another kid because he didn't bleed enough. I wonder what Trayvon was telling the girl on the phone to impress her. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that will never come out.
> 
> http://legalinsurrection.com/


The judge ruled they could not be entered in evidence, I believe because there is no way to prove that Trayvon wrote them.


----------



## Darren

painterswife said:


> The judge ruled they could not be entered in evidence, I believe because there is no way to prove that Trayvon wrote them.


That won't stand on appeal. There's already Florida case law on that. It's hard to believe he didn't when it's a double password protected account and his social media posts document his fighting.


----------



## critterluv

I can see why the animation would not be allowed but txt messages!? Why not, they have certainly drug up GZ past trying to demonize his character. It was his phone and it was multiple messages. That's bogus if you ask me.


----------



## Cornhusker

po boy said:


> Nope,
> 
> Twice as many deaths for hands, fists, feet etc than with rifles. That includes those vicious assault rifles.


But dat's not whut Obama said...............


----------



## painterswife

Darren said:


> That won't stand on appeal. There's already Florida case law on that. It's hard to believe he didn't when it's a double password protected account and his social media posts document his fighting.


I don't know about case law but the judge has now ruled on this twice with the case law that the defense provided.


----------



## Darren

critterluv said:


> I can see why the animation would not be allowed but txt messages!? Why not, they have certainly drug up GZ past trying to demonize his character. It was his phone and it was multiple messages. That's bogus if you ask me.


If this doesn't show the judge's bias nothing will. Neither she nor the prosecution can allow the jury to have information about Martin's true character. When Angela Corey described Trayvon's parents in her press conference, it was obvious that this was going to be a show trial right out of the Soviet playbook.

Knowing about Martin's activities adds tons of credence to Zimmerman's account. Is it normal for kids these days to fight just to fight and make each other bleed?


----------



## Cornhusker

critterluv said:


> I can see why the animation would not be allowed but txt messages!? Why not, they have certainly drug up GZ past trying to demonize his character. It was his phone and it was multiple messages. That's bogus if you ask me.


Because they are doing everything they can to stack the deck against Zimmerman


----------



## critterluv

Darren said:


> It is extremely relevant given the fraudulent actions of their attorney, Crump. .


What did I miss? What did crump do?


----------



## dixiegal62

Is it common for the judge to seemingly try to coax the defendant into testifying?


----------



## unregistered353870

Darren said:


> It is extremely relevant given the fraudulent actions of their attorney, Crump. Jusice is one thing. Retribution, maligning, and falsification of facts in a press release is something else.


You realize all of that happened AFTER the shooting, right? They have ZERO relevance to the events of that night.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> Is it common for the judge to seemingly try to coax the defendant into testifying?


I sounded to me like she has some kind of legal obligation to let him know his rights and to verify that he had thought about it. It was interesting though.


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> I sounded to me like she has some kind of legal obligation to let him know his rights and to verify that he had thought about it. It was interesting though.


 
I don't know but it's sure is late in the trial to inform him of his rights. "Oh, by the way Mr Zimmerman".


----------



## unregistered353870

critterluv said:


> What did I miss? What did crump do?


He basically manufactured the media firestorm leading up to the charges being filed against Zimmerman.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> I don't know but it's sure is late in the trial to inform him of his rights. "Oh, by the way Mr Zimmerman".


She did say that she had discussed this with him before.


----------



## Darren

jtbrandt said:


> You realize all of that happened AFTER the shooting, right? They have ZERO relevance to the events of that night.


You are correct. While not relevant to the incident, the Crump press release greatly shaped public opinion which transformed a minor local incident into something with national and even international coverage. By portraying Trayvon as much younger than he was at the time of his death, trying to conceal Trayvon's history and framing Zimmerman in an unfavorable way, he set the stage and got a show trial not to mention the insurance company settlement. 

Calling Crump an ambulance chaser would discredit those attornies that don't play fast and loose with the facts when pursuing physical injury cases.


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> She did say that she had discussed this with him before.


 
Missed that. There really wasn't any need to bring it back up then, unless it was to make him have second doubts on his decision.


----------



## davel745

Bearfootfarm said:


> You are aware Martin ALSO followed Zimmerman, just before he ATTACKED him
> 
> His "girlfriend " told a different story, but feel free to show your EVIDENCE that Zimmerman confronted him first


 
I take this to mean that martin is now following Zimmerman. They call each the n word all the time. Ebonics ya know.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> Missed that. There really wasn't any need to bring it back up then, unless it was to make him have second doubts on his decision.


Are you sure? Maybe she has to do this as part of the legal proceedings.


----------



## Nevada

Darren said:


> the Crump press release greatly shaped public opinion which transformed a minor local incident into something with national and even international coverage.


Wasn't that his job?


----------



## dixiegal62

So the defense can't use a simulation BUT the prosecution can straddle a dummy?:stars::stars:


----------



## Darren

critterluv said:


> What did I miss? What did crump do?


This is the background on some of Crump's misrepresentations when he hyped the story to the media. He lied about her age in the media release and later. It makes a difference if she was really a minor which she wasn't. That's a really basic issue that any competent attorney isn't going to mess up. Unless it's deliberate. It really doesn;t matter now because they allready used the media firestorm to get the HOA insurance company to settle.

"Seems the Prosecution and media have been playing fast and loose about witness number 8's age. She was 18 when she testified in April 2012. 

Read more to understand why:

Initially she was sold to the media on March 20th as a 16-year-old girl, a minor, a sweetheart, who was devastated at the tragic loss of her 17-year-old âpuppy loveâ. A girl who was on the phone with Trayvon when he encountered George Zimmerman. Benjamin Crump played an audio recording of her statement proving his claims. The media ran with that story, and, for the most part, actually still does.

The prosecution then used her *tender age* as a shield of anonymity to protect her from the ruthless hounds of media interest. (Watch Video)

The State of Florida argued before Judge Lester that her minor status meant she needed additional protections. This, despite the fact she never once contacted law enforcement, never once called Trayvonâs Mom or Dad, and was essentially non-existent until Trayvon family attorney Benjamin Crump discovered her and presented her story to the world. Indeed, even Trayvonâs Dad, Tracy Martin, and his Mom, Sybrina Fulton, supposedly had never heard of this âgirlfriendâ.

http://forums.somd.com/archive/t-264540.html


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> Wasn't that his job?


 What, to be unethical and release false information to the public?


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> So the defense can't use a simulation BUT the prosecution can straddle a dummy?:stars::stars:


The defense can use the animation to support testimony, they can not use it as evidence. BIG difference. The defense will play it as part of their closing as a demonstration just like the prosecution just used the dummy. The dummy is not testifying.


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> The defense can use the animation to support testimony, they can not use it as evidence. BIG difference. The defense will play it as part of their closing as a demonstration just like the prosecution just used the dummy. The dummy is not testifying.


 
Did the jury see it?


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> Did the jury see it?


The jury has not yet see it. The judge ruled this morning that it could not be presented as evidence because it is supposition but the jury could see it as part of the closing arguments.


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> The jury has not yet see it. The judge ruled this morning that it could not be presented as evidence because it is supposition but the jury could see it as part of the closing arguments.


 
I'm asking if the jury saw the prosecution straddle the dummy.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> I'm asking if the jury saw the prosecution straddle the dummy.


Are you not watching?


----------



## unregistered353870

Darren said:


> You are correct. While not relevant to the incident, the Crump press release greatly shaped public opinion which transformed a minor local incident into something with national and even international coverage. By portraying Trayvon as much younger than he was at the time of his death, trying to conceal Trayvon's history and framing Zimmerman in an unfavorable way, he set the stage and got a show trial not to mention the insurance company settlement.
> 
> Calling Crump an ambulance chaser would discredit those attornies that don't play fast and loose with the facts when pursuing physical injury cases.


Yeah, I agree that Crump is probably scum. But I don't feel the need to extend that to the parents of the dead child. Maybe they're scum too. But that's not relevant to whether or not Zimmerman is guilty of murder. The only thing relevant to the case regarding the parents is their identification of the screaming. It probably isn't necessary to discredit that since most people understand that they could be mistaken, especially given that there are other witnesses who identify it as Zimmerman. Sure, they could be outright lying, but I think it would be a very bad idea to go after them in court the way you go after them here. And it just seems like a horrible thing to do to suggest with no evidence that they are making money off their dead son's name.


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> Are you not watching?


Watching while working... as far as I can tell the jury was in the room, the prosecution wasn't giving closing arguments at the time. He is cross examining a witness. Admittedly I don't know a lot about trials but I would think that would be part of the testimony. Cross examining and closing arguments seem, at least to me as 2 completely different parts of a trial. Just my opinion.


----------



## unregistered353870

Now the defense attorney is straddling the dummy....


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> Watching while working... as far as I can tell the jury was in the room, the prosecution wasn't giving closing arguments at the time. He is cross examining a witness. Admittedly I don't know a lot about trials but I would think that would be part of the testimony. Cross examining and closing arguments seem, at least to me as 2 completely different parts of a trial. Just my opinion.


The jury saw the dummy. They can see the dummy because it is a demonstration prop not evidence. It is only illustrating what the witness is saying or the lawyer is asking.

The animation is all supposition and is not supporting any testimony but was the defenses attempt to introduce it as testimony. That is not allowed. They could have used it with witnesses to demonstrate their testimony.

Evidence is allowed in the jury deliberation. Demonstration props are not.


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> The jury saw the dummy. They can see the dummy because it is a demonstration prop not evidence. It is only illustrating what the witness is saying or the lawyer is asking.
> 
> The animation is all supposition and is not supporting any testimony but was the defenses attempt to introduce it as testimony. That is not allowed. They could have used it with witnesses to demonstrate their testimony.
> 
> Evidence is allowed in the jury deliberation. Demonstration props are not.


 
Again I don't know a lot about trails so I can't say your wrong or right...


----------



## dixiegal62

jtbrandt said:


> Now the defense attorney is straddling the dummy....


 
Giving it one heck of a beat down


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> Again I don't know a lot about trails so I can't say your wrong or right...


I am just repeating what the judge said. I only know this by actually watching the trial.


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> I am just repeating what the judge said. I only know this by actually watching the trial.


Again, I'm not able to watch every single part of the trial. I have two businesses and a farm to run so I must have missed the part where it was explained by the judge why one was allowed a certain way and the other wasn't.:shrug:


----------



## dixiegal62

I'm reading on other sites that some are of the opinion that the judge rejecting compelling evidence, the text messages based on an authentication issue is infringing on GZ right to due process.

My understanding is they are basing this opinion on Lamarque v state of Florida which states,''authentication of evidence merely requires a finding that the evidence is what it purports to be." 

Do you think if found guilty GZ will be able to appeal?


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> The jury saw the dummy. They can see the dummy because it is a demonstration prop not evidence. It is only illustrating what the witness is saying or the lawyer is asking.
> 
> The animation is all supposition and is not supporting any testimony but was the defenses attempt to introduce it as testimony. That is not allowed. They could have used it with witnesses to demonstrate their testimony.
> 
> Evidence is allowed in the jury deliberation. Demonstration props are not.


 
Either way CNN brought up a good point, the prosecution has tried to give doubt TM was on top in the first place. Now it seems they have changed their mind and are admitting TM was on top giving the beating.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> Either way a news cast brought up a good point, the prosecution has tried to give doubt TM was on top in the first place. Now it seems they have changed their mind and are admitting TM was on top giving the beating.


I don't listen to the talking heads anymore. You can surf all the channels until you find the explanation or theory that fits what ever viewpoint you hold. In fact they will have panels that argue opposite sides of the case just for ratings. They don't add anything to how the jury will deliberate on the evidence they see and hear.


----------



## Darren

jtbrandt said:


> Yeah, I agree that Crump is probably scum. But I don't feel the need to extend that to the parents of the dead child. Maybe they're scum too. But that's not relevant to whether or not Zimmerman is guilty of murder. The only thing relevant to the case regarding the parents is their identification of the screaming. It probably isn't necessary to discredit that since most people understand that they could be mistaken, especially given that there are other witnesses who identify it as Zimmerman. Sure, they could be outright lying, but I think it would be a very bad idea to go after them in court the way you go after them here.* And it just seems like a horrible thing to do to suggest with no evidence that they are making money off their dead son's name.[.b]*


*

It is what it is. 

My BS meter gets pegged everytime I read about that family's actions. If you want Trayvon's memory and the circumstances associated with his death perpetuated why would you trademark a name? If my son was murdered I wouldn't mind others telling his story via T shirts, posters, or whatever. A local woman had her daughter go missing. There's all sorts of material out there with the kid's name and picture. The kid has a very unusual name. The woman didn't trademark it. The trademarking stunt had to come from Crump. I can't imagine a family trademarking a kid's name unless a lawyer had pointed out the profit potential.

Fulton and Martin went after the HOA insurance settlement before Zimmerman's trial. That's a smart legal move. The value of Trayvon's death has a shelf life, money-wise. If the jury finds Zimmerman not guilty, I can't imagine an insurance company rolling over and writing a check. The insurance company simply played it safe. Based on the media bias, they probably expected Zimmerman to be found guilty.

If they were for justice, why did they try to seal Trayvon's school records? That would have been interesting to the insurance company.

There's other aspects of Sybrina Fulton and Tracy Martin's actions that seem strange when compared to other facts.Allowing Crump to falsify the image given to the media is one. Going on tour and parroting the Crump gospel of falsehoods is another eye opener.

Cutting Alicia Stanley out of the public grieving was another. 

Are you aware that Trayvon's so-called girlfriend has committed perjury. She was obviously coached on what to say and not say. Even then her attitude blew up in the prosecutions face. If you know your son was involved in a possible burglary, had committed vandalism, and was involved in fighting wouldn't you think there was some possibility he got in over his head when he beat up an overweight neighbor? I'm wondering what the faux under age girlfriend got out of it. She didn't go to the funeral because Trayvon was nothing to her. Crump lied and said she was in the hospital.

There were times, I had to go to school on my son's behalf and I knew that he had done what he was accused of. He wouldn't admit it. But I still knew. I could tell he was lying.

My read is that Martin's bio parents are in it for the money. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck ....*


----------



## Darren

dixiegal62 said:


> I'm reading on other sites that some are of the opinion that the judge rejecting compelling evidence, the text messages based on an authentication issue is infringing on GZ right to due process.
> 
> My understanding is they are basing this opinion on Lamarque v state of Florida which states,''authentication of evidence merely requires a finding that the evidence is what it purports to be."
> 
> Do you think if found guilty GZ will be able to appeal?


There's been so many errors in this trial, an appeal is guaranteed. There's discussions that was deliberately done by the prosecution and judge so Zimmerman will be acquited on appeal. I don't believe that. I knew the fix was in when Angela Corey sucked up to the parents in the press conference. This is a poltical trial. It's not about justice.


----------



## unregistered353870

Darren, you may be right about everything you say, but Zimmerman is lucky you don't represent him because he would be convicted for sure if the jury heard such bad taste speculation.


----------



## Nevada

dixiegal62 said:


> Now it seems they have changed their mind and are admitting TM was on top giving the beating.


I wish that wasn't such a big issue. Martin being on top only means that he was winning the fight at some point. To make that the central issue implies that if someone is losing a fistfight he's justified in shooting his opponent. That's not a message I want to send to concealed gun carriers.


----------



## katydidagain

Nevada said:


> I wish that wasn't such a big issue. Martin being on top only means that he was winning the fight at some point. To make that the central issue implies that if someone is losing a fistfight he's justified in shooting his opponent. That's not a message I want to send to concealed gun carriers.


GZ had a gun from the beginning; he didn't use it when he 1st encountered TM. He didn't use it when he was pursuing TM. He used it after he'd been assaulted. I'm not a fan of CCWs but I don't think GZ's use of his weapon was cavalier.


----------



## dixiegal62

Nevada said:


> I wish that wasn't such a big issue. Martin being on top only means that he was winning the fight at some point. To make that the central issue implies that if someone is losing a fistfight he's justified in shooting his opponent. That's not a message I want to send to concealed gun carriers.


 
CWC's are not that gullible. How do you feel about the message to black youth that all middle age whites are racist and want to kill them?


----------



## Nevada

katydidagain said:


> GZ had a gun from the beginning; he didn't use it when he 1st encountered TM. He didn't use it when he was pursuing TM. He used it after he'd been assaulted.


It could have happened that way, but Zimmerman could had tried to detain Martin. We really don't know who assaulted who.

If Martin attacked Zimmerman, then Zimmerman was justified. If Zimmerman tried to detain Martin but Martin resisted, then Zimmerman was not justified. That's what the jury will need to determine. But either way, who might have been winning the fight at some point has little to do with justification for shooting.


----------



## Darren

jtbrandt said:


> Darren, you may be right about everything you say, but Zimmerman is lucky you don't represent him because he would be convicted for sure if the jury heard such bad taste speculation.


I've been told by lawyers I should have been a lawyer because of research skills. OTOH I do not have the temperment for it. Foaming at the mouth doesn't endear you to the judge.


----------



## unregistered353870

Nevada said:


> I wish that wasn't such a big issue. Martin being on top only means that he was winning the fight at some point. To make that the central issue implies that if someone is losing a fistfight he's justified in shooting his opponent. That's not a message I want to send to concealed gun carriers.


You keep going back to this "fistfight" you imagine happened. The evidence does not support that it was a fistfight...maybe a one-sided fistfight with attempted asphyxiation thrown in.


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> It could have happened that way, but Zimmerman could had tried to detain Martin. We really don't know who assaulted who.
> 
> If Martin attacked Zimmerman, then Zimmerman was justified. If Zimmerman tried to detain Martin but Martin resisted, then Zimmerman was not justified. That's what the jury will need to determine. But either way, who might have been winning the fight at some point has little to do with justification for shooting.


Based on the location of the body, the witness immediately after the gun shot, the phone call between what's her name and Trayvon, and the 911 tape, I don't believe an overweight Zimmerman attacked anybody. He was surprised, sucker punched, knocked down and then beaten.

The lie detector results and the police investigation found nothing to prove otherwise..


----------



## katydidagain

Nevada said:


> It could have happened that way, but Zimmerman could had tried to detain Martin. We really don't know who assaulted who.
> 
> If Martin attacked Zimmerman, then Zimmerman was justified. If Zimmerman tried to detain Martin but Martin resisted, then Zimmerman was not justified. That's what the jury will need to determine. But either way, who might have been winning the fight at some point has little to do with justification for shooting.


I guess I'm totally lost here. I thought GZ lost sight of TM so he wasn't able to detain him. If that's not the case, why didn't GZ just unholster his weapon and order TM to halt and wait for the police?


----------



## dixiegal62

So, would it be right to assume that every criminal in Florida now doesn't have to worry that any texts on their phones can be used for evidence now unless it can be proved that they did indeed write the texts? What happens if this judge decides to allow texts in another trial?


----------



## Nevada

dixiegal62 said:


> How do you feel about the message to black youth that all middle age whites are racist and want to kill them?


I'm not aware of that message. But I can see how a black man in central Florida might have that impression. Remember, things in central Florida are very different from the Miami/Ft. Lauderdale area. I know, I've lived in both.


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> It could have happened that way, but Zimmerman could had tried to detain Martin. We really don't know who assaulted who.
> 
> If Martin attacked Zimmerman, then Zimmerman was justified. If Zimmerman tried to detain Martin but Martin resisted, then Zimmerman was not justified. That's what the jury will need to determine. But either way, who might have been winning the fight at some point has little to do with justification for shooting.


The physical evidence shows it was a one-sided fight.Those who saw Zimmerman afterwards said he go the dickens beat out of him. Only Trayvon's knuckles were skinned up. The grass and wet clothing showed the same. The timeline shows there wasn't time enough for a fist fight with any kind of back and forth. The whole incident was over in a few minutes from the time Trayvon came out of hiding. That includes the time it took Trayvon to get to Zimmerman, get him to turn around and then start using him as a punching bag.

There was no wrestling. It was wham, bam and bang.


----------



## katydidagain

Nevada said:


> I'm not aware of that message. But I can see how a black man in central Florida might have that impression. Remember, things in central Florida are very different from the Miami/Ft. Lauderdale area. I know, I've lived in both.


How long ago did you live there? Just curious.


----------



## Darren

katydidagain said:


> I guess I'm totally lost here. I thought GZ lost sight of TM so he wasn't able to detain him. If that's not the case, why didn't GZ just unholster his weapon and order TM to halt and wait for the police?


A CCW holder can't do that. It's called brandishing. That's a criminal act unless you witnessed the person committing a crime.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> We really *don't know* who assaulted who.


I dont' know why you don't know, when it's clear *from the evidence* Zimmerman was the only one "assaulted"


> If Martin attacked Zimmerman, then Zimmerman was justified. If Zimmerman tried to detain Martin but Martin resisted, then Zimmerman was not justified


According to the law YOU POSTED, he's justified in either scenario, due to the BEATING he was taking.

You keep SPECULATING about "detention" when there is nothing to substantiate the claim


----------



## dixiegal62

Nevada said:


> I'm not aware of that message. But I can see how a black man in central Florida might have that impression. Remember, things in central Florida are very different from the Miami/Ft. Lauderdale area. I know, I've lived in both.


 
You must have missed all the tweets and FB pages set up to incite riots and discuss killing Z.


----------



## katydidagain

Darren said:


> A CCW holder can't do that. It's called brandishing. That's a criminal act unless you witnessed the person committing a crime.


I didn't know that. (Apparently it's better to surprise rather than giving someone any warning--guess that's why it's concealed.) I still don't understand why GZ didn't ask TM why he was on private property; in a large complex a neighborhood watch volunteer wouldn't know everyone but why not ask?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

katydidagain said:


> I guess I'm totally lost here. I thought GZ lost sight of TM so he wasn't able to detain him. If that's not the case, why didn't GZ just unholster his weapon and order TM to halt and wait for the police?


He did lose sight of him, and did NOT "detain" anyone

It would have been ILLEGAL to draw a weapon to "hold" him for police, since he had not been observed commiting a violent felony.

Zimmerman didn't have the authority to "order" anyone to do anything


----------



## painterswife

Bearfootfarm said:


> I dont' know why you don't know, when it's clear *from the evidence* Zimmerman was the only one "assaulted"
> 
> 
> According to the law YOU POSTED, he's justified in either scenario, due to the BEATING he was taking.
> 
> You keep SPECULATING about "detention" when there is nothing to substantiate the claim


It is clear to you, It is not clear to others. It may not be clear to the jury. You can not force your viewpoint on anyone else. The jury will speculate as well. That is their job.


----------



## unregistered353870

> The jury will speculate as well. That is their job.


I have to disagree with that. Their job is to make a decision based on the evidence presented.


----------



## painterswife

jtbrandt said:


> I have to disagree with that. Their job is to make a decision based on the evidence presented.


I have heard the judge and the lawyers on both sides say otherwise. They are free to take the evidence, deliberate and then weight it or dismiss it as they see fit. They decide whether the evidence is proof or not and they are speculating while they do it.


----------



## Nevada

katydidagain said:


> How long ago did you live there? Just curious.


I haven't been to Florida since the mid-1990s, but I still have a lot of family in the area.


----------



## unregistered353870

painterswife said:


> I have heard the judge and the lawyers on both sides say otherwise. They are free to take the evidence, deliberate and then weight it or dismiss it as they see fit. They decide whether the evidence is proof or not and they are speculating while they do it.


They are to judge the veracity of the testimony and evidence, but not to form their own theory without evidence, which is what speculation is.


----------



## Nevada

Darren said:


> The physical evidence shows it was a one-sided fight.Those who saw Zimmerman afterwards said he go the dickens beat out of him. Only Trayvon's knuckles were skinned up. The grass and wet clothing showed the same. The timeline shows there wasn't time enough for a fist fight with any kind of back and forth. The whole incident was over in a few minutes from the time Trayvon came out of hiding. That includes the time it took Trayvon to get to Zimmerman, get him to turn around and then start using him as a punching bag.
> 
> There was no wrestling. It was wham, bam and bang.


Again, you are concentrating on the fight instead of who assaulted who. You believe Zimmerman's account, but Martin can't speak for himself.

Is Zimmerman capable of lying to make himself look good? We know he is from the Hannity interview. He told Hannity that he had no knowledge of the stand-your-ground law, but we know that he studied that law in a college-level course. While that wasn't a material fact in this case, it certainly shows that Zimmerman was capable of lying to give a favorable impression.


----------



## painterswife

jtbrandt said:


> They are to judge the veracity of the testimony and evidence, but not to form their own theory without evidence, which is what speculation is.


Maybe we are debating wording. The defense and the prosecution will both offer alternate possibilities of what happened and how they see the evidence supports or does not support those scenarios. The jury then has to speculate whether the evidence, in their opinion, supports those scenarios and therefore if those scenarios are in their opinion believable or not. the judge said the jury makes the decision on whether the evidence is true or not or to be considered or not.


----------



## Darren

Forget about innocent until proven guilty. Recently released documens shows a group within the so-called Department of Justice expanded their legal franchise to help with the protest marches. This is government out of control.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-...rtment-in-organizing-trayvon-martin-protests/


----------



## unregistered353870

> Maybe we are debating wording.


Yes, I was going by my understanding of what speculation is, but I looked it up and one alternate definition was "consideration of a subject." That fits the way you have used it.


----------



## Nevada

Darren said:


> Forget about innocent until proven guilty.


The reality is that if you're accused of a crime and you can't prove you didn't do it, you're in a lot of trouble. People are wrongly convicted on circumstantial evidence every day, which has been established the past decade through DNS evidence.

That said, this trial is going very well for the defense. Unless something big is introduced during the last few days, I think Zimmerman is on track for an acquittal.


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> Again, you are concentrating on the fight instead of who assaulted who. You believe Zimmerman's account, but Martin can't speak for himself.
> 
> Is Zimmerman capable of lying to make himself look good? We know he is from the Hannity interview. He told Hannity that he had no knowledge of the stand-your-ground law, but we know that he studied that law in a college-level course. While that wasn't a material fact in this case, it certainly shows that Zimmerman was capable of lying to give a favorable impression.


Do you remember everything from every class you ever took? I don't. Going through old papers is a constant revelation for me when I see something that I completely forgot. Not everyone has a photographic memory. Apparently you're not even giving Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## painterswife

"Jury&#8217;s Role in Criminal Trials

As noted above, a jury&#8217;s job is to weigh all the evidence presented at trial. The jury is permitted to draw inferences from evidence, so long as they arise from proven facts and are logical and reasonable&#8212;they cannot be based on speculation. Indeed, juries are instructed that legally speaking, there is no distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence."

http://www.legalzoom.com/lawsuits-settlements/more-litigation/why-cant-some-juries-convict

I think from this I am using speculation incorrectly. The jury can infer different things from the evidence as long as they think the evidence supports it. Of course we all see the evidence as supporting different scenarios.

I will be very interested in the jury instructions and how that compares with what I have heard listening to this trial.


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> The reality is that if you're accused of a crime and you can't prove you didn't do it, you're in a lot of trouble. People are wrongly convicted on circumstantial evidence every day, which has been established the past decade through DNS evidence.


That's true. I still think it's reasonable to expect the federal government to not stir up trouble in a local case.


----------



## Nevada

Darren said:


> Do you remember everything from every class you ever took?


I'm always skeptical when people try to win an argument by trying to convince me that they are ignorant.

Zimmerman understood the basic laws surrounding gun use. If he didn't learn it in his criminal justice class, he should have learned it in his CCW class. I'm not going to believe that Zimmerman didn't know, so don't waste your time.


----------



## unregistered353870

> I will be very interested in the jury instructions and how that compares with what I have heard listening to this trial.


Me too. I have a feeling the instructions will be pretty complicated. Hopefully the jury is intelligent enough to understand the way the law is explained to them.


----------



## Cornhusker

Nevada said:


> I wish that wasn't such a big issue. Martin being on top only means that he was winning the fight at some point. To make that the central issue implies that if someone is losing a fistfight he's justified in shooting his opponent. That's not a message I want to send to concealed gun carriers.


Maybe the message is if you assault someone, they might shoot you.


----------



## 7thswan

Darren said:


> Forget about innocent until proven guilty. Recently released documens shows a group within the so-called Department of Justice expanded their legal franchise to help with the protest marches. This is government out of control.
> 
> http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-...rtment-in-organizing-trayvon-martin-protests/


 This^ is horrible, but it won't be missed.- 
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/07/1...s-role-in-organizing-trayvon-martin-protests/


----------



## Nevada

Cornhusker said:


> Maybe the message is if you assault someone, they might shoot you.


Well, yeah. That makes a lot more sense than shooting someone because you're losing a fistfight.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> *I still don't understand why GZ didn't ask TM why he was on private property*; in a large complex a neighborhood watch volunteer wouldn't know everyone but why not ask?


It seems to me he was attacked before he could do anything.
The whole incident only took* THREE minutes* after Zimmerman hung up from talking to the dispatcher





> *7:13:41* &#8212; Zimmerman's call to Sanford police ends.[16]
> 
> 7:16:00 - 7:16:59 &#8212; Martin's call from the girl goes dead during this minute.[16][17]
> 
> 7:16:11 &#8212; First 911 call from witness about a fight, calls for help heard.[18]
> 
> *7:16:55* &#8212; Gunshot heard on 911 call.[19]



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin
You have to keep in mind ALL the evidence has been public for well over a year now.
None of this is "new" and everyone *should* have seen it all by now


----------



## Bearfootfarm

painterswife said:


> It is clear to you, *It is not clear to others.* It may not be clear to the jury. You can not force your viewpoint on anyone else. The jury will speculate as well. That is their job.


If it's "not clear" then they are blind
All your rhetoric is meaningless when it demands you ignore logic and reality


----------



## painterswife

Bearfootfarm said:


> If it's "not clear" then they are blind
> All your rhetoric is meaningless when it demands you ignore logic and reality


Right back at you.


----------



## katydidagain

Bearfootfarm said:


> It seems to me he was attacked before he could do anything.


He called the police to report TM being there so it wasn't that fast. He had time to ask TM his business before dialing his phone or even when it was connecting.


----------



## painterswife

katydidagain said:


> He called the police to report TM being there so it wasn't that fast. He had time to ask TM his business before dialing his phone.


He could have asked him when Trayvon walked by his vehicle instead he rolled up his window. There are a lot of holes in Zimmerman's story.


----------



## unregistered353870

painterswife said:


> He could have asked him when Trayvon walked by his vehicle instead he rolled up his window. There are a lot of holes in Zimmerman's story.


That makes me think he is not a confrontational person...which lends credence to his claim that he did not start the altercation.


----------



## katydidagain

painterswife said:


> He could have asked him when Trayvon walked by his vehicle instead he rolled up his window. There are a lot of holes in Zimmerman's story.


Actually, I don't find that a hole but I think it shows poor judgment. I don't think I'd want someone who jumps to conclusions so quickly patrolling/watching my neighborhood.


----------



## katydidagain

jtbrandt said:


> That makes me think he is not a confrontational person...which lends credence to his claim that he did not start the altercation.


Asking a potential "bad guy" to identify themselves is not being confrontational.


----------



## unregistered353870

katydidagain said:


> Asking a potential "bad guy" to identify themselves is not being confrontational.


You don't consider someone saying "hey, who are you and what are you doing here?" to be confronting the person they are asking?


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> He could have asked him when Trayvon walked by his vehicle instead he rolled up his window. There are a lot of holes in Zimmerman's story.


 
I gotta say, if a suspicious person is circling my truck in the dark there is no way I'm going to roll down my window to ask him anything. In fact I would be making sure my doors where locked.


----------



## katydidagain

jtbrandt said:


> You don't consider someone saying "hey, who are you and what are you doing here?" to be confronting the person they are asking?


"Good evening, young man. I'm a neighborhood watch volunteer and don't recognize you. Not that I know everyone...." or something like that is not confrontational.


----------



## dixiegal62

Still seems like the judge is badgering Zimmerman as to if he wants to testify.


----------



## katydidagain

dixiegal62 said:


> I gotta say, if a suspicious person is circling my truck in the dark there is no way I'm going to roll down my window to ask him anything. In fact I would be making sure my doors where locked.


I'd have done that then driven off!


----------



## 7thswan

dixiegal62 said:


> Still seems like the judge is badgering Zimmerman as to if he wants to testify.


 I can't see that that was proper at all.


----------



## Cornhusker

Nevada said:


> Well, yeah. That makes a lot more sense than shooting someone because you're losing a fistfight.


I don't know how it is in Florida, but in this state, you are legally allowed to shoot someone if you are in fear of your life or serious bodily harm, or to prevent sexual assault or kidnapping.
If someone larger than myself had me pinned down beating my head in, I wouldn't have to think too long before I shot him, and it wouldn't make one bit of difference what color his skin was.


----------



## unregistered353870

katydidagain said:


> "Good evening, young man. I'm a neighborhood watch volunteer and don't recognize you. Not that I know everyone...." or something like that is not confrontational.


If you thought someone was on drugs would you ask them that? Maybe you would but it's entirely possible you are braver than Zimmerman. It seems Zimmerman was not the type because he was scared. Would a scared man go start an altercation with someone they think is up to no good? I don't think so. Zimmerman seems like a pansy to me.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> Still seems like the judge is badgering Zimmerman as to if he wants to testify.


She is doing her job making sure the defendant does not wish to testify and had not changed his mind about doing so. She is making sure he can not use this as a basis for a retrial.


----------



## unregistered353870

katydidagain said:


> I'd have done that then driven off!


According to Zimmerman, Martin was within an arm's length of his vehicle when he rolled up the window. That doesn't give much time to get away if needed. he was also supposedly reaching into his waistband as if he might have a weapon.


----------



## katydidagain

jtbrandt said:


> According to Zimmerman, Martin was within an arm's length of his vehicle when he rolled up the window. That doesn't give much time to get away if needed. he was also supposedly reaching into his waistband as if he might have a weapon.


So start the car and leave if you're a wimp like me.


----------



## unregistered353870

katydidagain said:


> So start the car and leave if you're a wimp like me.


I think Zimmerman says he did that at one point, but I'm not sure.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> I wish that wasn't such a big issue. Martin being on top only means that he was winning the fight at some point. To make that the central issue implies that if someone is losing a fistfight he's justified in shooting his opponent. That's not a message I want to send to concealed gun carriers.


Actually that is taught in most CC classes. Your attacker does not need to be armed for you to be able to *legally* use deadly force.


----------



## katydidagain

jtbrandt said:


> I think Zimmerman says he did that at one point, but I'm not sure.


If he had left and stayed away, there would be no need for a trial.


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> She is doing her job making sure the defendant does not wish to testify and had not changed his mind about doing so. She is making sure he can not use this as a basis for a retrial.


 
Zimmerman should have respectfully told her that his attorney's where there to speak for him.


----------



## unregistered353870

katydidagain said:


> If he had left and stayed away, there would be no need for a trial.


I agree. That would be nice. I think Zimmerman did some stupid things. But stupid doesn't necessarily equal criminal.


----------



## katydidagain

jtbrandt said:


> I agree. That would be nice. I think Zimmerman did some stupid things. But stupid doesn't necessarily equal criminal.


I agree with you. Indeed, I believe they both did some stupid things.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> Zimmerman should have respectfully told her that his attorney's where there to speak for him.


There are certain questions that his lawyer is not allowed to answer for him. That seems to be one of them.

She just told him h is going to ask again after the recess.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> It could have happened that way, but Zimmerman could had tried to detain Martin. We really don't know who assaulted who.
> 
> If Martin attacked Zimmerman, then Zimmerman was justified. If Zimmerman tried to detain Martin but Martin resisted, then Zimmerman was not justified. That's what the jury will need to determine. But either way, who might have been winning the fight at some point has little to do with justification for shooting.


There is evidence showing Martin was beating Zimmerman. There is no evidence to show how the fight started. The rule of law says the only thing the jury is supposed to consider is evidence. Therefore the jury has no choice to assume Zimmerman was acting to stop the beating.

Even if Martin was alive and testified Zimmerman started the fight it would be a "he said-he said" testimony and the physical evidence along with the other witness testimony would support Zimmerman more than enough to put reasonable doubt in a jury's mind.


----------



## 7thswan

Is there any evidence of Zimmerman having hit Martin?


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> There are certain questions that his lawyer is not allowed to answer for him. That seems to be one of them.
> 
> She just told him h is going to ask again after the recess.


 
Hmmm that doesn't sound right. A defendant shouldn't have to answer anything. 
After the recess? CNN must be lagging behind, didn't see that. Awhile ago she said end of the day. How is repeatedly asking him not badgering?


----------



## dixiegal62

7thswan said:


> Is there any evidence of Zimmerman having hit Martin?


 
I haven't seen any.


----------



## painterswife

7thswan said:


> Is there any evidence of Zimmerman having hit Martin?


Zimmerman's own witness said that there does not have to be physical evidence of injury to prove that he was hit.


----------



## unregistered353870

painterswife said:


> There are certain questions that his lawyer is not allowed to answer for him. That seems to be one of them.
> 
> She just told him h is going to ask again after the recess.


Yup, because if she didn't get it from his mouth he could later say he wanted to testify but his lawyers wouldn't let him. She is a little annoying with the way she asks, but I suspect that has more to do with her frustration with West. They really don't seem to like each other at all. Not that they should be friends, but most everybody else involved in the case seem to be pretty cordial with each other.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> Hmmm that doesn't sound right. A defendant shouldn't have to answer anything.
> After the recess? CNN must be lagging behind, didn't see that. Awhile ago she said end of the day. How is repeatedly asking him not badgering?


Too many sound bites out there. It is true the accused does not have to testify but he has to say out loud that he is not going to. Just as he must enter a plea. His lawyer is not allowed to do that either.


----------



## unregistered353870

dixiegal62 said:


> Hmmm that doesn't sound right. A defendant shouldn't have to answer anything.
> After the recess? CNN must be lagging behind, didn't see that. Awhile ago she said end of the day. How is repeatedly asking him not badgering?


He doesn't have to answer anything in front of the jury, but the court's job is to assure that he gets a fair trial. Without his input, that would be tough to do. He probably could refuse to speak but I don't know what the point would be.


----------



## unregistered353870

painterswife said:


> Zimmerman's own witness said that there does not have to be physical evidence of injury to prove that he was hit.


But is there any evidence at all that Martin was hit? Did any witnesses testify to that effect?


----------



## painterswife

jtbrandt said:


> But is there any evidence at all that Martin was hit? Did any witnesses testify to that effect?


No he did not.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> Again, you are concentrating on the fight instead of who assaulted who. You believe Zimmerman's account, but Martin can't speak for himself.


Even if he weren't dead what could he say which is supported by evidence? From what little I have seen there is *ZERO* physical evidence to support the theory Zimmerman was the aggressor.

Think of it this way. You hear a crash in your kitchen and discover two kids standing there with a broken cookie jar on the floor. Timmy points to Johnny and says; "He did it!". Johnny says; "He's lying, he did it." You look and you see a chair next to the counter with a tennis shoe print on it. You check and see Timmy is barefoot, Johnny has on shoes which match the footprint. You look and you see cookie crumbs on Johnny's mouth and shirt. Timmy is clean.

Someone tells you that you shouldn't punish little Johnny. After all Timmy *could have *put on Johnny's shoes, pushed the chair up to the counter, got the jar, dropped it then before you arrived he put the shoes back on Johnny, picked up a cookie and smashed it into Johnny's face leaving crumbs on his mouth and shirt to frame poor innocent Johnny.

Now just who would you 'convict' of raiding the cookie jar?


----------



## watcher

katydidagain said:


> Asking a potential "bad guy" to identify themselves is not being confrontational.


You haven't had to deal with too many "bad" guys have you. Asking someone who is up to no good what he's up too will many times lead to some not so nice things happening.


----------



## painterswife

jtbrandt said:


> He doesn't have to answer anything in front of the jury, but the court's job is to assure that he gets a fair trial. Without his input, that would be tough to do. He probably could refuse to speak but I don't know what the point would be.


The judge just verified that she had to ask him and he needed to answer.


----------



## unregistered353870

Defense made motion for dismissal of charges. Prosecution making arguments against. Of course this will go the same as the first time.


----------



## 7thswan

Is it true that Zimmermans Dad( and some other family) is not allowed in the Court room.


----------



## painterswife

7thswan said:


> Is it true that Zimmermans Dad( and some others) is not allowed in the Court room.


Not allowed because they are under witness sequestration.


----------



## 7thswan

painterswife said:


> Not allowed because they are under witness sequestration.


So Martins are not?


----------



## painterswife

7thswan said:


> So Martins are not?


Prosecution or defense can stipulate to which witnesses they might want to call back that will then need to be sequestered.


----------



## dixiegal62

Wow Zimmerman's father was certainly treated differently when he was listening to the 911 call.


----------



## Darren

katydidagain said:


> He called the police to report TM being there so it wasn't that fast. He had time to ask TM his business before dialing his phone or even when it was connecting.


If you look at the timeline posted, the altercation probably started as soon as the phone call went dead. It didn't take long for Zimmerman to look around when Trayvon walked up to him. get sucker punched, find himself on the ground, get grounded and pounded and shoot Trayvon one time when the kid wouldn't stop when he called for help. The whole thing was over in less than a minute with Martin apparently punching and trying to smother Zimmerman most of the time. There was no time for chit chat about what either was doing there.


----------



## Darren

painterswife said:


> Not allowed because they are under witness sequestration.


Why weren't Trayvon's parents sequestered?


----------



## Darren

jtbrandt said:


> But is there any evidence at all that Martin was hit? Did any witnesses testify to that effect?


The only evidence of Martin being hit was the 9mm slug in his chest.


----------



## unregistered353870

The prosecution is trying to call the undercover cop who Zimmerman was arrested for assaulting. That could be a disaster.


----------



## unregistered353870

Darren said:


> The only evidence of Martin being hit was the 9mm slug in his chest.


I was talking about non-physical evidence of Martin being hit before the shooting. Thinking about it I realized that Jeantel testified to the effect that Martin may have been struck. That's evidence, but not very convincing evidence.


----------



## painterswife

Darren said:


> Why weren't Trayvon's parents sequestered?


Neither side of the case wanted them sequestered.


----------



## Darren

painterswife said:


> He could have asked him when Trayvon walked by his vehicle instead he rolled up his window. There are a lot of holes in Zimmerman's story.


Nothing that can't be explained. I still remember the humorous story in Readers Digest from a self identified whie woman who rolled up her windows when a truck driven by a Black man pulled up beside her at a stop light. He looked over, smiled, and rolled up his windows too.

You can't characterize Zimmerman as a police wannabe or crazed stalker when he decidedly did not act like a LEO and chose not to confront Trayvon when he circled the truck. He didn't confront Trayvon then and I doubt he confronted Trayvon later.

Trayvon chose to confront Zimmerman. That correlates with the 911 tape, the phone call and the extent of Zimmerman's injuries, the positions during the attack and Trayvon's previous history of fighting revealed not only in the social media posts but also in the content of Trayvon's phone.


----------



## painterswife

Darren said:


> Nothing that can't be explained. I still remember the humorous story in Readers Digest from a self identified whie woman who rolled up her windows when a truck driven by a Black man pulled up beside her at a stop light. He looked over, smiled, and rolled up his windows too.
> 
> You can't characterize Zimmerman as a police wannabe or crazed stalker when he decidedly did not act like a LEO and chose not to confront Trayvon when he circled the truck. He didn't confront Trayvon then and I doubt he confronted Trayvon later.
> 
> Trayvon chose to confront Zimmerman. That correlates with the 911 tape, the phone call and the extent of Zimmerman's injuries, the positions during the attack and Trayvon's previous history of fighting revealed not only in the social media posts but also in the content of Trayvon's phone.


You can explain away lots of things just as the prosecution can. It boils down to the jury and if they find those explanations reasonable.


----------



## Darren

jtbrandt said:


> I was talking about non-physical evidence of Martin being hit before the shooting. Thinking about it I realized that Jeantel testified to the effect that Martin may have been struck. That's evidence, but not very convincing evidence.


Other than Zimmerman repeatedly beaing Trayvon in the fists with his face there was no other evidence. The funeral director was the first to let the cat out of the bag that Trayvon's knuckles were skinned up. Other than the bullet wound there was nothing else.


----------



## dixiegal62

I sure do wish the defense had ended on a better note than they did today.


----------



## Darren

painterswife said:


> You can explain away lots of things just as the prosecution can. It boils down to the jury and if they find those explanations reasonable.


The prosecution hasn't done much of anything except embarass themselves by proving the defense's case. Their ace witness committed perjury. There has been no evidence presented that doesn't confirm the original investigator's decision that there was no provable case against Zimmerman.


----------



## painterswife

Darren said:


> The prosecution hasn't done much of anything except embarass themselves by proving the defense's case. Their ace witness committed perjury. There has been no evidence presented that doesn't confirm the original investigator's decision that there was no provable case against Zimmerman.


I do not agree. Maybe the jury will not as well. Maybe they will agree.


----------



## unregistered353870

Darren said:


> Other than Zimmerman repeatedly beaing Trayvon in the fists with his face there was no other evidence. The funeral director was the first to let the cat out of the bag that Trayvon's knuckles were skinned up. Other than the bullet wound there was nothing else.


There IS evidence. Jeantel's testimony is evidence. It is limited in scope and not very reliable, but it's still evidence. To say there is none is simply not true.


----------



## unregistered353870

It seems the defense decided not to introduce Martin's toxicology report and that Zimmerman may have been surprised by that decision:


> Zimmerman thanked the judge, and as the camera backed away for the recess, he looked back and forth at his lawyers, and asked &#8220;Where&#8217;s the marijuana?&#8221;
> 
> Zimmerman was likely referring to the trace amounts of THC that were present in Trayvon Martin&#8216;s autopsy toxicology report. On Tuesday, Judge Nelson ruled that the report could be admitted into evidence, but since then, there has been no witness testimony about the report.


http://www.mediaite.com/tv/george-zimmerman-asks-defense-lawyers-wheres-the-marijuana/


----------



## Bearfootfarm

painterswife said:


> Right back at you.


LOL
You're confusing empty rhetoric with facts and logic.


----------



## 7thswan

It just does not make any sense that Zimmerman would call the cops, then in the end attack Martin. 2 different personality types there. Makes no sense what so ever.


----------



## painterswife

Bearfootfarm said:


> LOL
> You're confusing empty rhetoric with facts and logic.


In your opinion. Not relevant to the case. Please feel free to debate my opinion, but please do not make judgement on my thinking process.


----------



## Darren

jtbrandt said:


> There IS evidence. Jeantel's testimony is evidence. It is limited in scope and not very reliable, but it's still evidence. To say there is none is simply not true.


You are correct. I think her perjury ended her credibility as a witness. If you're going to lie for the convenience of Crump and the prosecution it's a fair bet given her 'tude that she lied about the important stuff to. Short of a death bed confession by Crump, we'll never know unless there's a deal with her and someone welches.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> He called the police to report TM being there so *it wasn't that fast*.
> He had time to ask TM his business before dialing his phone or even when it was connecting.
> 
> Like
> painterswife likes this.


I showed you *the transcripts* that PROVE it was 3 minutes from the time he hung up until the shot was fired.
When he hung up, the altercation hadn't even started

You can argue with *the facts*, but you can't dispute them
READ the transcripts instead of fantasizing events. since it's all right there


----------



## Bearfootfarm

katydidagain said:


> "Good evening, young man. I'm a neighborhood watch volunteer and don't recognize you. Not that I know everyone...." or something like that is not confrontational.


And neither is is* realistic.*


----------



## katydidagain

watcher said:


> You haven't had to deal with too many "bad" guys have you. Asking someone who is up to no good what he's up too will many times lead to some not so nice things happening.


I said *potential* "bad guy". A kid walking in full sight is not the same as someone peeping in windows, lurking in the shadows (if he had been hiding, GZ would not have seen him) or brandishing a weapon.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by *Nevada*
> _I wish that wasn't such a big issue. Martin being on top only means that he was winning the fight at some point. To make that the central issue implies that* if someone is losing a fistfight he's justified in shooting his opponent*. That's not a message I want to send to concealed gun carriers._


You keep PRETENDING there was a "fistfight".
There was an ASSAULT.
There is no evidence of a "fistfight"

We know you don't like the idea of people being armed *to protect themselves*, but you'll have to learn to live with it


----------



## Bearfootfarm

painterswife said:


> *In your opinion*. Not relevant to the case. Please feel free to debate my opinion, but please do not make judgement on my thinking process.


I'm not making any judgement.
I'm stating facts based on observation.

You resort to the same old lines when you have no logical answers to simple questions.


----------



## painterswife

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm not making any judgement.
> I'm stating facts based on observation.
> 
> You resort to the same old lines when you have no logical answers to simple questions.


You are allowed to debate my opinion you are not allowed to make judgement about me. Those are the rules of this forum. I am requesting that you follow them.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

painterswife said:


> Zimmerman's own witness said that there does not have to be physical evidence of injury to prove that he was hit.


There is NO EVIDENCE Martin was injured other than the gunshot, and his knuckles *from BEATING Zimmerman.*


----------



## katydidagain

Bearfootfarm said:


> And neither is is* realistic.*


I beg to differ with you. There was not an all white community; therefore a young black man walking around could quite possibly have the same rights as GZ to be on the property. Saving good evening, introducing yourself and explaining why you're questioning their presence quite possibly would have met with "I"m TM; I just moved in with my father.." You can argue that TM was on the hunt for prey but I don't see that; I do think he felt challenged, insulted and his hormones kicked in. I'm beginning to think GZ really shouldn't have been allowed to participate in the neighborhood watch program


----------



## painterswife

Bearfootfarm said:


> There is NO EVIDENCE Martin was injured other than the gunshot, and his knuckles *from BEATING Zimmerman.*


Zimmerman's own witness testified that Trayvon could have received injuries that were not visible. That is evidence.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

painterswife said:


> You are allowed to debate my opinion you are* not allowed to make judgement about me*. Those are the rules of this forum. I am requesting that you follow them.


I'm not making judgements "about you"

I'm talking about the TOPIC, while you keep telling me (and others) our "opinions aren't relevant".

You can always* put me on ignore* if you don't want to hear what I have to say, or if you don't want to be questioned at all


----------



## painterswife

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm not making judgements "about you"
> 
> I'm talking about the TOPIC, while you keep telling me (and others) our "opinions aren't relevant".
> 
> You can always* put me on ignore* if you don't want to hear what I have to say, or if you don't want to be questioned at all


I have said that your opinion is not relevant to the court case. I believe that to be true unless you are on the jury.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

painterswife said:


> Zimmerman's own witness testified that Trayvon could have received injuries that were not visible. That is evidence.


 That's not evidence.
It's a witness's speculation


----------



## painterswife

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's not evidence.
> It's a witness's speculation


Testimony in court is evidence.


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's not evidence.
> It's a witness's speculation


I think that the absence of bruising on a person who bled-out is to be expected. His right ventricle was lacerated, so how could be bruise?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

painterswife said:


> I have said that *your opinion is not relevant* to the court case. I believe that to be true unless you are on the jury.


Your opinion is not relevant to me, so there's no need to keep repeating it.

I'd rather discuss the LOGICAL reasons you have for most of your beliefs, and you've shown you really have none, since you always dodge the questions with the "not relevant" RHETORIC, just as you're doing now.

So rather than continue a truly POINTLESS endeavour, I'll just ignore you, since I've heard it all before


----------



## dixiegal62

7thswan said:


> It just does not make any sense that Zimmerman would call the cops, then in the end attack Martin. 2 different personality types there. Makes no sense what so ever.


 
No it doesn't. If he had wanted to play cops and robbers he would have pursued TM shot him then called the police.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> I think that the absence of bruising on a person who bled-out is to be expected. His right ventricle was lacerated, so how could be bruise?


Bruising would show up, as would *abrasions* or lacerations

The truth is there were NO INJURIES, since HE was the attacker
There were no injuries to Zimmerman's knuckles either

If Martin had simply KEPT GOING, he would have been home in less than a 2 minutes:

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2012/03/last-map-of-the-retreat-at-twin-lakes.html


----------



## dixiegal62

katydidagain said:


> I beg to differ with you. There was not an all white community; therefore a young black man walking around could quite possibly have the same rights as GZ to be on the property. Saving good evening, introducing yourself and explaining why you're questioning their presence quite possibly would have met with "I"m TM; I just moved in with my father.." You can argue that TM was on the hunt for prey but I don't see that; I do think he felt challenged, insulted and his hormones kicked in. I'm beginning to think GZ really shouldn't have been allowed to participate in the neighborhood watch program


 
I feel like I'm reading a 'Leave it to Beaver' transcript  Z stated that T was acting drugged. If you felt someone was drugged would you feel safe going up to talk to him?


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> I feel like I'm reading a 'Leave it to Beaver' transcript  Z stated that T was acting drugged. If you felt someone was drugged would you feel safe going up to talk to him?


Then why would he follow him?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I feel like I'm reading a 'Leave it to Beaver' transcript


I keep thinking it's more like the 'Twilight Zone', or 'Lost in Space'


----------



## katydidagain

dixiegal62 said:


> I feel like I'm reading a 'Leave it to Beaver' transcript  Z stated that T was acting drugged. If you felt someone was drugged would you feel safe going up to talk to him?


I'm not trained to spot drugged up behavior and neither is GZ; turns out he's wrong. And if you saw a drugged up person would you just hang around or would you leave? I'd leave.

All of you who think verdicts are based only on the evidence presented can dream on. There are 6 people with life experience who will decide.. If they choose to convict on any charges, I suspect the no introduction aspect will come into play. Maybe it shouldn't but our system depends on human beings thus far.


----------



## dixiegal62

katydidagain said:


> I'm not trained to spot drugged up behavior and neither is GZ; turns out he's wrong. And if you saw a drugged up person would you just hang around or would you leave? I'd leave.
> 
> All of you who think verdicts are based only on the evidence presented can dream on. There are 6 people with life experience who will decide.. If they choose to convict on any charges, I suspect the no introduction aspect will come into play. Maybe it shouldn't but our system depends on human beings thus far.


 
I didn't realize training was needed. It's pretty obvious when you see someone under the influence. He was swaying and unsteady in the 7-11 video. If I felt he was going to rob or cause harm to my neighbors I'd call the police and keep an eye on where he went so I could tell them.


----------



## katydidagain

dixiegal62 said:


> I didn't realize training was needed. It's pretty obvious when you see someone under the influence. He was swaying and unsteady in the 7-11 video. If I felt he was going to rob or cause harm to my neighbors I'd call the police and keep an eye on where he went so I could tell them.


*slaps head* Of course, those toxicology reports were wrong and GZ was right. I'm not too proud to say I that if I felt threatened by someone's behavior and could leave, I would.


----------



## dixiegal62

katydidagain said:


> All of you who think verdicts are based only on the evidence presented can dream on. There are 6 people with life experience who will decide.. If they choose to convict on any charges, I suspect the no introduction aspect will come into play. Maybe it shouldn't but our system depends on human beings thus far.


 I think their suppose to go by the evidence but it's very likely they already knew how they felt about the case before they came into court. Just like in this forum. We have all seen more than the jury and as far as I can tell nobody has changed their mind in here. I think he'll be found guilty, but I don't think he is.

I also think there will be riots on either verdict. If he goes free they'll riot because their angry. If he is found guilty they'll riot because they think they've somehow earned the right to.


----------



## unregistered353870

katydidagain said:


> *slaps head* Of course, those toxicology reports were wrong and GZ was right. I'm not too proud to say I that if I felt threatened by someone's behavior and could leave, I would.


Well the toxicology reports did say he had some THC in his blood. Probably not enough to make him look drugged up, but he wasn't completely clean.
ETA: Would you leave if there was a suspicious person in your neighborhood and a loved one was home alone?


----------



## dixiegal62

katydidagain said:


> *slaps head* Of course, those toxicology reports were wrong and GZ was right. I'm not too proud to say I that if I felt threatened by someone's behavior and could leave, I would.


 
I didn't say that... I said he 'looked' under the influence on the 7-11 footage. He was staggering and swaying.... things people usually do under the influence.


----------



## katydidagain

jtbrandt said:


> Well the toxicology reports did say he had some THC in his blood. Probably not enough to make him look drugged up, but he wasn't completely clean.


I agree. (Did the jury get to hear that report? I'm not sure at this point what they have heard.) I guess what I'm trying to say that there are 6 women on the jury; though some of you ladies here wouldn't run if you saw someone behaving strangely, I would. If I were sitting there I'd be trying to figure out how a simple situation became so tragic. And I would be thinking what *a reasonable man* would have done. 

BTW, I really have no opinion on this case. I find this discussion interesting but nothing said here is going to alter the outcome. I hope there will not be riots but I think there will be. (As a young woman flying home from SC I saw the 14th Street riots from the air; maybe someone can tell me what they were about because I don't know. But it was scary.)


----------



## katydidagain

dixiegal62 said:


> I didn't say that... I said he 'looked' under the influence on the 7-11 footage. He was staggering and swaying.... things people usually do under the influence.


He might have been dancing or posturing; kids do that kind of thing.


----------



## unregistered353870

> Did the jury get to hear that report?


They didn't. The defense fought to get it allowed and they won, but then chose not to use it for some reason. Probably their expert would not have been able to honestly say the low level of THC could make Martin violent. Or maybe they still have an opportunity to bring it in if they need to.



> though some of you ladies here wouldn't run if you saw someone behaving strangely, I would. If I were sitting there I'd be trying to figure out how a simple situation became so tragic. And I would be thinking what a reasonable man would have done.


Where would you or the reasonable man run to?


----------



## dixiegal62

katydidagain said:


> He might have been dancing or posturing; kids do that kind of thing.


 Yes they do, no he wasn't. He acted very disoriented and confused. After his purchase he started to walk out of the store, turned around, stopped and picked something off the floor, headed back to the drinks kind of lost like heading off this way and that way before finally leaving the store. If he was acting that way when GZ saw him , it explains why he thought he was acting weird.


----------



## Pearl B

katydidagain said:


> I agree. (Did the jury get to hear that report? I'm not sure at this point what they have heard.) I guess what I'm trying to say that there are 6 women on the jury; though some of you ladies here wouldn't run if you saw someone behaving strangely, I would. If I were sitting there I'd be trying to figure out how a simple situation became so tragic. And I would be thinking what *a reasonable man* would have done.
> 
> BTW, I really have no opinion on this case. I find this discussion interesting but nothing said here is going to alter the outcome. I hope there will not be riots but I think there will be. (As a young woman flying home from SC I saw the 14th Street riots from the air; maybe someone can tell me what they were about because I don't know. But it was scary.)


 Thats part of why I think an all female jury is wrong to have/be in this instance. I really think a case like this would need the input-pov of at least 1 male, preferably a couple.

The thing about the thc, I wonder if that was all it was, or if it was a blunt. If it was a blunt, I would likely let Z go for that alone.


----------



## katydidagain

jtbrandt said:


> Where would you or the reasonable man run to?


I would have, when in my vehicle, turned the key and driven off. Period. I lack the Y chromosome so I don't look for trouble.


----------



## unregistered353870

> The thing about the thc, I wonder if that was all it was, or if it was a blunt. If it was a blunt, I would likely let Z go for that alone.


What do you mean by blunt? As I understand it no marijuana was actually found in his possession.


----------



## unregistered353870

katydidagain said:


> I would have, when in my vehicle, turned the key and driven off. Period. I lack the Y chromosome so I don't look for trouble.


I was just wondering because I just thought of this: did he think about his wife being home alone? I'm assuming she was but maybe she wasn't home. In that case it would make sense to go home and make sure she's safe. But at the same time, maybe he felt like he needed to protect others in the neighborhood so he couldn't just leave or go home. It would be interesting to know what went through his head. It sure seems like he wasn't thinking very clearly during those few minutes.


----------



## katydidagain

dixiegal62 said:


> Yes they do, no he wasn't. He acted very disoriented and confused. After his purchase he started to walk out of the store, turned around, stopped and picked something off the floor, headed back to the drinks kind of lost like heading off this way and that way before finally leaving the store. If he was acting that way when GZ saw him , it explains why he thought he was acting weird.


You've obviously never seen me shopping. I'm not doped up but I hate it so much that I probably seem quite ditzy in stores. I sometimes pay then forget something so go back. I pick things up off the floor and put them back on the shelf if they've fallen or into the trash if needed. Now, if it's a coin, I'll pocket it; I love finding pennies then checking the date and remembering what I did that year. And I know for a fact that kids sometimes put on a show when on camera just because they can.


----------



## katydidagain

jtbrandt said:


> I was just wondering because I just thought of this: did he think about his wife being home alone? I'm assuming she was but maybe she wasn't home. In that case it would make sense to go home and make sure she's safe. But at the same time, maybe he felt like he needed to protect others in the neighborhood so he couldn't just leave or go home. It would be interesting to know what went through his head. It sure seems like he wasn't thinking very clearly during those few minutes.


I don't believe he was thinking clearly at all. And the jurors, because they are human, will try to determine if his actions made sense or not. That's just the way it works.


----------



## Pearl B

jtbrandt said:


> What do you mean by blunt? As I understand it no marijuana was actually found in his possession.


 A blunt is like a joint that has thc & a bunch of other weird chemicals, one of which is embalming fluid.


----------



## watcher

katydidagain said:


> I said *potential* "bad guy". A kid walking in full sight is not the same as someone peeping in windows, lurking in the shadows (if he had been hiding, GZ would not have seen him) or brandishing a weapon.












Nice looking kid, right?



Another nice looking young man, huh?


The first is Ted Bundy, the second is Jeffrey Dahmer and between the two of them they KILLED at least 37 people. FYI, one of Bundy's tricks was to act like he was in distress and needed help and being such a nice looking guy woman would help him only to wind up dead.

The point is you don't know what kind of person that 'kid' walking down the street is.


----------



## katydidagain

watcher said:


> The point is you don't know what kind of person that 'kid' walking down the street is.


So let's just shoot any male under aged 25! Heck, why not go for all those who possess the Y chromosome? Selectively abort them so those "innocent looking kids" never walk the street? Get real.


----------



## TheMartianChick

Pearl B said:


> A blunt is like a joint that has thc & a bunch of other weird chemicals, one of which is embalming fluid.


A blunt does not have embalming fluid in it. It is a thin (like a Dutchman brand) cigar that is split open and marijuana is sprinkled in it and then smoked. 

When someone is using embalming fluid/formaldehyde with marijuana, it goes by the street name of "water" in some regions.


----------



## dixiegal62

katydidagain said:


> So let's just shoot any male under aged 25! Heck, why not go for all those who possess the Y chromosome? Selectively abort them so those "innocent looking kids" never walk the street? Get real.


 
Or we could simply pass laws to make self defense a crime. After all stopping a young man from beating you to a pulp if he chooses is denying him of his basic rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Either premises is just as silly.:nono:


----------



## unregistered353870

Pearl B said:


> A blunt is like a joint that has thc & a bunch of other weird chemicals, one of which is embalming fluid.


Thanks. I never heard of that. I always thought of a blunt as like a cigar style joint.


----------



## katydidagain

dixiegal62 said:


> Or we could simply pass laws to make self defense a crime. After all stopping a young man from beating you to a pulp if he chooses is denying him of his basic rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Either premises is just as silly.:nono:


This is really not self defense in the truest sense because GZ had the chance to leave before he was attacked. That was a choice he didn't make.


----------



## dixiegal62

katydidagain said:


> This is really not self defense in the truest sense because GZ had the chance to leave before he was attacked. That was a choice he didn't make.


 
Yes he did have a choice, so did Trayvon. Zimmerman had a choice to leave or protect his neighborhood. Trayvon had a choice to stay at his house once he got there and be safe or double back and attack a stranger. One was calmly observing while letting the authorities know what was going on the other was sneaking around.


----------



## TheMartianChick

dixiegal62 said:


> Yes they do, no he wasn't. He acted very disoriented and confused. After his purchase he started to walk out of the store, turned around, stopped and picked something off the floor, headed back to the drinks kind of lost like heading off this way and that way before finally leaving the store. If he was acting that way when GZ saw him , it explains why he thought he was acting weird.


I just watched the video again before responding. Trayvon appears to be digging to find enough cash to pay for his purchase. He searches his pockets to come up with change. Each time he digs, he leans to one side and leans up against the counter. I do admit that he meandered out of the store, but I tend to do that too, in stores that I don't frequent often. He may have picked up a quarter or a wadded dollar bill off the floor. Given his dwindling finances, he might have seen that as an opportunity to put a little cash back into his pocket.

The store keeper is the person whose testimony meant quite a bit to me. He was working in a 7-11 Store and we all know that convenience stores get held up from time to time. He did not appear to be in the least bit bothered by Trayvon's appearance, clothing or demeanor. He waits patiently for him to dig out the money and even had his back turned to him while he shopped through portions of the extended version of the surveillance video that I watched. 

THC from marijuana can stay in your system for 30 days or so...Cocaine lasts for 3 days, I think which is the reason that they like to test hair follicles for that. Having THC in your system doesn't mean that you're high, but that you've been exposed to it in the recent past. Yeah, I think that Trayvon probably smoked some weed at some point, but not right before his altercation with Zimmerman. 

Given the fact that clerks in convenience stores are usually on heightened alert for armed robbery, this clerk was extremely relaxed. Other than George Zimmerman, the clerk is the only other person who had any opportunity to observe Trayvon's behavior at approximately the same time that the incident happened.

I think that the defense thought better about bringing the THC evidence in. To bring that in would also open up the door to Zimmerman's use of prescribed drugs. In one of the reports that I posted several pages back, Zimmerman's ex-girlfriend said that he had been on the drug Accutane. That drug has side effects that include aggression and the ex said that he was depressed and had mood swings while on it. Since he was seeing a counselor before the incident with Trayvon Martin, it is also possible that he was on another type of prescription to address whatever his issues were/are.


----------



## Pearl B

TheMartianChick said:


> A blunt does not have embalming fluid in it. It is a thin (like a Dutchman brand) cigar that is split open and marijuana is sprinkled in it and then smoked.
> 
> When someone is using embalming fluid/formaldehyde with marijuana, it goes by the street name of "water" in some regions.


 Granted it was a few years back, when I read what a blunt was, it was listed as having embalming fluid & a few other things. I think pcp too. It was some narly stuff. I did a quick google & found this under a drug slang dictionary:
http://www.noslang.com/drugs/dictionary/w/

What they are calling water now used to be called a blunt.

I found this under a slang name site:
*water* - Blunts; methamphetamine; PCP; a mixture of marijuana and other substances within a cigar; Gamma hydroxybutyrate (GHB)

*water-water* - Marijuana cigarettes dipped in embalming fluid, sometimes also laced with PCP


----------



## dixiegal62

I wish someone would explain why a 15 year old female is treated like an adult in that she can choose to abort her child but a 17 year old male keeps being referred to as a kid. He wasn't a kid, he was a young adult. Old enough to show good judgment.


----------



## katydidagain

dixiegal62 said:


> I wish someone would explain why a 15 year old female is treated like an adult in that she can choose to abort her child but a 17 year old male keeps being referred to as a kid. He wasn't a kid, he was a young adult. Old enough to show good judgment.


Have you raised a male child? I have and believe me had he not met a wonderful young woman 8 years ago, I'm pretty sure that at aged 27 he'd be sleeping on someone's couch and not regularly employed as are some of his friends--nice "kids" some I've known for over 15 years but really kids.


----------



## farmrbrown

Nevada said:


> I'm not aware of that message. But I can see how a black man in central Florida might have that impression. Remember, things in central Florida are very different from the Miami/Ft. Lauderdale area. I know, I've lived in both.



Used to be a big difference, not so much anymore. Crime is still worse the farther south you go, but the big disparity started disappearing in the 90's.



Cornhusker said:


> Maybe the message is if you assault someone, they might shoot you.





Nevada said:


> Well, yeah. That makes a lot more sense than shooting someone because you're losing a fistfight.





watcher said:


> Actually that is taught in most CC classes. Your attacker does not need to be armed for you to be able to *legally* use deadly force.





katydidagain said:


> So let's just shoot any male under aged 25! Heck, why not go for all those who possess the Y chromosome? Selectively abort them so those "innocent looking kids" never walk the street? Get real.


It seems that one of the sticking points that some people have against what Zimmerman did is a reference to what's known as "escalation of force".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_continuum


Several times a comment has been made that Martin didn't deserve to die just because he assaulted Zimmerman, even making the point that his injuries weren't severe enough to justify a killing.
Since it has been brought up, and I wanted to re-familiar myself with it too, I posted the above link.
From a non-LEO or non-military perspective that might seem pretty reasonable. In fact, even I think the price Martin paid was a pretty high one.

But the fact of the matter is, even when this standard is applied, Zimmerman comes out on the right side of the law as well.
Read the progression for yourself, ask a LEO, don't take my word for any of it.
The very next step after a closed hand strike is a non lethal weapon option - pepper spray, baton, flashlight, etc.
Guess what's next if you don't happen to have one of those on you?
Yep, lethal weapon.

And as far as the events leading up to the violence, only those two and God know for sure. 
But I can't help cringing when Martin seems to be given a right to beat someone when there's zero evidence Zimmerman ever laid a hand on him.
I guess you could theorize that Zimmerman grabbed him first to detain him, but given the timeline, the actions beforehand on the phone with the dispatcher, and the fact that carrying concealed means you don't ever have to get close to do something if you really wanted to, it just seems highly unlikely that ever happened.
But once the violence started, and if it was started by Martin, as seems logical, despite how bad we may feel he ended up dead because of it, HE put himself in that unfortunate position.
You can easily argue Zimmerman helped equally, but if Martin had kept his hands to himself, I'm sure he'd be alive today.
I think that "allowing" a certain level of violence, as long as it's just a little blood and a broken nose, is the wrong message to be teaching these youngsters.


----------



## katydidagain

It doesn't matter whether the entire world thinks GZ was justified; 6 women will decide.


----------



## dixiegal62

State prosecutors are asking the judge in the Trayvon Martin murder case to instruct the jury to consider lesser charges - manslaughter and aggravated assault - when they begin deliberations.
Zimmerman's attorney have objected. Nelson will hold a hearing Thursday morning to determine whether the jury should consider those charges, in addition to the second-degree murder charge that prosecutors sought when the trial began.



http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...tin-george-zimmerman-trial-animation/2504917/


----------



## dixiegal62

katydidagain said:


> Have you raised a male child? I have and believe me had he not met a wonderful young woman 8 years ago, I'm pretty sure that at aged 27 he'd be sleeping on someone's couch and not regularly employed as are some of his friends--nice "kids" some I've known for over 15 years but really kids.


Yes I have 2 in fact, one is 31 and the other 26. Both where taught at an early age that choices have consequences. I also have a 17 year old daughter, she's not a kid either she's a level headed young adult. Heck even my 3 year old grandson who is a 'kid' understands if you hit/hurt someone chances are you're going to be hurt back.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by *katydidagain*
> _*slaps head* Of course, those toxicology reports were wrong and GZ was right. I'm not too proud to say I that* if I felt threatened by someone's behavior and could leave, I would.*_


Martin could have kept going, but CHOSE to reverse course and confront Zimmerman.

And Zimmerman never said he WAS on drugs, but he ACTED like he MIGHT be.

*Read the transcripts*


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> though some of you ladies here *wouldn't run* if you saw someone behaving strangely, *I would*.


But before you said you would *confront *them, and blamed Zimmerman for not doing so.
The reality is Zimmerman did what HE did, and you don't know what you would have done


----------



## katydidagain

Bearfootfarm said:


> Martin could have kept going, but CHOSE to reverse course and confront Zimmerman.
> 
> And Zimmerman never said he WAS on drugs, but he ACTED like he MIGHT be.
> 
> *Read the transcripts*


Why are you so bothered by this case? The person who started this thread was attempting to have people think like the jury; you blasted them over and over with the same stuff. (Yes, they fought back.) Seriously, get a grip. You can't change the outcome unless you're on the jury. 

What I was trying to interject were issues/questions I believed might be in the jurors' minds. They are allowed to think. Who cares why TM didn't leave? He's dead. The person who didn't leave is on trial. It matters not if he killed in self defense if they believe he put himself in danger.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

katydidagain said:


> This is really not self defense in the truest sense because GZ had the chance to leave before he was attacked. That was a choice he didn't make.


No he did not
He had just as much right to be where he was as Martin.

Once Martin started BEATING him, he had every right to use deadly force to stop the attack


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Why are you so bothered by this case? The person who started this thread was attempting to have people think like the jury; you blasted them over and over with the same stuff. (Yes, they fought back.) Seriously, get a grip. You can't change the outcome unless you're on the jury.


The OP has shown an obvious bias against Zimmerman throughout the entire thread, and a total disregard for anyone else's opinions.

I'm not "bothered" by the case.

I'm simply basing all my opinions on the EVIDENCE, which some continue to *ignore* in order to make Zimmerman look guilty, when it's obvious he's not.

No one taking Martin's side can give any LOGICAL arguments to refute Zimmerman's story.

So I guess if anything "bothers' me, it's that people will ignore plain simple TRUTH to push their agendas


----------



## katydidagain

Bearfootfarm said:


> No he did not
> He had just as much right to be where he was as Martin.
> 
> Once Martin started BEATING him, he had every right to use deadly force to stop the attack


But a reasonable, prudent man would have left when he was in his car or left when he lost sight of TM,and left the matter to the police. If I were on the jury, I would consider that and could because it's part of the evidence that he didn't. He's alive while TM is not.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

katydidagain said:


> But a reasonable, prudent man would have left when he was in his car or when he lost sight of TM, gotten in his car and left he matter to the police. If I were on the jury, I would be consider that and could because it's part of the evidence that he didn't. *He's alive while TM is not*.


He's alive because he was armed, and Martin is dead because he ATTACKED Zimmerman
Martin could have kept going, but you don't blame him at all, even though ALL the evidence shows he's more at fault


----------



## katydidagain

Bearfootfarm said:


> The OP has shown an obvious bias against Zimmerman throughout the entire thread, and a total disregard for anyone else's opinions.
> 
> I'm not "bothered" by the case.
> 
> I'm simply basing all my opinions on the EVIDENCE, which some continue to *ignore* in order to make Zimmerman look guilty, when it's obvious he's not.
> 
> No one taking Martin's side can give any LOGICAL arguments to refute Zimmerman's story.
> 
> So I guess if anything "bothers' me, it's that people will ignore plain simple TRUTH to push their agendas


I will say it again; I have no opinion on the matter. Step cautiously.


----------



## farmrbrown

katydidagain said:


> But a reasonable, prudent man would have left when he was in his car or left when he lost sight of TM,and left the matter to the police. If I were on the jury, I would consider that and could because it's part of the evidence that he didn't. He's alive while TM is not.


I consider myself reasonable and prudent, and leaving is one option.
OTOH, I'm not an official member of a community watch. But I'm not an oblivious passerby in my neighborhood either.
No matter the color, gender or age, strange faces get a good look from me around here. I'd be willing to bet that a good number of the B&E population sitting in jail are there as a result of an observant neighbor.
Martin had the right not to answer any questions if asked. He had the right to be offended. He had a right to complain loudly......but he never had the right to beat someone for it.
That's also reasonable and prudent. 



Bearfootfarm said:


> No he did not
> He had just as much right to be where he was as Martin.
> 
> Once Martin started BEATING him, he had every right to use deadly force to stop the attack


And that's exactly the whole point.:clap:

Was this tragic?
Yes.
Avoidable?
Certainly.
But now that it's happened, all the "what ifs" are gone. The only thing left is to decide if Zimmerman *criminally* took Martin's life, and the law is clear on that.


----------



## dixiegal62

Why do I care so much about this trial? "If I had a son he would have looked just like Trayvon." Obama put a gun to George's head and pulled the trigger and NOT in self defense.


----------



## dixiegal62

A division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) was deployed to Sanford, Florida in 2012 to provide assistance for anti-George Zimmerman protests, including a rally headlined by activist Al Sharpton, according to newly released documents.

Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/07/1...porting-anti-zimmerman-protests#ixzz2YhG2635S


----------



## katydidagain

Again I am merely speculating on how the jurors will consider the evidence. A young man is dead; it didn't have to happen. Had TM broken into GZ's home, I would not believe he committed a crime; he stood his ground. _His ground_. Had GZ been attacked without any warning, I would hold him blameless. Unless he had a choice. But this case is a bit murkier IMO.

I'm sorry if someone pointing out the fact that this airing of opinions has no bearing on _how the case might be decided_ bothers you but, once I realized that was the reason this thread was started, I tried to step back and think that way.


----------



## dixiegal62

katydidagain said:


> Had GZ been attacked without any warning, I would hold him blameless.


 
Welcome to the dark side:bouncy:


----------



## katydidagain

dixiegal62 said:


> Welcome to the dark side:bouncy:


I'm not sure I understand. I do not condone street thugs or violence of any kind; we are human beings who should be able to discuss our differences reasonably. A long time fan of Lysistrata's approach, I still believe one has the right to defend themselves completely and totally. I'm just not so sure this wasn't a game of "Chicken" that went too far. On both sides. With tragic consequences. For both players. And for the rest of our country regardless of the verdict.


----------



## Nevada

dixiegal62 said:


> Welcome to the dark side:bouncy:


If we knew for a fact that Martin attacked Zimmerman unprovoked, we would all hold Zimmerman blameless.

The problems I have are that, 1) Martin can't speak for himself, 2) Zimmerman was concerned about Martin getting away, and 3) Zimmerman is trying to save his hide. I can't help but give some consideration to Martin's side of the story.

For the record, I don't think either one of them are evil. At worse we're talking about poor judgment and quick tempers. This is a sad situation for both of them.


----------



## dixiegal62

Nevada said:


> If we knew for a fact that Martin attacked Zimmerman unprovoked, we would all hold Zimmerman blameless.
> 
> The problems I have are that, 1) Martin can't speak for himself, 2) Zimmerman was concerned about Martin getting away, and 3) Zimmerman is trying to save his hide. I can't help but give some consideration to Martin's side of the story.
> 
> For the record, I don't think either one of them are evil. At worse we're talking about poor judgment and quick tempers. This is a sad situation for both of them.


 
Here's the rub: 

There hasn't been any evidence that G provoked T in any way.
There hasn't been any evidence that he stalked M, no charges of stalking. 
There isn't any evidence that G laid one finger on M.
There hasn't been any evidence that G had it in for M because he was black.

There has been evidence that M was safely at his house and left again.
There has been evidence that M was beating G.
There has been evidence that M used racial slurs when referring to G.


----------



## greg273

So lets see...An armed guy follows someone, the guy punches him, breaks his nose, and in return he gets a bullet through his chest and out the back of him. Sounds fair, eh. I hope poor Georgies broken nose heals up ok. Would hate to have any permanent injuries resulting from his actions.


----------



## Nevada

dixiegal62 said:


> Here's the rub:
> 
> There hasn't been any evidence that G provoked T in any way.
> There hasn't been any evidence that he stalked M, no charges of stalking.
> There isn't any evidence that G laid one finger on M.
> There hasn't been any evidence that G had it in for M because he was black.
> 
> There has been evidence that M was safely at his house and left again.
> There has been evidence that M was beating G.
> There has been evidence that M used racial slurs when referring to G.


It's always that way when one of the witnesses is dead.


----------



## farmrbrown

Nevada said:


> If we knew for a fact that Martin attacked Zimmerman unprovoked, we would all hold Zimmerman blameless.


I can agree *most* would, but not *all*, at least from what I've read in some responses.
The two areas I've read that lead me to that conclusion are...

1) A lot of discussion on just how severely injured Zimmerman was or should have been before shooting. I don't think a little shove or poke in the chest warrants a gunshot, but it obvious from the 911 tape of "someone" screaming for help, that we were way past that point.
Yet a big deal was made that he wasn't really hurt that bad.......so why all the fuss?
That attitude is disturbing to me, that it was just a little assault, so let it go.:umno:

2) What is "provoked" and what does the provocation justify?
There were views expressed that because Zimmerman followed, watched, reported and maybe even profiled , that he deserved at least a little of what he got.:umno: (again)

If you live on this planet long enough, around other people long enough, you're gonna get "provoked".
With words, with looks, with one finger gestures, etc. That's as sure as death and taxes.
But you don't get to have a beat down every time it happens. According to the law, you don't even get to have it on occasion. ONLY if there's a threat and an accompanying movement, and even then you better be right.

Those are the two things I saw on this thread that leads me to believe that not EVERYONE would hold Zimmerman blameless in your scenario.
Whether it's an underlying bias, or whether it's a behavioral issue or what, I don't know, but it's out there.



Nevada said:


> For the record, I don't think either one of them are evil. At worse we're talking about poor judgment and quick tempers. This is a sad situation for both of them.


And on that, I do agree 100%


----------



## Darren

painterswife said:


> Zimmerman's own witness testified that Trayvon could have received injuries that were not visible. That is evidence.


*The autopsy which is evidence showed no signs of injury other than the gunshot wound and the skinned knucles mentioned previously.* That is on the internet if you'd like to see for yourself. 

Whoever did the actual autopsy opened Trayvon up and did a thorough job. That''s obvious from the report. The only other finding was an issue with Trayvon's liver which had nothing to do with his death or the altercation.


----------



## dixiegal62

Nevada said:


> It's always that way when one of the witnesses is dead.


 
The judge claimed today that the prosecution called 40 witnesses, I missed some of these but haven't seen any that could attest to M's character. They had ample time to show us this was a fine upstanding young man. Why didn't they call more of his friends. teachers, other adults he interacted with? The lack of them makes me wonder what they where trying to hide. His girlfriend admitted to his racial remarks and the fact that he was safety home and left again. It's sad he paid with his life but life isn't always fair and when we make bad choices bad things can happen.


----------



## Darren

jtbrandt said:


> What do you mean by blunt? As I understand it no marijuana was actually found in his possession.


There's more to the 711 video that shows others entering the store and buying blunts.immediaely after Trayvon left. There's a theory that Trayvon couldn't buy them so he got someone else to buy one. I've had kids outside stores ask me to buy them cigarettes. It ain't happening.

One of the oddities is the amount of elasped time from when Trayvon Trayvon was in the 711 to when Zimmerman spotted him. I'm not sure what Trayvon doing out in the rain that long when a trip to the store and back should not have taken that much time.

If Trayvon did marijuana it may have been just after he left the store. I'm still puzzled by how disoriented he came across in the 711 video. There was some conjecure about another drug based on the slang in his social media posts. None of that showed up in the toxicology report.


----------



## Nevada

farmrbrown said:


> 1) A lot of discussion on just how severely injured Zimmerman was or should have been before shooting.
> 
> 2) What is "provoked" and what does the provocation justify?


To justify the use of lethal force the shooter has to believe that he's in danger of losing his life or serious injury. No assault is necessary, only a reason to believe he is in danger.

How badly injured Zimmerman might have been is not really relevant. This could have been a fistfight that both participated in -- we don't know for sure. The justification for using lethal force has to be based on his reasons for being in fear, not whether he was losing a fistfight.

If Zimmerman participated in an equal exchange fistfight, then found himself losing, that would not be the time to use lethal force. That would be a terrible precedent. If we allowed that then we would see fistfights regularly end in shootings.


----------



## Darren

dixiegal62 said:


> The judge claimed today that the prosecution called 40 witnesses, I missed some of these but haven't seen any that could attest to M's character. They had ample time to show us this was a fine upstanding young man. Why didn't they call more of his friends. teachers, other adults he interacted with? The lack of them makes me wonder what they where trying to hide. His girlfriend admitted to his racial remarks and the fact that he was safety home and left again. It's sad he paid with his life but life isn't always fair and when we make bad choices bad things can happen.


His history wouldn't impress any jury. Crump tried and may have succeeded in sealing the school records. I know the defense had a subpoena issued for them. I posted a link that proved the school caught Trayvon with stolen goods. Since he defense rested I'm not sure if any of his telephone texts or social media posts wiere shown to the jury.


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> To justify the use of lethal force the shooter has to believe that he's in danger of losing his life or serious injury. No assault is necessary, only a reason to believe he is in danger.
> 
> How badly injured Zimmerman might have been is not really relevant. This could have been a fistfight that both participated in -- we don't know for sure. The justification for using lethal force has to be based on his reasons for being in fear, not whether he was losing a fistfight.
> 
> If Zimmerman participated in an equal exchange fistfight, then found himself losing, that would not be the time to use lethal force. That would be a terrible precedent. If we allowed that then we would see fistfights regularly end in shootings.


Thanks Nevada. BTW, you owe me a keyboard. :hysterical:


----------



## Nevada

Darren said:


> I'm still puzzled by how disoriented he came across in the 711 video.


I didn't observe that in the video.


----------



## kasilofhome

painterswife said:


> Then why would he follow him?


Some people are willing to standup and protect others--I think that this matters as GZ was that type. Evidence--neighborhood watch group. 

GZ did not think about something should be done about the crimes in my neighborhood ---the government must create an agency to protect us. No---he got involed. He did step up not to just aid himself but others living there. 

I can see following --get a better description --gather more info. Heck I just stopped my car and photo'ed a person loading wood in their car from an persons home firewood pile--ok mt. Cabin Fever would be green at the amount of wood. I stopped because the car was used --- ODD. esp it is open season with dipping so the stealing season is on. If asked I have a photo of the guy and his plate. Now, if I drove by doing forty could not be prepped if it is a thief.


----------



## Nevada

Darren said:


> Thanks Nevada. BTW, you owe me a keyboard. :hysterical:


You find discussion about the use of lethal force to be a laughing matter?


----------



## katydidagain

Darren said:


> I'm still puzzled by how disoriented he came across in the 711 video.





Nevada said:


> I didn't observe that in the video.


Not going back to collect all the others but it really is all perception, isn't it? Justice is blind right? How ironic that there are 6 deciding this case....

_The Blind Men and the Elephant_ 
John Godfrey Saxe (1816-1887) 

It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.

The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
"God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a WALL!"

The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, "Ho, what have we here,
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a SPEAR!"

The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a SNAKE!"

The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee
"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain," quoth he:
"'Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a TREE!"

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a FAN!"

The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a ROPE!"

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!


----------



## Darren

Nevada said:


> You find discussion about the use of lethal force to be a laughing matter?


What I find amusing is .... what I find amusing. I take great delight in the antics and foibles of the animal kingdom. I need to post a picture of Spot the deer who eats out of my hand. I find her funny too. She has two young fawns that are fun to watch. Like you, they really don't know what to make of me.


----------



## farmrbrown

greg273 said:


> So lets see...An armed guy follows someone, the guy punches him, breaks his nose, and in return he gets a bullet through his chest and out the back of him. Sounds fair, eh. I hope poor Georgies broken nose heals up ok. Would hate to have any permanent injuries resulting from his actions.



Nope, it sure ain't fair.
But you better know by now that it is legal. It pays to mind your manners in most places, that's for sure.



Nevada said:


> To justify the use of lethal force the shooter has to believe that he's in danger of losing his life or serious injury. No assault is necessary, only a reason to believe he is in danger.
> 
> How badly injured Zimmerman might have been is not really relevant. This could have been a fistfight that both participated in -- we don't know for sure. The justification for using lethal force has to be based on his reasons for being in fear, not whether he was losing a fistfight.


That's correct.




Nevada said:


> If Zimmerman participated in an equal exchange fistfight, then found himself losing, that would not be the time to use lethal force. That would be a terrible precedent. If we allowed that then we would see fistfights regularly end in shootings.


I've seen you post this several times and I'm wondering......is that what you think truly happened?

It's not a baiting question, I just wonder if you saw something that made you think that's the way it went down. I realize that it _could_ be a possibility but I haven't seen anything to make me think it is more likely that what Zimmerman's story was.

I'm sure my personal experience has something to do with why I think that way. After getting beaten and robbed by several black men in situation that went from innocent to ugly in a New York minute (actually Atlanta, lol) I got confronted by 3 drunk white guys a few weeks later before my ribs and bruises had healed.
I had already gotten prepared after my first lesson, and when I was followed outside for what they thought was an easy mark, I had a safe distance, my piece in ready firing position at the closest one with one in the chamber.:croc: And I was cool as a cucumber.:happy2:

There was absolutely no reason for me not to be, I had the upper hand whether they realized it or not.
Their retreat was fast and furious, despite all the bravado.
The ONLY situation I can imagine for being in a fist fight when I'm armed.....is if I'm ambushed. Otherwise, I'm leaving without a scratch, I'm too old for that foolishness. 
And I got that way when I was about Zimmerman's age.


----------



## Nevada

farmrbrown said:


> I've seen you post this several times and I'm wondering......is that what you think truly happened?


I think Zimmerman really believed that he was following someone who was there to commit a crime, and he was bent on not letting him get away before the police could question him. I also think Martin was frightened that a white man was pursuing him, and had no idea what Zimmerman had in mind.

I don't know the exact circumstances of the confrontation. I think Martin was prepared to defend himself against abduction my a white man, and at the same time Zimmerman was prepared to detain Martin to be questioned by the police. It somehow devolved into a fistfight.

During the fight, Martin evidently got the best of Zimmerman. Zimmerman's temper went off, so he pulled his weapon and shot.

One thing the statute provides for, and that he needs to state his intentions to withdraw from a fight.

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

I don't recall Zimmerman claiming to have done that. I honestly believe that nobody would have died that night if Zimmerman wasn't armed, or Zimmerman didn't pursue Martin.


----------



## Nevada

farmrbrown said:


> The ONLY situation I can imagine for being in a fist fight when I'm armed.....is if I'm ambushed.


How do you thing Martin would have reacted to Zimmerman telling him something like, "You aren't going anywhere. You're staying right here to be questioned by the police." Of course Martin had no way of knowing whether the police were going to be involved or not. All he knew for sure that he was being held against his will by a white man. That couldn't be a good thing for him.


----------



## summerdaze

Darren said:


> Forget about innocent until proven guilty. Recently released documens shows a group within the so-called Department of Justice expanded their legal franchise to help with the protest marches. This is government out of control.
> 
> http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-...rtment-in-organizing-trayvon-martin-protests/


This, to me, is the REALLY big story! The last paragraph says it all:

"These documents detail the extraordinary intervention by the Justice Dept in the pressure campaign leading to the prosecution of George Zimmerman" said Judicial Watch President, Tom Fitton. "My guess is that most Americans would rightly object to taxpayers paying government employees to help organize racially-charged demonstrations."
This is an outrage!!! :hair

I bet Mr. Zimmerman pretty much felt like his goose was cooked as soon as the President (who should have never have commented on anything remotely connected to this case) made that crack about if he had a son, he would have looked like Treyvon. 

I don't hold much hope that justice will be served in this case. When the President, and the Department of Justice is that determined and over-reaching, (as well as the job the circus media is doing) and allowed to get away with it, I just don't know how Zimmerman could get a truly fair trial, or more importantly, a fair verdict. I also think that we can expect much, much, more of government intervention in future local cases like this one. Simply because they CAN.


----------



## farmrbrown

I got the mental picture, as I said I believe that it's possible, just not likely given the timeline and the injuries. A more equal confrontation would have taken longer, not much, but still longer, and with at least some injury to Martin. An ambush is quick with only the ambusher getting his licks in, which is what the evidence seems to show.

As far as zimmerman requesting a withdrawal......I think those cries for "help" might qualify.


----------



## Nevada

katydidagain said:


> I'm not sure I understand. I do not condone street thugs or violence of any kind; we are human beings who should be able to discuss our differences reasonably. A long time fan of Lysistrata's approach, I still believe one has the right to defend themselves completely and totally. I'm just not so sure this wasn't a game of "Chicken" that went too far. On both sides. With tragic consequences. For both players. And for the rest of our country regardless of the verdict.


Honestly, even before hearing jury instructions I'm of the opinion that Zimmerman will be acquitted. This trial is going really well for the defense. It's looking like the prosecution is putting on little more than token resistance at this point. I think the prosecution knows they've lost.


----------



## katydidagain

Nevada said:


> Honestly, even before hearing jury instructions I'm of the opinion that Zimmerman will be acquitted. This trial is going really well for the defense. It's looking like the prosecution is putting on little more than token resistance at this point. I think the prosecution knows they've lost.


I'd bet but I don't live in Las Vegas thus am not a gambler. I honestly think they'll find him guilty of manslaughter or at the minimum aggravated assault. The case will be appealed and won then this will quietly go away. Why? Because there are 6 women on the jury and they will question, as do I, why GZ didn't just leave. He wasn't paid to watch the neighborhood; he wasn't even on duty. He had the choice to not engage but he did. Whether or not TM had the same choices doesn't matter--he's dead.


----------



## farmrbrown

Nevada said:


> How do you thing Martin would have reacted to Zimmerman telling him something like, "You aren't going anywhere. You're staying right here to be questioned by the police." Of course Martin had no way of knowing whether the police were going to be involved or not. All he knew for sure that he was being held against his will by a white man. That couldn't be a good thing for him.



And that is one of the reasons a fistfight doesn't seem plausible, based on having been in a few tense situations.
In your scenario, Zimmerman obviously hasn't drawn his weapon, or even let Martin know in some way that he had one.
If that did happen, Zimmerman is a fool who didn't realize how quickly things can get bad.
As I described my second confrontation with the 3 drunks, I didn't hesitate to let them know exactly what was going to happen next if they made a move towards me. And in this age of cell phones, everyone involved can hit the call button if they want the police there, Martin included.
Also, it seems that in this scenario (you're not the only one BTW) that the logic of Martin just stopping, backing up and saying "Hey man, you got me all wrong. I'm just a kid visiting my dad for the summer, I live right down the street, chill out, I'll prove it to you".......seems to be unacceptable to imagine.
???
I mean black or white, right or wrong, that's the FIRST thing that would come into my mind, along with reading his body language, putting some distance between us and dialing the phone.
The very last resort I want is to get close and fight.


----------



## Nevada

katydidagain said:


> I'd bet but I don't live in Las Vegas thus am not a gambler. I honestly think they'll find him guilty of manslaughter or at the minimum aggravated assault. The case will be appealed and won then this will quietly go away. Why? Because there are 6 women on the jury and they will question, as do I, why GZ didn't just leave. He wasn't paid to watch the neighborhood; he wasn't even on duty. He had the choice to not engage but he did. Whether or not TM had the same choices doesn't matter--he's dead.


You might be correct, I don't know. But things are really going good for the defense.

I saw a few openings today where the witness answered questions that I believed were either opinion or outside of his area of expertise. The prosecution didn't object. They just sat there and let it happen. It's as if they've given up.


----------



## katydidagain

farmrbrown said:


> As far as zimmerman requesting a withdrawal......I think those cries for "help" might qualify.


 It has not been proven who cried for help. Again, let me reiterate that I am not taking sides; I am merely trying to understand what the jury may decide based on the evidence they have heard.


----------



## katydidagain

Nevada said:


> You might be correct, I don't know. But things are really going good for the defense.
> 
> I saw a few openings today where the witness answered questions that I believed were either opinion or outside of his area of expertise. The prosecution didn't object. They just sat there and let it happen. It's as if they've given up.


And there are 6 jurors who have heard much less than we have plus they will be instructed as to what they must do to decide.. I honestly don't know. But I'm not betting.


----------



## unregistered353870

Even if Zimmerman is found guilty of a lesser charge than manslaughter he could still go to prison for 25 years because of the laws about felonious possession and use of a firearm. He needs a straight acquittal to really win this. I agree with Nevada that the defense is doing well, but I also agree with katydidagain that we have no idea how the jury is taking all this information. The jury instructions should make it clear to them what the law is, but they still may not understand and they won't know anything about sentencing until after their verdict. They may just go for the lesser charge as a compromise because they can't decide, and then find out afterward that they doomed the guy to 25 years even if they thought they were letting him off easy.


----------



## unregistered353870

> I saw a few openings today where the witness answered questions that I believed were either opinion or outside of his area of expertise. The prosecution didn't object. They just sat there and let it happen. It's as if they've given up.


I think sometimes the reason they don't object to things that they could is that if they do it too much they start to look desperate and the jury picks up on it. But they may have given up or just be worn out.


----------



## Lazaryss

katydidagain said:


> It doesn't matter whether the entire world thinks GZ was justified; 6 women will decide.


Doesn't that seem a little bit wrong?


----------



## Lazaryss

katydidagain said:


> But a reasonable, prudent man would have left when he was in his car or left when he lost sight of TM,and left the matter to the police. If I were on the jury, I would consider that and could because it's part of the evidence that he didn't. He's alive while TM is not.


Here I completely disagree. While they are different situations, I have been on the phone with the police numerous times where I followed a potential drunk driver until the police pulled them over. I did this so I could keep an eye on the vehicle for them. That has potential for a lot of danger as well. I could easily make the call and drive home, but I would rather assist the police in pulling over a potential danger.


----------



## katydidagain

Lazaryss said:


> Doesn't that seem a little bit wrong?


Until we turn over our justice system to an impersonal computer, a defendant's fate will be in the hands of human jurors, a judge (if they select that option) or vigilante justice. Wrong perhaps but reality.


----------



## katydidagain

Lazaryss said:


> Here I completely disagree. While they are different situations, I have been on the phone with the police numerous times where I followed a potential drunk driver until the police pulled them over. I did this so I could keep an eye on the vehicle for them. That has potential for a lot of danger as well. I could easily make the call and drive home, but I would rather assist the police in pulling over a potential danger.


And you could have, at any time, chosen to abandon your pursuit just as GZ could have done.


----------



## Lazaryss

katydidagain said:


> Until we turn over our justice system to an impersonal computer, a defendant's fate will be in the hands of human jurors, a judge (if they select that option) or vigilante justice. Wrong perhaps but reality.


I agree with that completely, but considering a jury of peers, does it not seem wrong that there is not a single male on the jury?


----------



## farmrbrown

katydidagain said:


> It has not been proven who cried for help. Again, let me reiterate that I am not taking sides; I am merely trying to understand what the jury may decide based on the evidence they have heard.



No, there is no proof, and unless a videotape of the whole incident surfaces, there never will be.
That was part of a discussion I was having with Nevada where I had asked him did he see something in all of this that I missed that would lead him to believe in an alternate scenario of how all this occurred that night.
I had made the statement a few posts earlier, that 'someone' sure as heck was yelling for help that night.
In order to believe that Zimmerman shot Martin out of anger and revenge for being beaten in a fight, as was his theory, you would have to explain who it was that was crying out for help. The cries for help continue right up until the shot is heard on the same tape.

So, if it was Martin yelling for help, he was looking down the barrel of a gun of a cold blooded killer. He was no longer on top of Zimmerman, no longer at an advantage, and knew he was about to die.
And Zimmerman would have to do it realizing he had already called the police, given them the info and were on their way. But in a blind rage he did it anyway.
Without "proof" that's the only way the voice on the tape can be explained to be Martin's. He wasn't bloodied and beaten because Zimmerman was subduing him, he was looking at a gun and pleading for his life.

If it was Zimmerman's voice yelling for help until the gunshot, then that would fit the story of the defense.
One of the two *could* be true, but not both at the same time.

Like you, I was trying to see how a juror could come to the first conclusion based on all the pieces of the puzzle, seeing as there is no definitive "proof".
The unidentified voice is just one piece, but it still has to fit with everything else.


----------



## davel745

The judge is way over the top on this case


----------



## dixiegal62

Nevada said:


> .
> 
> If Zimmerman participated in an equal exchange fistfight, then found himself losing, that would not be the time to use lethal force. That would be a terrible precedent. If we allowed that then we would see fistfights regularly end in shootings.


 
Just want to make sure I understand what your saying. Say I'm walking my dog at night and I have my gun with me. I man catches me by surprise, throws a punch at me hitting my nose and knocking me to the ground where he pins me down and continues hitting me. I'm screaming for help but none is in sight. The possibility that it's only a matter of time before he realizes I have a gun and uses it on me is running through my mind. According to what I'm understanding you said, I'm on the losing end of a fist fight so I have no right to use deadly force to protect myself.


----------



## dixiegal62

Nevada said:


> I think Zimmerman really believed that he was following someone who was there to commit a crime, and he was bent on not letting him get away before the police could question him. I also think Martin was frightened that a white man was pursuing him, and had no idea what Zimmerman had in mind..


There was testimony that Martin made it safely to his destination and then left, not something a person fearing for his life would do.



[/QUOTE]I don't know the exact circumstances of the confrontation. I think Martin was prepared to defend himself against abduction my a white man, and at the same time Zimmerman was prepared to detain Martin to be questioned by the police. It somehow devolved into a fistfight..[/QUOTE]

Martin left a safe place to go back and confront George.



[/QUOTE]During the fight, Martin evidently got the best of Zimmerman. Zimmerman's temper went off, so he pulled his weapon and shot.

One thing the statute provides for, and that he needs to state his intentions to withdraw from a fight.

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

I don't recall Zimmerman claiming to have done that. I honestly believe that nobody would have died that night if Zimmerman wasn't armed, or Zimmerman didn't pursue Martin.[/QUOTE]



How would you have gotten Martin off of you to withdraw? According to the tape George was heading back to his truck any perceived danger to Martin was over.





Nevada said:


> How do you thing Martin would have reacted to Zimmerman telling him something like, "You aren't going anywhere. You're staying right here to be questioned by the police." Of course Martin had no way of knowing whether the police were going to be involved or not. All he knew for sure that he was being held against his will by a white man. That couldn't be a good thing for him.


None of this is in evidence as happening


----------



## dixiegal62

Lazaryss said:


> Doesn't that seem a little bit wrong?


 
Yes, there should be 12 IMO and there should be some men in there. I wonder if any of them where asked if they CC.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> There was testimony that Martin made it safely to his destination and then left, not something a person fearing for his life would do.


I don't know the exact circumstances of the confrontation. I think Martin was prepared to defend himself against abduction my a white man, and at the same time Zimmerman was prepared to detain Martin to be questioned by the police. It somehow devolved into a fistfight..[/QUOTE]

Martin left a safe place to go back and confront George.



[/QUOTE]During the fight, Martin evidently got the best of Zimmerman. Zimmerman's temper went off, so he pulled his weapon and shot.

One thing the statute provides for, and that he needs to state his intentions to withdraw from a fight.

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

I don't recall Zimmerman claiming to have done that. I honestly believe that nobody would have died that night if Zimmerman wasn't armed, or Zimmerman didn't pursue Martin.[/QUOTE]



How would you have gotten Martin off of you to withdraw? According to the tape George was heading back to his truck any perceived danger to Martin was over.





None of this is in evidence as happening[/QUOTE]

I heard no testimony like that about Trayvon W.ho testified that he made it ti his destination an returned?


----------



## dixiegal62

katydidagain said:


> It has not been proven who cried for help. Again, let me reiterate that I am not taking sides; I am merely trying to understand what the jury may decide based on the evidence they have heard.


 
If you are being true to the fact that you're not taking sides, why do you keep stating that George was in the wrong for keeping an eye on where Trayvon was? I know for a fact I'm taking sides because I believe George was within his rights and did nothing wrong. I can't honestly state that I'm not taking sides.


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> I heard no testimony like that about Trayvon W.ho testified that he made it ti his destination an returned?


'I just told him to run,' Rachel told the court, adding that she heard a 'hard-breathing man' in the background. 

The pair then got cut off and when she called him back he told her he was back at his father's fiancee's house and he thought he had lost the man.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ness-dragged-coals-defense.html#ixzz2Yjac5GSY 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


----------



## davel745

I think they have a good case for a mistrial because of the judge.


----------



## 7thswan

Nevada said:


> I think that the absence of bruising on a person who bled-out is to be expected. His right ventricle was lacerated, so how could be bruise?


 As long as a person has one breath left in them-they bruise. The healing process starts Immediately after any injury.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> 'I just told him to run,' Rachel told the court, adding that she heard a 'hard-breathing man' in the background.
> 
> *The pair then got cut off and when she called him back he told her he was back at his father's fiancee's house and he thought he had lost the man.*
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ness-dragged-coals-defense.html#ixzz2Yjac5GSY
> Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


I am going to listen to the testimony again. I believe those are not her words ( I may be wrong).


----------



## painterswife

painterswife said:


> I am going to listen to the testimony again. I believe those are not her words ( I may be wrong).


I believe that you are quoting and maybe believing what a reporter has written and not what she actually said. I can not find anywhere in her testimony that Trayvon ever got home.

I had wondered why everyone here kept saying that he was home and then came back. I think I now have my answer. People are quoting an incorrect article.


----------



## painterswife

I see the problem. She said he was in the area of his dad's house not at his house. He said he would walk faster to get home. He was not home as everyone keeps saying.

if anyone wants to listen to the actual testimony it is here. http://trayvon.axiomamnesia.com/peo...8-files-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-case/

You can listen from the 18 minute mark. he was almost home but he was not home.


----------



## poppy

I don't think 6 honest people could convict Zimmerman of anything based on the evidence in this case. The prosecution had nothing but supposition and testimony from less than quality witnesses. The forensics expert for the defense was devastating to the prosecution and the use of force guy at the end was effective also. He shredded the idea that Zimmerman was a martial arts expert as the prosecutor would like you to think. No honest juror could come away believing Zimmerman guilty of anything without reasonable doubt.


----------



## Forerunner

Not that it will help Zimmerman any, but it might shed some light in the debate, here........

"The jury has the right to judge the law, as well as the facts in controversy."
John Jay, 1st Chief Justice, US Supreme Court, 1789

"The jury has the right to judge both, the law and the facts."
Samuel Chase, US Supreme Court Justice, 1796

"The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact."
Oliver Wendell Holmes, US Supreme Court Justice, 1902

"The law itself is on trial, quite as much as the case which is to be decided."
Harlan F. Stone, 12th Chief Justice, USSC, 1941

"The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge." 
US vs. Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 1113, 1139 (1972)

"You have a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy."
State of Georgia vs. Bradford, et al

"The jury has an unreviewable and irreversible power to aquit in disregard of instructions on the law given by trial judge."
US vs. Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 1113, 1139 (1972)


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> I see the problem. She said he was in the area of his dad's house not at his house. He said he would walk faster to get home. He was not home as everyone keeps saying.
> 
> if anyone wants to listen to the actual testimony it is here. http://trayvon.axiomamnesia.com/peo...8-files-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-case/
> 
> You can listen from the 18 minute mark. he was almost home but he was not home.


 
Don't have the time to try and find the cross examination but her words where at the back of the house, then at the side or beside of the house.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> Don't have the time to try and find the cross examination but her words where at the back of the house, then at the side or beside of the house.


If you listen to her entire testimony, she never says he was home. He never made it home. She never said he made it home. He was still on his way home when the phone call stopped.


----------



## partndn

I want someone to explain the jury stuff to me concerning possible sentences for charges...

I've seen several experts reference that if the jury decides to find guilty of a lesser charge, they have no knowledge of what the actual penalties in Florida are for these charges.

Florida happens to have a pretty steep minimum for manslaughter - like 15 years, where other states start manslaughter at 3 years. 

The jury gets all these exhausting instructions on how they should come to their verdict of guilty or not. But they are not to be advised of the punishment for what they find. ??? 

I don't understand.
I realize the emotion of the length of sentence should not come into the jury's mind for the decision, and that if there is a problem with Florida's state required minimum for certain crimes, then that's a lawmaker problem, and not a jury's problem. But I still don't see why they should be kept in the dark about what punishment is possible for what they decide. 

If they are considered worthy of deciding the case, then shouldn't they be equally worthy of holding the knowledge of sentencing possibilities?


----------



## Darren

painterswife said:


> If you listen to her entire testimony, she never says he was home. I see now that people are hearing what they want to hear. He never made it home. She never said he made it home. He was still on his way home when the phone call stopped.


That matches my thoughts. Trayvon took off running (heavy breathing) once he go into the commons area, he hid while also turning off his phone. Would you want your phone to ring if you're hiding?

That's the only scenario that explains Zimmerman losing sight of Martin. After Zimmerman turned the corner and was able to see through the commons area, any of the patio privacy screens would have provided cover to conceal Trayvon.

Trayvon coming out of hiding and following Zimmerman after he turned and went back to the truck is the only way to expalin Trayvon's disappearance and the final location of the body outside the commons area.

The key is that the incident took less than a minute for Trayvon to accost Zimmerman, attack him and end up getting shot. That's based on the time between when Trayvon's phone went dead and the neighbor calling 911 about the fight and then gunshot.

There was no extended conversation. The idea of Zimmerman detaining Trayvon is ludicrous given Trayvon's proximity to home, his disappearance and the shortness of the final altercation


----------



## painterswife

Darren said:


> That matches my thoughts. Trayvon took off running (heavy breathing) once he go into the commons area, he hid while also turning off his phone. Would you want your phone to ring if you're hiding?
> 
> That's the only scenario that explains Zimmerman losing sight of Martin. After Zimmerman turned the corner and was able to see through the commons area, any of the patio privacy screens would have provided cover to conceal Trayvon.
> 
> Trayvon coming out of hiding and following Zimmerman after he turned and went back to the truck is the only way to expalin Trayvon's disappearance and the final location of the body outside the commons area.
> 
> The key is that the incident took less than a minute for Trayvon to accost Zimmerman, attack him and end up getting shot. That's based on the time between when Trayvon's phone went dead and the neighbor calling 911 about the fight and then gunshot.
> 
> There was no extended conversation. The idea of Zimmerman detaining Trayvon is ludicrous given Trayvon's proximity to home, his disappearance and the shortness of the final altercation


According to the testimony he did not turn off his phone. The call disconnected during the time she heard him talking to GZ.


----------



## painterswife

partndn said:


> I want someone to explain the jury stuff to me concerning possible sentences for charges...
> 
> I've seen several experts reference that if the jury decides to find guilty of a lesser charge, they have no knowledge of what the actual penalties in Florida are for these charges.
> 
> Florida happens to have a pretty steep minimum for manslaughter - like 15 years, where other states start manslaughter at 3 years.
> 
> The jury gets all these exhausting instructions on how they should come to their verdict of guilty or not. But they are not to be advised of the punishment for what they find. ???
> 
> I don't understand.
> I realize the emotion of the length of sentence should not come into the jury's mind for the decision, and that if there is a problem with Florida's state required minimum for certain crimes, then that's a lawmaker problem, and not a jury's problem. But I still don't see why they should be kept in the dark about what punishment is possible for what they decide.
> 
> If they are considered worthy of deciding the case, then shouldn't they be equally worthy of holding the knowledge of sentencing possibilities?


The sentence has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. That is why the jury can not consider it.

PS I would have a hard time not considering it if I was on the jury. I think a lot of the sentences for all kinds of crimes are out of whack. I almost think there needs to be another jury to do the sentencing as I do think there should be consideration of the crime, the situation and the accused. I would be more than fine if GZ is found guilty with almost no sentence. I don't know whether he is guilty or not of more than what I believe is bad judgment but I don't think he really meant for any of this to happen.


----------



## vicker

Darren said:


> That matches my thoughts. Trayvon took off running (heavy breathing) once he go into the commons area, he hid while also turning off his phone. Would you want your phone to ring if you're hiding?
> 
> That's the only scenario that explains Zimmerman losing sight of Martin. After Zimmerman turned the corner and was able to see through the commons area, any of the patio privacy screens would have provided cover to conceal Trayvon.


How about the same scenario, but when Z turns around and returns, TM is now cornered, feels trapped and threatened?


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> I see the problem. She said he was in the area of his dad's house not at his house. He said he would walk faster to get home. He was not home as everyone keeps saying.
> 
> if anyone wants to listen to the actual testimony it is here. http://trayvon.axiomamnesia.com/peo...8-files-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-case/
> 
> You can listen from the 18 minute mark. he was almost home but he was not home.


 
If your going to mince words and quotes she says that he said he was at the back of his daddy's fiancÃ©es then she changes it to around her house, then in the area of the house I happen to believe her first words where the true one. If some asks me where I'm at I wouldn't be saying oh I'm at the back of so and so's house then add more saying no I'm around the house, then no I'm in the area of the house. Nobody talks like that. Plus if you called me on the phone and told me you where at the back of my house, I would be opening the door to let you in because it implies you are at my house in the backyard.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> If your going to mince words and quotes she says that he said he was at the back of his daddy's fiancÃ©es


That is one part of testimony. Not all of it. I am not mincing words. I am listening to her entire testimony. I think that is the whole problem. Someone pulled out a couple of words and declared they knew what was said by that and ignored the rest.


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> If you listen to her entire testimony, she never says he was home. He never made it home. She never said he made it home. He was still on his way home when the phone call stopped.


 So if you told me you where at the back of my house what you would really mean is your a few blocks away, or maybe even a mile or two away?


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> So if you told me you where at the back of my house what you would really mean is your a few blocks away, or maybe even a mile or two away?


Again. I have to listen to the whole testimony not just bits and pieces. Otherwise if I was a juror I would not be doing my job.


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> That is one part of testimony. Not all of it. I am not mincing words. I am listening to her entire testimony. I think that is the whole problem. Someone pulled out a couple of words and declared they knew what was said by that and ignored the rest.


 
Yes I believe your listening to it all but then you pick what you want out of it.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> Yes I believe your listening to it all but then you pick what you want out of it.


I am at least listening to it ( as the jury would) and not quoting a newspaper article.


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> I am at least listening to it ( as the jury would) and not quoting a newspaper article.


I listened to the same one you linked, and the one I linked. I then repeated all of her description.... back of house, around the house, in the area of the house. So we heard the same thing. I just heard all of it


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> I listened to the same one you linked, which was the same one I linked. I then repeated all of her description.... back of house, around the house, in the area of the house. So we heard the same thing. I just heard all of it


Did you hear the testimony that he was still on his way home?

The one you linked is not the entire testimony. It is 4 minutes and some of it is cut out.


----------



## painterswife

I just listened to your link and my link. Yours is not complete. It is edited. Not the entire testimony.


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> Did you hear the testimony that he was still on his way home?
> 
> The one you linked is not the entire testimony. It is 4 minutes and some of it is cut out.


 
18:10
He said, he said. I asked him where he was at and he told me he at his daddy fiancÃ©e house. Like in the back of his daddy fiancÃ©e house. Like in the area where daddy fiancÃ©e . I say oh you better keep running. This is your link.

To me at least this implies he was safe at home.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> 18:10
> He said, he said. I asked him where he was at and he told me he at his daddy fiancÃ©e house. Like in the back of his daddy fiancÃ©e house. Like in the area where daddy fiancÃ©e . I say oh you better keep running.
> 
> To me at least this implies he was safe at home.


Maybe you should listen to the rest. The confrontation started then. If he was home how did he get shot at the other end of that area behind the houses. Why was GZ down at Trayvon's home?


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> Maybe you should listen to the rest. The confrontation started then. If he was home how did he get shot at the other end of that area behind the houses. Why was GZ down at Trayvon's home?


The rest doesn't change what she already said, it's her testimony. " He said he was home. George wasn't at his house Trayvon went back and confronted George.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> The rest doesn't change what she already said, it's her testimony. " He said he was home. George wasn't at his house Trayvon went back and confronted George.


That is not the testimony. No one ever testified that Trayvon was home and then came back. I believe that is your opinion from what you have heard or read and not what was testified to.


----------



## davel745

Now the prosecution wants to change the charges to 3rd degree murder with child abuse.
And the judge is a total pin head


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> If he was home how did he get shot at the other end of that area behind the houses. Why was GZ down at Trayvon's home?


Now your asking the right question! Think about it.


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> That is not the testimony. No one ever testified that Trayvon was home and then came back. I believe that is your opinion from what you have heard or read and not what was testified to.


 
LOL you can 'believe' anything you want but it won't change what she said, but since you aren't able to stick to the facts don't be surprised when someone calls you on it.


----------



## davel745

I suggest that you start cleaning your hardware, this is going to tear the country apart. The government wants to declare Marshall law so Obama can suspend the constitution and take over, this is the excuse he is looking for. And he has had a large part in this.


----------



## dixiegal62

davel745 said:


> Now the prosecution wants to change the charges to 3rd degree murder with child abuse.
> And the judge is a total pin head


 
We're witnessing a modern lynching. Or at the very least an attempt at one


----------



## Darren

vicker said:


> How about the same scenario, but when Z turns around and returns, TM is now cornered, feels trapped and threatened?


Rather than feel threatened, I believe Martin felt he had an opportunity. If he felt threatened he could have gone to any of the townhouses with lights on and beat on the door if he didn't want to call 911. Where the police may have made a mistake is not immediately looking at the patios for foot prints to see if Martin hid from sight.

I don't think the cops had time for that when they had to take Zimmerman into custody, start CPR on Martin and deal wih the people that came out of the townhouses. Later would have been to late if enough time had passed for the wet footprints to dry.

Based on Martin's social media posts he gave the impression of a young man that could and would handle anything One of the reurn posts asked when he could teach the poster how to fight. Martin's actions in circling Zimmerman's truck was not an act of fear. That's almost like he was sizing up his opponent.

Zimmerman stated he reached ino his pocket for his cellphone right before he was slugged. I think Zimmerman would have done the same thing if he found Martin on a patio. Zimmerman could have walked down the middle of he commons area and remained outside the immediate reach of anyone hiding on one of the patios. 

That's what a cop would have done searching for a suspect. Of course Zimmerman wasn't a cop and when he turned his back he exposed himself to attack from an area he hadn't cleared. I don't think a cop would have done that.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> LOL you can 'believe' anything you want but it won't change what she said, but since you aren't able to stick to the facts don't be surprised when someone calls you on it.


I listened to the evidence and have a different belief of what happened. I am no different than the jury. I did not have a belief in my mind before I actually listened to the evidence as you did.

You read an article before you listened to the evidence and were quoting that. Now you want to tell me I am not listening to the facts because you are calling me on what you believe the facts are.


----------



## Darren

davel745 said:


> Now the prosecution wants to change the charges to 3rd degree murder with child abuse.
> And the judge is a total pin head


Zimmerman's better off with that charge than manslaughter. Sounds like the prosecution fouled up again. The jury might go for manslaugher thinking Zimmerman will get off easy. Thanks to Obama, Crump and the media any prison time for Zimmerman is a death sentence unless he is put in isolation for the 20 or 30 years for manslaughter.


----------



## partndn

This judge came in with great reputation for being straight forward and fair, from what I've heard reported.

I think she'll be sorry she got this case later on. Don't see how she can maintain a nice rep with the way she's acted. 

Our whole system has so much bs now with so much mess. It's almost as funny as the IRS code.


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> I listened to the evidence and have a different belief of what happened. I am no different than the jury. I did not have a belief in my mind before I actually listened to the evidence as you did.
> 
> You read an article before you listened to the evidence and were quoting that. Now you want to tell me I am not listening to the facts because you are calling me on what you believe the facts are.


 
Perhaps it would have been more productive if when starting this thread you had added a footnote that you would find any views conflicting with yours insulting and they would not be tolerated. I stand by all my comments, period.

Please stop insulting members intelligence by repeating over and over your not biased in the matter of this trial and learn to accept not everyone will agree with you. Either way I'm not about to waste any more of my time going around in circles with you about it. Enjoy your day!


----------



## CesumPec

Apologies if this has been posted elsewhere, but I had already drawn the possible parallel between this case and the Duke Lacrosse rape. Perhaps Ann Coulter is stalking me in HT

http://townhall.com/columnists/annc...urce=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> Perhaps it would have been more productive if when starting this thread you had added a footnote that you would find any views conflicting with yours insulting and they would not be tolerated. I stand by all my comments, period.
> 
> Please stop insulting members intelligence by repeating over and over your not biased in the matter of this trial and learn to accept not everyone will agree with you. Either way I'm not about to waste any more of my time going around in circles with you about it. Enjoy your day!


This thread started out about discussing the trial not what was not presented in the media. I am sticking to that. You are free to believe I am bias but I am not insulting anyone or their intelligence by stating I am. I don't find anyones opinions of the case insulting. I do however find it insulting when they cross the lines into talking about how I should think or I must draw the same conclusions as them.

Just for your info, I don't believe that GZ is guilty of murder, never did and I don't think I will. I do believe he is guilty of bad judgement.

This thread for me however was never about what I thought, it was about what the jury would find and how the court case led to that decision.


----------



## painterswife

painterswife said:


> This thread started out about discussing the trial not what was not presented in the media. I am sticking to that. You are free to believe I am bias but I am not insulting anyone or their intelligence by stating I am. I don't find anyones opinions of the case insulting. I do however find it insulting when they cross the lines into talking about how I should think or I must draw the same conclusions as them.
> 
> Just for your info, I don't believe that GZ is guilty of murder, never did and I don't think I will. I do believe he is guilty of bad judgement.
> 
> This thread for me however was never about what I thought, it was about what the jury would find and how the court case led to that decision.


Actually the way I wrote that I would think I am biased towards not guilty. I kind of am I would guess. I did however listen to all the evidence with an open mind and was willing to believe that he might be guilty.


----------



## katydidagain

painterswife said:


> Actually the way I wrote that I would think I am biased towards not guilty. I kind of am I would guess. I did however listen to all the evidence with an open mind and was willing to believe that he might be guilty.


Same here except I haven't listened to everything and I have listened to things that the jury has not heard.


----------



## painterswife

katydidagain said:


> Same here except I haven't listened to everything and I have listened to things that the jury has not heard.


I am a little disappointed . I have missed the opening arguments and quite a bit of the jury directions arguments. It is fascinating to see what each lawyer and the judge sees things.

I did see the judge tell the defense lawyer that he had to follow the rules of the court and stop arguing when she had ruled. she told him he could appeal it with a higher court if he believed she had made mistakes. Now I want to know how the higher court will see things if it goes to that.


----------



## katydidagain

If we're trying to figure out the possible verdict. knowing a bit about the jurors might help. (If this has been posted before, sorry.) http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/06/20/who-are-jurors-george-zimmerman


----------



## Darren

painterswife said:


> I am a little disappointed . I have missed the opening arguments and quite a bit of the jury directions arguments. It is fascinating to see what each lawyer and the judge sees things.
> 
> I did see the judge tell the defense lawyer that he had to follow the rules of the court and stop arguing when she had ruled. she told him he could appeal it with a higher court if he believed she had made mistakes. Now I want to know how the higher court will see things if it goes to that.


That's been the pattern for the events leading up to the trial and now in the trial. The prosecution and Crump delayed releasing evidence and now the judge sprang something on the defense that they did not have time to research. The railroad job continues.


----------



## 7thswan

davel745 said:


> Now the prosecution wants to change the charges to 3rd degree murder with child abuse.
> And the judge is a total pin head


 How can this be done? How is Zimmerman supposed to defend himself against something if his defense has rested. This Judge is a fruitloop.


----------



## Darren

You're being far too kind.


----------



## painterswife

7thswan said:


> How can this be done? How is Zimmerman supposed to defend himself against something if his defense has rested. This Judge is a fruitloop.


The judge did not allow it.


----------



## 7thswan

Darren said:


> You're being far too kind.


 You are right, I first said she is a Loon, but knew I would offend Bird People.


----------



## 7thswan

painterswife said:


> The judge did not allow it.


 It should not even come up. Just as yesterday asking Zimmerman if he was going to testify-she should never have done this infront of the pros.attorneys. She's grasping at straws and it's obvious ,even to lay person such as I, and I haven't watched much of this circus.


----------



## painterswife

7thswan said:


> It should not even come up. Just as yesterday asking Zimmerman if he was going to testify-she should never have done this infront of the pros.attorneys. She's grasping at straws and it's obvious ,even to lay person such as I, and I haven't watched much of this circus.


The judge was legally responsible for asking those questions. She was doing her job.


----------



## watcher

katydidagain said:


> So let's just shoot any male under aged 25! Heck, why not go for all those who possess the Y chromosome? Selectively abort them so those "innocent looking kids" never walk the street? Get real.


A lot more people would be alive today if they followed some simple advice: Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.

I don't care if someone is male or female; 25 or 65 until I can determine they are not a threat they will be viewed that way. If you ever have the misfortune to look at a firearm from the _wrong_ end or have been stabbed and live through it you might also.

I don't approach a horse from the rear. Even though most horses will not kick you.

I don't make quick movements around strange dogs. Even though most dogs won't bite.

I put jack stands under a car I'm working on. Even though very few cars fall off jacks.

I have worn my seat belt LONG before it was unconstitutionally required by law. Even though only a small percentage cars are involved in accidents.

I don't get on a motorcycle w/o a full face helmet. Even though most people don't wreck their bike.

When I stay at a hotel I find the fire exits close to my room and I count the number of doors from my room to those exits. If there's a fire and the hall is smokey I know which door is the exit. Even though the odds of being in a burning building are very small.

I sleep with my bedroom door closed because the biggest killer in home fires isn't flame but smoke and you can be killed by smoke long before the heat wakes you up. Even though the odds of a house fire at night are small.

Before I work on an electrical outlet I throw the breaker, put a piece of tape over it, tape the breaker box shut with a note on it, use a meter to confirm the outlet is dead THEN I short the wires. Even though the chances of getting the wrong breaker or someone turning on the breaker or the breaker and the meter being faulty is almost none existent. 

It maybe paranoid but I haven't been killed yet.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> It's always that way when one of the witnesses is dead.


I've asked you before and I don't remember you answering. Just *WHAT* evidence could a live Martin give us other than his testimony? I have to say none, zero, nada, NOTHING! 

It would be just like asking two kids which one of them ate the last cookie. Each would tell you it was the other one. At which case you'd have to rely on physical evidence.


----------



## davel745

painterswife said:


> The judge was legally responsible for asking those questions. She was doing her job.


I think she badgered Zimmerman by forcing him to make decisions without his attorneys help.


----------



## 7thswan

painterswife said:


> The judge was legally responsible for asking those questions. She was doing her job.


 If you are watching this trial and expecting to hear/see evidence baised on the rule of Law, certain process are done out of fairness. It isn't happening here. She has to do her job within the Law, just as Zimmermans Attorneys do. Maybe Z's attorneys can go around the law and get the info. they want into the Jurys head, too.


----------



## painterswife

davel745 said:


> I think she badgered Zimmerman by forcing him to make decisions without his attorneys help.


First of all she did not. She kept letting him know that she was going to ask and telling him to talk it over with his lawyers. She was making sure he did think about it.

I also heard on the news last night that Zimmerman was arguing with his lawyers because he wanted to testify. His lawyers were pretty upset with him.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> To justify the use of lethal force the shooter has to believe that he's in danger of losing his life or serious injury. No assault is necessary, only a reason to believe he is in danger.


Right.




Nevada said:


> How badly injured Zimmerman might have been is not really relevant. This
> could have been a fistfight that both participated in -- we don't know for sure.


Wrong. They physical evidence shows this.




Nevada said:


> The justification for using lethal force has to be based on his reasons for being in fear, not whether he was losing a fistfight.


Right.




Nevada said:


> If Zimmerman participated in an equal exchange fistfight, then found himself losing, that would not be the time to use lethal force. That would be a terrible precedent. If we allowed that then we would see fistfights regularly end in shootings.


If a "reasonable man" was involved in a fist fight and was knocked down and the other guy starts pounding his head against a concrete sidewalk that "reasonable man" could assume he was facing death or grievous bodily harm. That meets the standard necessary for the use of deadly force.

Also just because you start a fist fight the other guy doesn't have the right to severely injury or kill you.


----------



## painterswife

7thswan said:


> If you are watching this trial and expecting to hear/see evidence baised on the rule of Law, certain process are done out of fairness. It isn't happening here. She has to do her job within the Law, just as Zimmermans Attorneys do. Maybe Z's attorneys can go around the law and get the info. they want into the Jurys head, too.


I disagree. It is my opinion that she has done very well. She has made rulings favorable to both sides of the case.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> Honestly, even before hearing jury instructions I'm of the opinion that Zimmerman will be acquitted. This trial is going really well for the defense. It's looking like the prosecution is putting on little more than token resistance at this point. I think the prosecution knows they've lost.


The fact they seem to be desperate for the judge to allow the jury to convict of a charge the DA didn't file seems to show that. Child abuse? That shows how sure they are they have lose any chance of a 2nd murder conviction.


----------



## 7thswan

If anyone is interested the former Chief of Police was on CNN. Last night. He said there was an attempt by many to push him to file charges in this case. He would not because there is not enough evidence. He was told to press charges anyway, even if they would be dropped. He refused. I will try to find the interview on vid.
Fired for not pressing charges.[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXbpails_qA[/ame]


----------



## painterswife

7thswan said:


> If anyone is interested the former Chief of Police was on CNN. Last night. He said there was an attempt by many to push him to file charges in this case. He would not because there is not enough evidence. He was told to press charges anyway, even if they would be dropped. He refused. I will try to find the interview on vid.


I thought only the DA can file charges.


----------



## Darren

Normally the police start the ball rolling. A DA can do the same especially for political reasons.


----------



## dixiegal62

7thswan said:


> If anyone is interested the former Chief of Police was on CNN. Last night. He said there was an attempt by many to push him to file charges in this case. He would not because there is not enough evidence. He was told to press charges anyway, even if they would be dropped. He refused. I will try to find the interview on vid.
> Fired for not pressing charges.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXbpails_qA


 
Watching this it would seem the concerns many of us have brought up about this whole thing where well founded. Thanks for posting!


----------



## 7thswan

Oh Boy, Zimmermans Father was a Judge. Wounder if that that had anything to do with keeping him out of the court room tell the last min. I bet his head wants to explode.


----------



## Darren

painterswife said:


> First of all she did not. She kept letting him know that she was going to ask and telling him to talk it over with his lawyers. She was making sure he did think about it.
> 
> I also heard on the news last night that Zimmerman was arguing with his lawyers because he wanted to testify. His lawyers were pretty upset with him.


The problem with Zimmerman is that he thinks as long as he is in the right, everything wil be OK. That will get him killed inside prison in a very nasty, messy way. He has a history of being a good Samaritan. He let Martin get the jump on him. He obviously thinks that people will understand he was the real victim. He just needs a chance to explain it to them. Just from the reactions on this board, that isn't going to happen, Mr. Zimmerman. 

Listen to your lawyers and let them do their job. If not your only hope is that some con who can protect you takes you on as his wifey. Barring that the next best hope is whoever shanks you makes your death quick and fast like Trayvon's so you don't suffer.

There's no way you can better your position by running your mouth. The White House is against you. The Justice Department has it in for you as does the State of Florida form the governor down to almost the local level. There's people out there that want blood. To placate them the state obviously felt they needed a show trial. The prosecution had their marching orders along with every judge that's been assigned to the case. They have consistently made your lawyers' jobs as difficult as possible.

You were pronounced guilty by Obama shortly after the Crump pack of lies hit the press. You need to just shut up. You are the red meat being fed to the lions in the coliseum. Don't help those that want you dead!


----------



## painterswife

The prosecution is making some good points but I don't think this closing is winning his case yet.


----------



## dixiegal62

Darren said:


> The problem with Zimmerman is that he thinks as long as he is in the right, everything wil be OK. That will get him killed inside prison in a very nasty, messy way. He has a history of being a good Samaritan. He let Martin get the jump on him. He obviously thinks that people will understand he was the real victim. He just needs a chance to explain it to them. Just from the reactions on this board, that isn't going to happen, Mr. Zimmerman.
> 
> Listen to your lawyers and let them do their job. If not your only hope is that some con who can protect you takes you on as his wifey. Barring that the next best hope is whoever shanks you makes your death quick and fast like Trayvon's so you don't suffer.
> 
> There's no way you can better your position by running your mouth. The White House is against you. The Justice Department has it in for you as does the State of Florida form the governor down to almost the local level. There's people out there that want blood. To placate them the state obviously felt they needed a show trial. The prosecution had their marching orders along with every judge that's been assigned to the case. They have consistently made your lawyers' jobs as difficult as possible.
> 
> You were pronounced guilty by Obama shortly after the Crump pack of lies hit the press. You need to just shut up. You are the red meat being fed to the lions in the coliseum. Don't help those that want you dead!


 
So true, may God have mercy on him.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

painterswife said:


> The *prosecution* is making some good points but I don't think this closing is winning *his case* yet.


Anyone in their right mind realizes the Prosecution never HAD a "case" to begin with.

The whole thing is a* political circus*, and has been from the beginning.

The so called "Justice system" has been hijacked by the race baiters, and is being held hostage by those threatening to riot if they don't get their way


----------



## Darren

It's bewildering and troubling to see someone that helped his neighbors, stuck up for friends and even upset the police by taking up for a homeless Black person, be subjected to a coordinated attempt to deprive him of his very life. 

This is not the America that so many fought and died for. George Zimmerman was never innocent until proven guilty.


----------



## poppy

Bearfootfarm said:


> Anyone in their right mind realizes the Prosecution never HAD a "case" to begin with.
> 
> The whole thing is a* political circus*, and has been from the beginning.
> 
> The so called "Justice system" has been hijacked by the race baiters, and is being held hostage by those threatening to riot if they don't get their way


100% correct. If Zimmerman were black this trial never would have happened.


----------



## painterswife

Bearfootfarm said:


> Anyone in their right mind realizes the Prosecution never HAD a "case" to begin with.
> 
> The whole thing is a* political circus*, and has been from the beginning.
> 
> The so called "Justice system" has been hijacked by the race baiters, and is being held hostage by those threatening to riot if they don't get their way


I guess I am not on ignore after all. You are still putting people down instead of debating the opinions.


----------



## painterswife

The closing arguments are good. I can see a guilty possibility right now..


----------



## 7thswan

I suspect Zimmerman just wanted to be a Cop and help people just like he felt his Dad did. I dated a Cop(FBI now),( he wasen't when we first started dateing) and I went thru everything with him until he became one. He wanted to be a Cop like his Dad. Good People, too bad it's stuff like this that makes people sour on the Human race.


----------



## davel745

What a liar this prosecutor is he has made assumptions about everything. His lies are real bad, this is what happens when someone is prosecuted. There are so many innocent people in jail it isn't funny. Our justice system is so broken.


----------



## Karen

The option of manslaughter for the jury to consider is not at all inappropriate nor rare to bring in during the hearing over the jury instructions. This is absolutely no surprise to the defense attorneys, regardless of how they responded. This is very typical and routine in Florida murder trials; that's why there is so much caselaw on it. 

Regardless of how the defense attorney reacted, it was absolutely no surprise to him and his team would have prepared for this. Notice how much caselaw he came up with. Finding caselaw requires hours & hours and often days & days of prep - with a team. He had his within a very short amount of time. 

Every defense attorney will act shocked and disturbed and protest like the dickens. It's part of their job to do. Remember that being an attorney also has a great deal of elements of acting and expectations of his responses. Judges know this, as they were also attorneys. It's why it doesn't impress the judge nor gather their sympathy. 

Unless you are in the legal field field or spent a great deal of time in trials and hearings, it would seem not as it really is to you. But what you saw there is very typical and routine. 

With regards to the child abuse, it's also very typical in any trial involving a minor and an adult. I'm not sure why it wasn't brought in sooner. Seemed odd to me in the beginning that it wasn't one of the charges. If an adult ends up being guilty of murder of a minor, there is no greater child abuse according to the law.


----------



## Karen

Bearfootfarm said:


> Anyone in their right mind realizes the Prosecution never HAD a "case" to begin with.
> 
> The whole thing is a* political circus*, and has been from the beginning.
> 
> The so called "Justice system" has been hijacked by the race baiters, and is being held hostage by those threatening to riot if they don't get their way


Well, I'm in my right mind, am educated and spent most of my life as a paralegal. In fact, I was one of the first paralegals in the country. IMHO, _under the law_ (which is the only basis for a trial), the prosecution did have a case and if it didn't, it wouldn't be in court today, nor would that court be in session for as long as it has. 

I'm sorry you don't like our justice system. Regardless of who is using it, even if for political reasons, it still is the best system in the world and in more times than not, does work. It's very disrespectful, accusatory, and inflammatory to rant about an American system that has worked and been the fairest in the world. If it doesn't go the way you want or think it should (although it is interesting how people who have no legal experience who think they know exactly how it's _suppose_ to work), put down a system that their own life may depend on some day. 

If our system is so bad, corrupt or politically biased, then try having your trial in Turkey, N. Korea, Russia or China who have no due process of law. You'll suddenly have a whole new appreciation for what is fair and you'll find a new meaning to the words "biased", "political", "hostage" and "unfair". Sometimes we don't realize how utterly blessed and well off we are.


----------



## katydidagain

painterswife said:


> The closing arguments are good. I can see a guilty possibility right now..


Same here. My question about why GZ didn't identify himself and ask TM who he was is now out in the open; the jurors will consider it. However, the defense has not yet spoken; they'll attack everything the prosecutor has said. What bothers me is that I think the prosecution gets another chance to speak--the last word. Am I right about that?


----------



## painterswife

davel745 said:


> What a liar this prosecutor is he has made assumptions about everything. His lies are real bad, this is what happens when someone is prosecuted. There are so many innocent people in jail it isn't funny. Our justice system is so broken.


The prosecutor is suggestiing all the same things several of us suggested. Not so far out in left field as some like to think.


----------



## painterswife

katydidagain said:


> Same here. My question about why GZ didn't identify himself and ask TM who he was is now out in the open; the jurors will consider it. However, the defense has not yet spoken; they'll attack everything the prosecutor has said. What bothers me is that I think the prosecution gets another chance to speak--the last word. Am I right about that?


Yes, the Judge said that yesterday. The prosecution speaks last. I did not know that.


----------



## katydidagain

painterswife said:


> Yes, the Judge said that yesterday. The prosecution speaks last. I did not know that.


I find that unfair and can't believe someone hasn't appealed that "right". (Maybe they have but lost.) The defendant may have deep pockets for their legal fees or have attorneys who discount in return for publicity (is that allowed?) but often only has a public defender; the state has pretty much unlimited resources.


----------



## painterswife

katydidagain said:


> I find that unfair and can't believe someone hasn't appealed that "right". (Maybe they have but lost.) The defendant may have deep pockets for their legal fees or have attorneys who discount in return for publicity (is that allowed?) but often only has a public defender; the state has pretty much unlimited resources.


I googled it. The burden of proof is on the prosecution that is why they get the last word.


----------



## katydidagain

painterswife said:


> I googled it. The burden of proof is on the prosecution that is why they get the last word.


Though it's permitted, it's not usual to interrupt either opening or closing statements but I'm expecting some objections from the defense.


----------



## painterswife

The prosecution is hitting all the points some of us made. Maybe he is a member of this forum.


----------



## CesumPec

Karen said:


> IMHO, _under the law_ (which is the only basis for a trial), the prosecution did have a case and if it didn't, it wouldn't be in court today, nor would that court be in session for as long as it has.


That is post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning and flawed. The Duke lacrosse rape case is proof enough that just because the DA makes a case it doesn't mean it is a valid case. And there are plenty of other cases out there for wrongful and malicious prosecution. 

I agree with the rest of your post. We do have the best system in the world, flawed, but as good as it gets. I don't think it is as good as it can be, but that is a topic for another thread.


----------



## dixiegal62

Wow! Now I finally understand why attorneys are so famous for being full of it. Everything he couldn't prove during the trial is being given as fact now.:indif:


----------



## katydidagain

dixiegal62 said:


> Wow! Now I finally understand why attorneys are so famous for being full of it. Everything he couldn't prove during the trial is being given as fact now.:indif:


Not really. He's taking the evidence and giving it his spin. Opening and closing arguments are not evidence nor are they necessarily factual; they are opinion and I believe the jury instructions explain the differences.


----------



## dixiegal62

Are George's parents allowed in the room yet? Never mind just noticed his dad


----------



## vicker

God, I feel for GZ. They'd have to tie me to the chair during that closing argument. His anxiety must be through the roof.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> If our system is so bad, corrupt or politically biased, then *try having your trial in Turkey, N. Korea, Russia or China who have no due process of law*. You'll suddenly have a whole new appreciation for what is fair and you'll find a new meaning to the words "biased", "political", "hostage" and "unfair". Sometimes we don't realize how utterly blessed and well off we are.


All the rhetoric doesn't change one word of what I said about THIS trial
Zimmerman is being railroaded and everyone *should* know


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by *Karen*
> _IMHO, under the law (which is the only basis for a trial), the prosecution did have a case and if it didn't, it wouldn't be in court today, nor would that court be in session for as long as it has._


If what you say were true, they would have filed charges *immediately*, since NONE of the evidence has changed.

They ONLY filed charges after *POLITICAL pressure* was brought to bear by the Feds and the the race baiters.

And even now, *all the evidence* supports Zimmerman


----------



## katydidagain

Bearfootfarm said:


> All the rhetoric doesn't change one word of what I said about THIS trial
> Zimmerman is being railroaded and everyone *should* know


And that's *your* opinion. Which we know because we've heard it and all of *your *opinions over and over..Not sure about anyone else but I'm quite sure I know where y*ou* stand. 

We've moved onto a discussion of closing arguments and the trial in case *you* didn't notice.


----------



## dixiegal62

Bearfootfarm said:


> If what you say were true, they would have filed charges *immediately*, since NONE of the evidence has changed.
> 
> They ONLY filed charges after *POLITICAL pressure* was brought to bear by the Feds and the the race baiters.
> 
> And even now, *all the evidence* supports Zimmerman


 
Yes this is the reason the Chief of Police was fired, he wouldn't bow to political pressure so they fired him. Telling the COP to go ahead and arrest GZ anyway even if they couldn't make it stick. That's the real crime here! It's the reason it took so long for them to press charges, they had no case then they don't now. As for the COP at least he tried to do the right thing and I'm betting he sleeps better at night. I hope the jury has more ethics than the politicians!


----------



## kasilofhome

question and my thoughts as this is in the hands of the jury

I have an understanding of the jury's bill of rights.

Quoting from "The citizens rule book" avalidable at www.citizensbook.com

Is this relevent (esp person with factural knowledge of court room please state you source for knowledge as I want to learn)

"As a juror in a trial seeting, when it comes to you individual vot of innocent or guilty, you truly are answerable only to GOD ALMIGHTY. (capped as written)

........:"The jury has the poer to determine both the law and the facts" Samuel chase, US. supreme court justice 

.........."The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy" John Jay first chief justice of theU. S. supreme court 1789

.........."The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided" Harlan F. Ston, 12 chief Justice of the U.S. supreme court 1941

........"The pages of history shines on instances of the jury's exercise of its perrogative to disregard instructions of the judge" U.S. vs Daugherty . 47 F2nd 1113 1139 1972


----------



## Bearfootfarm

katydidagain said:


> And that's *your* opinion. Which we know because we've heard it and all of *your *opinions over and over..Not sure about anyone else but I'm quite sure *I know where you stand*.
> 
> We've moved onto a discussion of closing arguments and the trial in case *you* didn't notice.


It's not "my opinion" that charges weren't filed until *after the political pressure*. That is a verifiable FACT that is well documented.
None of this is "new" and has been going on for nearly 1 1/2 years

I stand on the side of those who stick ONLY to the EVIDENCE, which overwhelmingly supports Zimmerman.

As to the discussion "moving on", that's YOUR opinion, and has nothing to do with ME at all, so I'm not sure why you feel a need to try and direct MY conversation


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Is this relevent (esp person with factural knowledge of court room please state you source for knowledge as I want to learn)
> 
> "As a juror in a trial seeting, when it comes to you individual vot of innocent or guilty, you truly are answerable only to GOD ALMIGHTY. (capped as written)
> 
> ........:"The jury has the poer *to determine both the law and the facts*" Samuel chase, US. supreme court justice
> 
> .........."The jury has a right to *judge both the law as well as the fact* in controversy" John Jay first chief justice of theU. S. supreme court 1789
> 
> .........."The *law itself is on trial* quite as much as the cause which is to be decided" Harlan F. Ston, 12 chief Justice of the U.S. supreme court 1941
> 
> ........"The pages of history shines on instances of the jury's exercise of its perrogative to disregard instructions of the judge" U.S. vs Daugherty . 47 F2nd 1113 1139 1972


It COULD be relevant, but in reality it won't be, because juries are generally too afraid of the Judge to do anything too radical.


----------



## katydidagain

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's not "my opinion" that charges weren't filed until *after the political pressure*. That is a verifiable FACT that is well documented.
> None of this is "new" and has been going on for nearly 1 1/2 years
> 
> I stand on the side of those who stick ONLY to the EVIDENCE, which overwhelmingly supports Zimmerman.
> 
> As to the discussion "moving on", that's YOUR opinion, and has nothing to do with ME at all, so I'm not sure why you feel a need to try and direct MY conversation


This is not nearly the 1st case that has been brought after political pressure. It usually starts with the family pushing the state to take another look. Sometimes it takes much longer than 1.5 years. 

And this isn't about me nor am I trying to make it such.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> This is *not nearly the 1st case* that has been brought after political pressure.


What *difference *does that make?
It's still *WRONG*


----------



## painterswife

I have been listening to the talking heads. Very surprised. They are supporting prosecution and the judge. They are saying the 2nd degree is charge is warranted and that the prosecution did everything he needed to. Many inconsistencies in GZ's stories and the evidence was there.


----------



## katydidagain

painterswife said:


> I have been listening to the talking heads. Very surprised. They are supporting prosecution and the judge. They are saying the 2nd degree is charge is warranted and that the prosecution did everything he needed to. Many inconsistencies in GZ's stories and the evidence was there.


Yes, it does sound that way but the defense has yet to speak. I was much more impressed by the defense's dummy act than the prosecutor's, weren't you?


----------



## vicker

Of course the evidence is there. If it were not, GZ would not be siting in that chair. I'm not saying he is guilty or innocent, but you have to see the inconsistencies in his story, and his lack of injuries and have serious questions about what actually happened. Well, obviously you don't have to.


----------



## painterswife

katydidagain said:


> Yes, it does sound that way but the defense has yet to speak. I was much more impressed by the defense's dummy act than the prosecutor's, weren't you?


I stepped away from the computer and did not see that. I heard it was impressive.

I am so fascinated with this entire process. I can not imagine what the jury is going through. I am going back and forth and I have more info than them.


----------



## painterswife

The talking heads are also now saying that the jury was riveted to the prosecution's close.


----------



## katydidagain

painterswife said:


> I stepped away from the computer and did not see that. I heard it was impressive.
> 
> I am so fascinated with this entire process. I can not imagine what the jury is going through. I am going back and forth and I have more info than them.


Both sides have excellent attorneys; the jurors probably feel like they're at a tennis match just now. But when they enter the jury room to deliberate they will finally relax a little, elect a foreman and then have a chance to reflect on what they've heard. 

How will they find? Not even the talking heads know. I'm old enough to have watched the OJ trial; guilty was the verdict predicted by the pundits and those of us who knew all the "facts"; didn't happen. Didn't the wise ones and the public believe Casey Anthony would be convicted? Juries are not predictable.


----------



## Darren

vicker said:


> Of course the evidence is there. If it were not, GZ would not be siting in that chair. I'm not saying he is guilty or innocent, but you have to see the inconsistencies in his story, and his lack of injuries and have serious questions about what actually happened. Well, obviously you don't have to.


The ex-police chief in an interview stated there was political pressure to bring charges.

The lead investigator testified that there wasn't evidence to file charges.

The judge came up with a reason to withhold the evidence found on Martin's phone which would have given the jury a very different viewpoint of St. Trayvon to anyone else that looked at the revealing insight into the life of the teenager. The kid presented himself as a tough guy who was into fighting and had no limits.

That very same data was held back from the defense and released in a manner which makes the expert witnesses testimony more critical given their findings. The authentication issue raised by the judge was ludicrous since the phone was on Martin's mother's plan and found with Martin on the incident scene, and required two passwords to access the critical files.

That information completely obliterates the St. Trayvon persona constructed by Crump and his publicist. However it was blocked by the judge.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Of course *the evidence is there*. If it were not, GZ would not be siting in that chair.


Then why didn't the prosecution SHOW any of it?
All the evidence SHOWN supported Zimmerman.

LOGICALLY, if he's not guilty of 2nd Degree Murder, he's not guilty of a lesser charge either, since the EVIDENCE remains the same.


----------



## TheMartianChick

I was completely unimpressed with the defense's dummy act, but that may be my own case prejudice showing. (I already admitted that I cannot be unbiased in this case.) 

The dummy demonstrations proved to me that Trayvon couldn't have seen/reached for a gun that was essentially UNDER Zimmerman due to the placement of his holster. It was tucked into GZ's back, not at his side.

If Trayvon was straddling Zimmerman, then Trayvon's body would have obstructed both of them from reaching the gun holstered on Zimmerman's back.

At one point, Trayvon would have had to have 3 hands in order to do everything that Zimmerman says that he did during the fight.

I thought that the prosecution did a decent job of showcasing the lies and implausibility of Zimmerman:

-Zimmerman claims that he didn't know the names of all three streets in his neighborhood, though he's lived there for 4 years.

- Zimmerman claimed that Trayvon jumped out of the bushes and yet there were no bushes. In the re-enactment video, Zimmerman said that Trayvon appeared in the same place that one of the investigators was standing. There are definitely no bushes anywhere near that spot.

- In the re-enactment,Zimmerman says that the dispatcher told him to continue after Trayvon Martin. Listening to the non-emergency call, we know that this is a lie.

-Zimmerman said that there were no addresses on any of the houses and he had to travel along Trayvon's path to find one. There is a clear address on the house directly behind and over Zimmerman's right shoulder in the re-enactment video.

-Zimmerman claims that he had no knowledge of Stand Your Ground to Sean Hannity, but his instructor contradicted him and said that he did teach the topic and that Zimmerman was an excellent student.

-Zimmerman says that he was hit 20-25 times in the face and that his head was banged on the pavement multiple times. His injuries do not indicate that level of severity, leading me to believe that he lied. The lead investigating officer also thought that Zimmerman exaggerated his injuries.

-Trayvon had two (very) tiny cuts on his hand, which would be consistent with punching someone in the nose and possibly getting a nick from a tooth. Had Trayvon beaten Zimmerman as badly as was claimed, then Trayvon would have had more injuries to his hands. Anyone who has ever been in a real fight knows this.

-The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following Trayvon. Zimmerman said yes and the dispatcher told him that that wasn't needed. In the Hannity interview, Zimmerman said that he wasn't following Trayvon, but that he was merely going in the same direction.

-Zimmerman said that he had forgotten that he was carrying his "firearm". While I could understand a woman saying this if she carried a weapon in a large handbag, a weapon wedged into the back of your pants is somewhat heavy. I don't believe that he ever forgot the presence of his firearm. If he was on his back during the struggle, then he would have been reminded of the gun's presence as it pressed into his back.

-The blood evidence that was absent from Trayvon Martin's body indicates that Zimmerman lied about the severity of the fight. Yes it was raining, but there is no Zimmerman blood on Trayvon's hands even in the earliest photos taken at the scene. The argument that the blood washed away in the rain does not seem plausible when the blood on Zimmerman's head was still visible after he also stood in the rain.

If this shooting was a righteous shooting, then why did Zimmerman have to lie about details? We know that Trayvon can't contradict Zimmerman, but why the need for lies if this was self-defense?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

It think you're making LOTS of assumptions here


> There is a *clear address* on the house directly behind and over Zimmerman's right shoulder in the re-enactment video.


How "clear" would it be on a *dark, rainy night*?


----------



## TheMartianChick

katydidagain said:


> Both sides have excellent attorneys; the jurors probably feel like they're at a tennis match just now. But when they enter the jury room to deliberate they will finally relax a little, elect a foreman and then have a chance to reflect on what they've heard.
> 
> How will they find? Not even the talking heads know. I'm old enough to have watched the OJ trial; guilty was the verdict predicted by the pundits and those of us who knew all the "facts"; didn't happen. Didn't the wise ones and the public believe Casey Anthony would be convicted? Juries are not predictable.


Good points! I always felt the OJ was guilty but felt that the evidence was tainted and that he would be found not guilty.

I just KNEW that Casey Anthony would be found GUILTY AS SIN! It didn't turn out this way. 

I don't have the faintest idea as to how this case will be decided. I think that Zimmerman is guilty, but I don't know that the jury will see it that way. It only takes one juror to feel that Zimmerman is not guilty for him to go free. The mock juries on tv seem to lean toward Zimmerman being guilty. The interesting thing is that the at-home/online polls seem to score it the exact OPPOSITE way on these same cable news networks.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> mock juries on tv seem to lean toward Zimmerman being guilty


You're confusing reality with what the MEDIA wants to promote.
Those "mock juries" are merely actors in the charade


----------



## painterswife

TheMartianChick said:


> Good points! I always felt the OJ was guilty but felt that the evidence was tainted and that he would be found not guilty.
> 
> I just KNEW that Casey Anthony would be found GUILTY AS SIN! It didn't turn out this way.
> 
> I don't have the faintest idea as to how this case will be decided. I think that Zimmerman is guilty, but I don't know that the jury will see it that way. It only takes one juror to feel that Zimmerman is not guilty for him to go free. The mock juries on tv seem to lean toward Zimmerman being guilty. The interesting thing is that the at-home/online polls seem to score it the exact OPPOSITE way on these same cable news networks.


I suspect it will be the lesser charge.


----------



## tlrnnp67

dixiegal62 said:


> Yes this is the reason the Chief of Police was fired, he wouldn't bow to political pressure so they fired him. Telling the COP to go ahead and arrest GZ anyway even if they couldn't make it stick. That's the real crime here! It's the reason it took so long for them to press charges, they had no case then they don't now. As for the COP at least he tried to do the right thing and I'm betting he sleeps better at night. I hope the jury has more ethics than the politicians!


At least someone in this trial has shown some integrity. I saw an interview he gave today. His actions to do the right thing cost him his job. At least he probably won't get murdered. I can't say the same thing for Zimmerman if he is acquitted.


----------



## katydidagain

TheMartianChick said:


> It only takes one juror to feel that Zimmerman is not guilty for him to go free. .


I did a quick search and didn't find whether that's true or not; generally a verdict must be unanimous or, if they're deadlocked, then a mistrial is declared and the state can choose whether to retry the case or not. (That does not let GZ off the hook for a trial somewhere down the road at any time I don't think.--someone correct me, please?) Could you verify your source?


----------



## Pearl B

Anymore dont they call in an alternative juror if its deadlocked?


----------



## katydidagain

Pearl B said:


> Anymore dont they call in an alternative juror if its deadlocked?


Years ago alternates were dismissed once deliberations began; they were never in the jury room so wouldn't be up to speed. Maybe that's changed?


----------



## Pearl B

I thought they changed something so they dont have to do retrials due to deadlocked. Im really not sure though.


----------



## katydidagain

Pearl B said:


> I thought they changed something so they dont have to do retrials due to deadlocked. Im really not sure though.


I think I found it. Yes, it's a blog but it is FL.

http://www.juryblog.com/rules-of-procedure/
_An alternate juror who does not replace a principal juror shall be discharged when the jury retires to consider the verdict._


----------



## Darren

katydidagain said:


> I did a quick search and didn't find whether that's true or not; generally a verdict must be unanimous or, if they're deadlocked, then a mistrial is declared and the state can choose whether to retry the case or not. (That does not let GZ off the hook for a trial somewhere down the road at any time I don't think.--someone correct me, please?) Could you verify your source?


It only takes one jurior to go against the others to hang the jury and result in a mistrial. If the jury comes back as hung, the judge will probably keep them and require them to reconsider. The judge will try to force a verdict by holding the jury hostage in a manner of speaking especially if the judge knows there is only one hold out. 

Make no mistake. If Zimmerman goes to prison he will be killed given the hate that's been purposely stirred up.


----------



## Karen

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're confusing reality with what the MEDIA wants to promote.
> Those "mock juries" are merely actors in the charade


Your point has been said many times and gotten. Please be nice and respect that other people see things differently. That doesn't make any of us right or wrong, just different from each other. Respect that please.

Just for the record, mock jurors are not actors; it's a very real scenario.


----------



## katydidagain

Darren said:


> It only takes one jurior to go against the others to hang the jury and result in a mistrial. If the jury comes back as hung, the judge will probably keep them and require them to reconsider. The judge will try to force a verdict by holding the jury hostage in a manner of speaking especially if the judge knows there is only one hold out. .


Do you know if that's true in FL? It was in MD years ago but MC's comment about 1 holdout setting him free made me wonder if that only meant a mistrial.


----------



## TheMartianChick

katydidagain said:


> I did a quick search and didn't find whether that's true or not; generally a verdict must be unanimous or, if they're deadlocked, then a mistrial is declared and the state can choose whether to retry the case or not. (That does not let GZ off the hook for a trial somewhere down the road at any time I don't think.--someone correct me, please?) Could you verify your source?


They can always do it all again, but it isn't likely that they'll go to the time and expense. If the jury is hung, then Zimmerman will probably not be re-tried.


----------



## wwubben

Darren said:


> The ex-police chief in an interview stated there was political pressure to bring charges.
> 
> The lead investigator testified that there wasn't evidence to file charges.
> 
> The judge came up with a reason to withhold the evidence found on Martin's phone which would have given the jury a very different viewpoint of St. Trayvon to anyone else that looked at the revealing insight into the life of the teenager. The kid presented himself as a tough guy who was into fighting and had no limits.
> 
> That very same data was held back from the defense and released in a manner which makes the expert witnesses testimony more critical given their findings. The authentication issue raised by the judge was ludicrous since the phone was on Martin's mother's plan and found with Martin on the incident scene, and required two passwords to access the critical files.
> 
> That information completely obliterates the St. Trayvon persona constructed by Crump and his publicist. However it was blocked by the judge.


 The judge won't allow the prosecuter to use Zimmerman's prior arrests etc either.That would have more of a negative effect on the jury than the kids tough talk.


----------



## katydidagain

TheMartianChick said:


> They can always do it all again, but it isn't likely that they'l go to the time and expense. If the jury is hung, then Zimmerman will probably not be re-tried.


Thanks. I believe I've heard of split decisions but not in criminal cases.


----------



## Karen

Alternate jurors do everything a juror does. They come in with jury, leave the courtroom with the jury, take notes, hear only what the jury does, etc. They do not, however, sit for deliberation. An alternate juror is there for the sole purpose of taking the place of another juror should they be unable to complete their duty (due to illness, very urgent emergency, or legally dismissed for any other reason) - but only up to the time of deliberation. 

When the jury leave the courtroom to begin deliberation, the alternate is officially excused.

If the jury comes back hung, then the judge will _*always*_ send them back in to try again. That's general procedure considered to be a jury's duty to be able to come to a unanimous decision. In fact, some judges will send them back a second and third time.


----------



## painterswife

Karen said:


> Alternate jurors do everything a juror does. They come in with jury, leave the courtroom with the jury, take notes, hear only what the jury does, etc. They do not, however, sit for deliberation. An alternate juror is there for the sole purpose of taking the place of another juror should they be unable to complete their duty (due to illness, very urgent emergency, or legally dismissed for any other reason) - but only up to the time of deliberation.
> 
> When the jury leave the courtroom to begin deliberation, the alternate is officially excused.
> 
> If the jury comes back hung, then the judge will _*always*_ send them back in to try again. That's general procedure considered to be a jury's duty to be able to come to a unanimous decision. In fact, some judges will send them back a second and third time.


It is very nice to have someone with experience fill in the gaps.


----------



## Karen

Bearfootfarm said:


> I am giving the same amount of respect *I've been shown.*


The following isn't just for you, but a reminder to all of us. Myself included because I need a reminder from time to time when topics get hot under the collar.

Sometimes we have to take the higher road and just let it go. Giving respect isn't based on how much you get in return, it means saying your peace, letting it go, and not expecting anyone to agree with you or feel the same. That's what it means to be a person of 'character'; to give respect to others in spite of feeling they many not necessary deserve it.


----------



## Darren

Karen said:


> Your point has been said many times and gotten. Please be nice and respect that other people see things differently. That doesn't make any of us right or wrong, just different from each other. Respect that please.
> 
> Just for the record, mock jurors are not actors; it's a very real scenario.


With respect to Bearfootfarm's posts, the misrepresentations in the media that were initiated by Benjamin Crump are real. The firestorm of hate that came from that is real. Is offering a bounty for killing by a private group or individual legal? Is the government supporting demonstrations legal? Was Obama correct as the chief executive of this country to take a position in this case?

I can understand the desire for justice. I don't understand misrepresenting facts and misleading the press to unleash hate to get it.


----------



## Karen

painterswife said:


> It is very nice to have someone with experience fill in the gaps.


There are so many misconceptions; mostly based on all the TV shows, books, etc. Even the 'reality' ones like Judge Judy, and all those other judges aren't any thing at all like they are in real life. 

For instance, just the questions and comments the judges ask. No judge is going take 30 min. for a small claim case and ask things like, "how did you feel about that", etc. They don't care and don't want to know. In real life, the exact same 30 min. small claim you see on TV would only take 5 min. Every argument you have is already spelled out in the lawsuit and the defendants Answer to that lawsuit. Being there is just a formality in most cases.


----------



## bassmaster17327

Every morning when I put my firearm on I pray that I do not have to use it, after seeing what has happened to Zimmerman I pray that if I am forced to use my firearm that the person is of the exact same race, age, religion and political affiliation as myself. It is a sad da y when someone is charged with a crime because of political pressure and public protests


----------



## painterswife

Karen said:


> There are so many misconceptions; mostly based on all the TV shows, books, etc. Even the 'reality' ones like Judge Judy, and all those other judges aren't any thing at all like they are in real life.
> 
> For instance, just the questions and comments the judges ask. No judge is going take 30 min. for a small claim case and ask things like, "how did you feel about that", etc. They don't care and don't want to know. In real life, the exact same 30 min. small claim you see on TV would only take 5 min. Every argument you have is already spelled out in the lawsuit and the defendants Answer to that lawsuit. Being there is just a formality in most cases.


I have learned so much watching this case.


----------



## Karen

Darren said:


> The misrepresentations in the media that were initiated by Benjamin Crump are real. The firestorm of hate that came from that is real. Is offering a bounty for killing by a private group or individual legal? Is the government supporting demonstrations legal? Was Obama correct as the chief executive of this country to take a position in this case?


And it's a valid point, but a couple of you keep bringing it up over and over. This thread is about what is going on in the trial, not how we got to a trial. I'm simply suggesting that either let it go or open a new thread based solely on that issue alone and not put others down if they don't agree with that viewpoint.


----------



## kasilofhome

What of the justice if it becomes a political agenda as to pressing charges due to a racial or social or wealth or lack of wealth? 

Justice for all not a select, Justice should be blind.


----------



## Darren

Karen said:


> And it's a valid point, but a couple of you keep bringing it up over and over. This thread is about what is going on in the trial, not how we got to a trial. I'm simply suggesting that either let it go or open a new thread based solely on that issue alone and not put others down if they don't agree with that viewpoint.


I don't have an issue of offering respect. Since you're a paralegal was the courtroom altercation between West and Nelsen real or just theater? The defense attornies seem to have problems with how Nelsen has managed the case and her decisons which she said they can address on appeal. Is it normal to run a murder trial that late?


----------



## vicker

It is a defense attorney's job to have issues with the way a judge handles a case, for obvious reasons. The judge understands that and gives them certain leeway. There is a limit though.
Eta; the persecutor's relation with the judge is different, as he is not simultaneously building a case for an appeal.


----------



## painterswife

The talking heads commented that in federal court he would have been in contempt and he was close with this judge. She gave him the court code of conduct three times.


----------



## katydidagain

The judge is pushing the case along ostensibly because the jury is sequestered; it's expensive to house/protect them. In addition, these individuals did not enjoy July 4th festivities with their families nor are they in contact with their loved ones; they're essentially locked up. Apparently they're anxious to finish up; they've turned down several normal breaks.


----------



## greg273

kasilofhome said:


> What of the justice if it becomes a political agenda as to pressing charges due to a racial or social or wealth or lack of wealth?
> 
> Justice for all not a select, Justice should be blind.


 I do hope justice is served. The fact remains GZ killed a man he went out of his way to pursue. Was it premeditated murder? Nope. 'Racial Profiling' or any of that made-up suff, nope. But it would appear GZ is guilty of manslaughter at least, or possible 2nd degree murder. His injuries don't seem to rise to the level where he should have been in 'fear for his life'. He was on the receiving end of a beat-down that he himself could have avoided, at multiple occasions, by his own actions. Not premeditated murder, but he took a life. 
If Zimmerman is found innocent of all crimes, the implications are that someone can pick a fight with someone else at any time, and if the going gets rough, kill them with no fear of legal reprisal, simply by claiming 'they were scared'. I mean if you kill the other guy, his side of the story doesn't get told.


----------



## kasilofhome

Fl
*Defenses to Involuntary Manslaughter Charges*


Justifiable use of deadly force to defend against a felony committed against a person or property laws




*776.012 Use of force in defense of person.*--A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force.* However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.
*History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102.

It seems to be the divider between the two sides as to which way we hope that the jury votes.

In GZ place I can imagine being that scared. 

Not, being able to speak once dead means nothing to me. For all I know he could wish to say that he was sorry --I do not know so it means nothing to me. Just as the babies that died with a snip from the dr. I am sorry that people die but once dead the society has to deal with the one who is known to have done the dead.


----------



## Karen

Darren said:


> Since you're a paralegal was the courtroom altercation between West and Nelsen real or just theater? The defense attornies seem to have problems with how Nelsen has managed the case and her decisons which she said they can address on appeal.


Oh you can bet those two sincerely dislike each other. Judges are the boss and when they rule, it's expected you abide by that ruling and, if you have a problem with it, take it up on appeal. It's just how things are done in a court of law.

I also suspect there is bad blood there from previous encounters perhaps. Attorneys tend to dislike certain judges. It's also common for female judges to be disliked by male attorneys who, even in todays world, tend to not view them as equals to male judges. Usually because of the 'emotional' female thing.

Also remember that these judges see a lot of criminals walk due to technical issues, twisting the law, etc. -- all by the hand of the defense attorneys getting off those who 'really did do it' and the judge knows it. So sometimes you go in to a trial knowing the judge isn't going to be overly sympathetic to the criminal defendant. It doesn't mean they won't be fair, it just means that judges are also human.



Darren said:


> Is it normal to run a murder trial that late?


It is when a jury is sequestered for a long trial. Judges do tend to be very respectful of the jury and realize that a juror gives up a lot to serve. They do take into account that it isn't just the time they give, but also that their families suffer, there's a loss of income for those who work, the loss of other community service they may volunteer for, and just the loss of contact, information and news they are missing. 

The judge wants to get them out of there as quickly as possible without compromising a fair trial. The jury generally will even ask for longer than normal hours or not to take the scheduled jury breaks. They want it over with too as life is pretty boring when your sequestered.


----------



## farmrbrown

I hope for the sake of justice that in spite of being sequestered, the jury deliberates and considers this case to the extent it deserves. More than one life has been and will be affected by this - permanently.

The addition of a lesser charge of manslaughter is quite common, unfortunately.
As in the case of human nature, once "caught" prosecutors are loathe to let anyone "get away". They'll settle for half a loaf rather than none.
I haven't watched any of the trial and have taken media reports with more than just a grain of salt.
But I have seen plenty of cases of unarmed people being shot over the years. It is never a good thing. Sometimes unjust, but life goes on for the rest of us and hopefully you live and learn.

Over and over I've heard one of the main considerations is the severity of Zimmerman's injuries as to whether or not he should be found guilty. That's one factor but by no means the most important. The fact that a firearm was present, and who was being physically assaulted, severely or not, is the key point, and I'll tell you why, since I haven't seen this brought out in this thread unless I missed the post.

Does anyone here think for a minute that if a police officer was down and being struck repeatedly, yelling for help (oh yeah, we don't KNOW that was him) ok ......strike the "help" call.....if a cop was being beaten and no one was around to help him, HE says the suspect reached for his gun, so he had to shoot......
Does anyone here think that the cop would or should go to jail for manslaughter or murder?
I know Zimmerman wasn't a cop, that's not the point.
Under the law, we are ALL supposed to be treated equally.*That* is the point. Just like a cop, CCW holders are held to a higher standard of restraint, but given the circumstances, both the cop and Zimmerman have a firearm. They both have somehow let someone close to them and have been put on the ground. They both have visible physical injuries after the attack. In both cases the dead man has just one wound, a bullet hole in the chest. In both cases neighbors hear the fight, cries for help ending in a gunshot.
You, me, the cop and Zimmerman are all equals under the law.

So......who still says the cop does 10 years for manslaughter?


----------



## suzfromWi

\[if a cop was being beaten and no one was around to help him, HE says the suspect reached for his gun, so he had to shoot.].....Where did it say Travon was seen as reaching for a gun? Wasnt it the other way around?


----------



## painterswife

farmrbrown said:


> I hope for the sake of justice that in spite of being sequestered, the jury deliberates and considers this case to the extent it deserves. More than one life has been and will be affected by this - permanently.
> 
> The addition of a lesser charge of manslaughter is quite common, unfortunately.
> As in the case of human nature, once "caught" prosecutors are loathe to let anyone "get away". They'll settle for half a loaf rather than none.
> I haven't watched any of the trial and have taken media reports with more than just a grain of salt.
> But I have seen plenty of cases of unarmed people being shot over the years. It is never a good thing. Sometimes unjust, but life goes on for the rest of us and hopefully you live and learn.
> 
> Over and over I've heard one of the main considerations is the severity of Zimmerman's injuries as to whether or not he should be found guilty. That's one factor but by no means the most important. The fact that a firearm was present, and who was being physically assaulted, severely or not, is the key point, and I'll tell you why, since I haven't seen this brought out in this thread unless I missed the post.
> 
> Does anyone here think for a minute that if a police officer was down and being struck repeatedly, yelling for help (oh yeah, we don't KNOW that was him) ok ......strike the "help" call.....if a cop was being beaten and no one was around to help him, HE says the suspect reached for his gun, so he had to shoot......
> Does anyone here think that the cop would or should go to jail for manslaughter or murder?
> I know Zimmerman wasn't a cop, that's not the point.
> Under the law, we are ALL supposed to be treated equally.*That* is the point. Just like a cop, CCW holders are held to a higher standard of restraint, but given the circumstances, both the cop and Zimmerman have a firearm. They both have somehow let someone close to them and have been put on the ground. They both have visible physical injuries after the attack. In both cases the dead man has just one wound, a bullet hole in the chest. In both cases neighbors hear the fight, cries for help ending in a gunshot.
> You, me, the cop and Zimmerman are all equals under the law.
> 
> So......who still says the cop does 10 years for manslaughter?


This situation would never have happened if it was a cop. No comparison. The cop would have never made the decisions that GZ made.


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> I hope for the sake of justice that in spite of being sequestered, the jury deliberates and considers this case to the extent it deserves. More than one life has been and will be affected by this - permanently.
> 
> The addition of a lesser charge of manslaughter is quite common, unfortunately.
> As in the case of human nature, once "caught" prosecutors are loathe to let anyone "get away". They'll settle for half a loaf rather than none.
> I haven't watched any of the trial and have taken media reports with more than just a grain of salt.
> But I have seen plenty of cases of unarmed people being shot over the years. It is never a good thing. Sometimes unjust, but life goes on for the rest of us and hopefully you live and learn.
> 
> Over and over I've heard one of the main considerations is the severity of Zimmerman's injuries as to whether or not he should be found guilty. That's one factor but by no means the most important. The fact that a firearm was present, and who was being physically assaulted, severely or not, is the key point, and I'll tell you why, since I haven't seen this brought out in this thread unless I missed the post.
> 
> Does anyone here think for a minute that if a police officer was down and being struck repeatedly, yelling for help (oh yeah, we don't KNOW that was him) ok ......strike the "help" call.....if a cop was being beaten and no one was around to help him, HE says the suspect reached for his gun, so he had to shoot......
> Does anyone here think that the cop would or should go to jail for manslaughter or murder?
> I know Zimmerman wasn't a cop, that's not the point.
> Under the law, we are ALL supposed to be treated equally.*That* is the point. Just like a cop, CCW holders are held to a higher standard of restraint, but given the circumstances, both the cop and Zimmerman have a firearm. They both have somehow let someone close to them and have been put on the ground. They both have visible physical injuries after the attack. In both cases the dead man has just one wound, a bullet hole in the chest. In both cases neighbors hear the fight, cries for help ending in a gunshot.
> You, me, the cop and Zimmerman are all equals under the law.
> 
> So......who still says the cop does 10 years for manslaughter?


If you're speaking of a uniformed police officer or one who has identified himself to another as a police officer then the attacker has already committed a crime by attacking him. George Zimmerman was neither of these so the cases are in no way equal or comparable.


----------



## CesumPec

painterswife said:


> This situation would never have happened if it was a cop. No comparison. The cop would have never made the decisions that GZ made.


Why do you believe that? At what point does the story change if it was a cop that saw someone suspicious in the neighborhood?


----------



## CesumPec

mmoetc said:


> If you're speaking of a uniformed police officer or one who has identified himself to another as a police officer then the attacker has already committed a crime by attacking him. George Zimmerman was neither of these so the cases are in no way equal or comparable.


Once anyone attacks someone it is a crime unless it is defense of self or other innocents. So they are analogous situations.


----------



## painterswife

CesumPec said:


> Why do you believe that? At what point does the story change if it was a cop that saw someone suspicious in the neighborhood?


The cop would ask questions before assuming that someone was doing something wrong. They would identify themselves.


----------



## viggie

mmoetc said:


> If you're speaking of a uniformed police officer or one who has identified himself to another as a police officer then the attacker has already committed a crime by attacking him. George Zimmerman was neither of these so the cases are in no way equal or comparable.


It's a crime regardless of who the victim is.


----------



## mmoetc

CesumPec said:


> Once anyone attacks someone it is a crime unless it is defense of self or other innocents. So they are analogous situations.


We only have Zimmermans testimony that he made no threatening moves towards Martin. Many scenarios come to mind that Martin may have acted in self defense. While there may be instances where attacking a police officer may be justified, that is not the scenario presented.


----------



## Darren

painterswife said:


> This situation would never have happened if it was a cop. No comparison. The cop would have never made the decisions that GZ made.


I agree. If a cop had been on scene he would have done a thorough search for Martin. Zimmerman's big mistake was allowing himself to be surprised. Even if Martin had approached a cop from behind, the cop would have been much more ready for an attempt at battery. In that case knowing the cop was armed I doubt Martin would have tried to punch him.

Zimmerman apparently didn't understand the potential of the situation. Seeing Martin running may have given him a false sense of security. Just because someone is running (getting away) doesn't mean there's no danger.

Zimmerman was obviously not trained for those types of scenarios. I went hrough a mixed gender class once where one woman didn't know if she could shoot an assailant. She was told to take the money a gun would cost and have a locksmith upgrade her locks.

No matter how well you comply with CCW laws, just having a gun can be a detriment in some instances when the situation evolves into something for which you have no training. I'm not sure if Zimmerman knew about situational awareness. Add the fact that he's a marshmallow man and he was ripe to get his butt kicked. He should have picked up on what was going on when Martin circled his truck and eye balled him. That's a very aggressive move that should have put Zimmerman on a higher level of alertness.

A friend's wife was just the opposite. Someone tried to attack her in a parking lot at a mall. While she was relatively petite she had situational awareness and a .45. Needless to say the would be attacker got a big surprise. Zimmerman was easy pickings, She wasn't.


----------



## Darren

suzfromWi said:


> \[if a cop was being beaten and no one was around to help him, HE says the suspect reached for his gun, so he had to shoot.].....Where did it say Travon was seen as reaching for a gun? Wasnt it the other way around?


Zimmerman stated that when Martin had him on the ground beating him the posiion of his jacket shifted and the firearm was exposed.


----------



## dixiegal62

I got to say after all the drama yesterday it's nice to see the jury being addressed with calmness and reason this morning.


----------



## Darren

painterswife said:


> The cop would ask questions before assuming that someone was doing something wrong. They would identify themselves.


That's a question I have. If I'm in a strange neighborhood, which is often, I'm doing things frequently that look suspicious. There was a man at a townhouse complex that came out and watched me. I made a point of going up to him. I asked him if he lived there. I told him my name. Then I told him why I was taking pictures and measurements. At the same time I mentioned his landlord's name. 

When I went up to him, I started the dialogue well before I got to him so by the time I was within punching distance he knew I was supposed to be there. I realize with the animosity between Blacks and whites and the sterotypes, Martin wasn't going to do that. 

That's where the prominent people who got involved have set relations back. By emphasizing differences and rushing to judgement they have reinforced sterotypes and clouded the picture since many people don't spend the time to look at all the available facts. It's the same with a celebrity endorsement. If so and so said it, it must be true. While we may not buy the shampoo, we do buy the opinion of the famous person and even the talking head when it matches our own preconceived notions.

Real thinking outside of the box or getting out of our metal comfort zone is difficult if not impossible.


----------



## CesumPec

painterswife said:


> The cop would ask questions before assuming that someone was doing something wrong. They would identify themselves.


So you're saying GZ didn't act aggressively enough? 

You're saying cops never watch someone to see what they are going to do before closing with the person?


----------



## mmoetc

Darren said:


> Zimmerman stated that when Martin had him on the ground beating him the posiion of his jacket shifted and the firearm was exposed.


This is another point where Zimmermans story has always rung false to me. I have never been able to get my head around that Martin, while straddling and "pinning" Z down and concentrating on pound his head and smothering him, suddenly lifted his body and looked down to Z's waist to see the gun. It makes no sense to me that it could have happened this way.


----------



## CesumPec

mmoetc said:


> We only have Zimmermans testimony that he made no threatening moves towards Martin. Many scenarios come to mind that Martin may have acted in self defense. While there may be instances where attacking a police officer may be justified, that is not the scenario presented.


I agree many scenarios come to mind. That's my problem with convicting GZ of anything. I don't know what happened, but it could have happened as GZ states which gives me enough reasonable doubt that I wouldn't be able to convict.


----------



## painterswife

CesumPec said:


> So you're saying GZ didn't act aggressively enough?
> 
> You're saying cops never watch someone to see what they are going to do before closing with the person?


I don't think I said that at all. I said that it is not the same situation and you can not draw conclusions from one to prove the other. Cops are trained to do things differently.


----------



## mmoetc

CesumPec said:


> I agree many scenarios come to mind. That's my problem with convicting GZ of anything. I don't know what happened, but it could have happened as GZ states which gives me enough reasonable doubt that I wouldn't be able to convict.


I agree that based on what's been presented Zimmerman should likely walk. Do I think he was blameless ? Not at all.


----------



## Ambereyes

I have learned alot too. Agendas drive everything. When this was first brought out in the media it was some older white guy killing some young kid just walking around with candy and a drink. I couldn't at that time understand why no charges were being brought. Well fast forward and we have a whole new set of facts. 

If this had been two men of the same race in the same conflict with the same outcome the likelihood of criminal charges and the media circus, would not have happened. How many times do you think this same thing happens in the inner cities? Where is the media? 

I will give one caveat, I am Hispanic. And the Hispanic community is watching this one closely, as more than a few are questioning the whole thing. They are not pleased at all, race relations between blacks and Hispanics are not good now this kinda of circus is not going to help.


----------



## painterswife

Bearfootfarm said:


> It think you're making LOTS of assumptions here
> 
> 
> How "clear" would it be on a *dark, rainy night*?


The defense just mentioned that Zimmerman had a flash light. No reason he could not have seen address marker.


----------



## Darren

mmoetc said:


> This is another point where Zimmermans story has always rung false to me. I have never been able to get my head around that Martin, while straddling and "pinning" Z down and concentrating on pound his head and smothering him, suddenly lifted his body and looked down to Z's waist to see the gun. It makes no sense to me that it could have happened this way.


The demonstration due to be shown to the jury as part of the defense's closing statement may explain it better than I can in writing. Normally a jacket will hide a firearm. In the scuffle I thought Zimmerman was trying to squirm away from the sidewalk. Martin was probably sitting on top or kneeling over Zimmerman and straddling him. If someone's trying to use their arms to prevent you from beating them, you may be distracted. 

Martin's moves to counter Zimmerman were interpreted as reaching for the gun..

If you carry a firearm, you are aware of it's presence. It's so obvious that cops are trained to pick out who's carrying by the tells. Zimmerman would have been aware the gun was exposed. That's paramount for CCW. You can't allow the gun to be exposed. That's drilled into your head. 

We'll never know what Martin saw. If we were able to get a replay from his brain after his death, it would explain quite a few things. With the newly available proof that the jewelry found in Martin's book bag was stolen, I'd like to know what Martin was doing during the 30+ minutes when he left the 711 and walked back to the development in the rain. Was he off smoking a marijuana blunt as some think or was he really casing the neighborhood? 

We do know he wasn't on the phone all of that time.


----------



## CesumPec

painterswife said:


> I don't think I said that at all. I said that it is not the same situation and you can not draw conclusions from one to prove the other. Cops are trained to do things differently.


You may not think you said that, but it is what i logically infer from your statement. 

We know it is not the same situation, it was an analogy. I've come to hate using analogies because people who would rather argue always look for the differences (of course there are differences BECAUSE it is an analogy) than at the key points that make it an analogy.


----------



## mmoetc

Darren said:


> The demonstration due to be shown to the jury as part of the defense's closing statement may explain it better than I can in writing. Normally a jacket will hide a firearm. In the scuffle I thought Zimmerman was trying to squirm away from the sidewalk. Martin was probably sitting on top or kneeling over Zimmerman and straddling him. If someone's trying to use their arms to prevent you from beating them, you may be distracted.
> 
> Martin's moves to counter Zimmerman were interpreted as reaching for the gun..
> 
> If you carry a firearm, you are aware of it's presence. It's so obvious that cops are trained to pick out who's carrying by the tells. Zimmerman would have been aware the gun was exposed. That's paramount for CCW. You can't allow the gun to be exposed. That's drilled into your head.
> 
> We'll never know what Marin saw. If we were able to get a replay from his brain after his death, it would explained quite a few things. With the newly available proof that the jewelry found in Martin's book bag was stolen, I'd like to know what Martin was doing during the 30+ minutes when he left the 711 and walked back to the development in he rain. Was he off smoking a marijuana blunt as some think or was he really casing the neighborhood?
> 
> We do know he wasn't on the phone all of that time.


Zimmerman can't have it both ways. If his arms were pinned he had no way of using them to defend himself. He had no defensive wounds on his hands or arms indicating that he fought back in any way or tried to defend himself in any other way than using his gun. Wrestle around with your significant other in the scenario Zimmerman espouses and come to your own conclusions that it happened as he said.


----------



## 7thswan

mmoetc said:


> This is another point where Zimmermans story has always rung false to me. I have never been able to get my head around that Martin, while straddling and "pinning" Z down and concentrating on pound his head and smothering him, suddenly lifted his body and looked down to Z's waist to see the gun. It makes no sense to me that it could have happened this way.


Martin could have felt the gun with the inside of his thigh while he straddled Zimmerman.


----------



## Saffron

Darren said:


> With the newly available proof that the jewelry found in Martin's book bag was stolen,



Wait, I missed this, when was this revealed?


----------



## painterswife

CesumPec said:


> You may not think you said that, but it is what i logically infer from your statement.
> 
> We know it is not the same situation, it was an analogy. I've come to hate using analogies because people who would rather argue always look for the differences (of course there are differences BECAUSE it is an analogy) than at the key points that make it an analogy.


Infer away, you asked me if that is what I meant and I said it was not. I do not believe you can compare the two situations. That is my opinion. I do not believe that any police officer would do what Zimmerman did in this situation.


----------



## painterswife

7thswan said:


> Martin could have felt the gun with the inside of his thigh while he straddled Zimmerman.


He could of but that is not what Zimmerman testified to.


----------



## Darren

mmoetc said:


> Zimmerman can't have it both ways. If his arms were pinned he had no way of using them to defend himself. He had no defensive wounds on his hands or arms indicating that he fought back in any way or tried to defend himself in any other way than using his gun. Wrestle around with your significant other in the scenario Zimmerman espouses and come to your own conclusions that it happened as he said.


Zimmerman never stated his arms were pinned. He had a 158 lb kid on top of him but he had the use of his arms. Unless Martin was using a weapon, how would Zimmerman have defensive wounds on his arms and hands? 

I don't know what condition Zimmerman was in immediaely after taking the blow that smashed his nose and finding himself on the ground with the kid on top. I suspect Zimmerman was briefly stunned until he started calling for help.


----------



## TheMartianChick

7thswan said:


> Martin could have felt the gun with the inside of his thigh while he straddled Zimmerman.


Per Zimmerman's video re-enactment, the gun was in a holster on his back, not at his side as a cop's weapon would be. In court, Zimmerman's attorney keeps trying to infer that the weapon was at his side, but that is not what was said during the re-enactment.


----------



## CesumPec

painterswife said:


> Infer away, you asked me if that is what I meant and I said it was not. I do not believe you can compare the two situations. That is my opinion. I do not believe that any police officer would do what Zimmerman did in this situation.


WHooooooshhhhhh


----------



## Darren

Saffron said:


> Wait, I missed this, when was this revealed?


I didn't read about it until the past week. The chain of events that made the connection started with an article written in a newspaper March of last year. the school district was involved in some shenanigans to reduce crime statistics. When the jewelry found in Martin;s book bag was turned over to the police it was reported as a lost and found. The police had the jewelry but had no way of matching it to a burglary until the connection was made though a series of events. You can read the details at the link. The detective assigned to the burglary got the heads up in April of this year.

http://theconservativetreehouse.com...ckpack-with-stolen-jewelry-and-burglary-tool/


----------



## CesumPec

painterswife said:


> He could of but that is not what Zimmerman testified to.


How could GZ possibly testify as to what TM felt with TM's thigh? If he tried, it would have been stopped by the judge.


----------



## mmoetc

Darren said:


> Zimmerman never stated his arms were pinned. He had a 158 lb kid on top of him but he had the use of his arms. Unless Martin was using a weapon, how would Zimmerman have defensive wounds on his arms and hands?
> 
> I don't know what condition Zimmerman was in immediaely after taking the blow that smashed his nose and finding himself on the ground with the kid on top. I suspect Zimmerman was briefly stunned until he started calling for help.


A reasonable person who had the use of his arms in Zimmermans position would likely try to defend himself by pushing Martins hands away from his head and pulling them away from covering his nose and mouth. There is no indication from either Z's testimony or any physical evidence that Z did anything but go for his gun. I know what the law says but I would be much more accepting if I thought that Z had used his weapon as a last resort rather than a first option.


----------



## Darren

TheMartianChick said:


> Per Zimmerman's video re-enactment, the gun was in a holster on his back, not at his side as a cop's weapon would be. In court, Zimmerman's attorney keeps trying to infer that the weapon was at his side, but that is not what was said during the re-enactment.


From the photo I would consider that a back side carry. It's not a small of the back carry. When you're in a car the gun is forward enough on the side to not create a problem with the seat back.

In other words, Zimmerman wasn't laying on the gun.


----------



## dixiegal62

Reminding the jury just how long 4 minutes really is... brilliant!


----------



## Darren

mmoetc said:


> A reasonable person who had the use of his arms in Zimmermans position would likely try to defend himself by pushing Martins hands away from his head and pulling them away from covering his nose and mouth. There is no indication from either Z's testimony or any physical evidence that Z did anything but go for his gun. I know what the law says but I would be much more accepting if I thought that Z had used his weapon as a last resort rather than a first option.


Based on Zimmerman calling for help and seeing people walk away, it seems to me it was a last resort. If the neighbor had gone to help Zimmermna instead of going inside to call 911, Zimmerman probably wouldn't have thought he had no other way to stop Martin.


----------



## painterswife

Darren said:


> From the photo I would consider that a back side carry. It's not a small of the back carry. When you're in a car the gun is forward enough on the side to not create a problem with the seat back.
> 
> In other words, Zimmerman wasn't laying on the gun.


It looks to me like it would be very hard to reach back and get the gun when someone is on top of you. It would be much easier to reach up gouge the assailant in some way or to grab his privates.


----------



## painterswife

painterswife said:


> It looks to me like it would be very hard to reach back and get the gun when someone is on top of you. It would be much easier to reach up gouge the assailant in some way or to grab his privates.


Yes, I am seeing more problems.

A gun carried on his back, in an inside the pants internal holster that is black (just like the gun) in the dark. So dark that he could not see the house numbers.
Trayvon is on top of him.

The jury is going to look at theses problems as well.


----------



## Darren

painterswife said:


> It looks to me like it would be very hard to reach back and get the gun when someone is on top of you. It would be much easier to reach up* gouge the assailant in some way or to grab his privates.*


You are correct. But how many guys use their nails, gouge or grab each other's privates in a fight? Those are generally considered women's tactics. They shouldn't be. But becuase of the differences between most men and women, women are usually taught to not hold back if they have to defend themselves.

From what I've read George comes across as a nice out of shape guy who isn't into crotch grabbing. He made several mistakes that night that a cop would not. In a way the CCW training set him up for failure.


----------



## 7thswan

TheMartianChick said:


> Per Zimmerman's video re-enactment, the gun was in a holster on his back, not at his side as a cop's weapon would be. In court, Zimmerman's attorney keeps trying to infer that the weapon was at his side, but that is not what was said during the re-enactment.


Ok, I did not hear anything about the gun.


----------



## dixiegal62

Going over each witness's testimony bit by bit and explaining the evidence.. leaps and bounds above the theatrics we witnessed yesterday.


----------



## farmrbrown

I noticed the simple question was simply avoided, oh well, I'll answer these anyway out of respect.






painterswife said:


> The defense just mentioned that Zimmerman had a flash light. No reason he could not have seen address marker.


Yes he had a flashlight. In the video that no one watched because they didn't want to hear his account of what happened, he said the batteries were dead, that's why he had to get out and look.
But then again why believe him, right?



painterswife said:


> I don't think I said that at all. I said that it is not the same situation and you can not draw conclusions from one to prove the other. Cops are trained to do things differently.


Read my post again. Read the part about taking a CCW class and the higher standard required.
And yes, I've taken the class........in Florida.

{QUOTE} 
We know it is not the same situation, it was an analogy. I've come to hate using analogies because people who would rather argue always look for the differences (of course there are differences BECAUSE it is an analogy) than at the key points that make it an analogy.[/QUOTE]



I know. It's funny how they'll answer everything but the question.
This time I won't mention the "Z" word and try again......


If a cop is getting assaulted and ends up killing the guy, does the cop go to jail?

Yes, No, or maybe?


----------



## painterswife

Darren said:


> You are correct. But how many guys use their nails, gouge or grab each other's privates in a fight? Those are generally considered women's tactics. They shouldn't be. But becuase of the differences between most men and women, women are usually taught to not hold back if they have to defend themselves.
> 
> From what I've read George comes across as a nice out of shape guy who isn't into crotch grabbing. He made several mistakes that night that a cop would not. In a way the CCW training set him up for failure.


You are correct. he is a guy that reaches for his gun before he tries anything else. My problem with this entire situation.


----------



## Darren

painterswife said:


> Yes, I am seeing more problems.
> 
> A gun carried on his back, in an inside the pants internal holster that is black (just like the gun) in the dark. So dark that he could not see the house numbers.
> Trayvon is on top of him.
> 
> The jury is going to look at theses problems as well.


Was that presented as evidence? If not the jury may not be able to consider that. We don;t know what each jurior brings to the table from experience.


----------



## Darren

7thswan said:


> Ok, I did not hear anything about the gun.


It was a back *SIDE* carry from the video.


----------



## painterswife

Darren said:


> Was that presented as evidence? If not the jury may not be able to consider that. We don;t know what each jurior brings to the table from experience.


Yes, they showed everyone the gun and holster and the video that picture is from. The prosecution also mentioned it in closing. I did not see how it would be difficult to see the gun or get it out until the still picture was posted.


----------



## Ambereyes

painterswife said:


> You are correct. he is a guy that reaches for his gun before he tries anything else. My problem with this entire situation.



Wrong conclusion, he had multiple wounds including a broken nose. The broken nose is enough to cause eyes to water and panic to set in. His reaching for the gun was obviously not the first action. Unless you have been in this type of situation you have no idea how you will react. Been there done that.


----------



## painterswife

Ambereyes said:


> Wrong conclusion, he had multiple wounds including a broken nose. The broken nose is enough to cause eyes to water and panic to set in. His reaching for the gun was obviously not the first action. Unless you have been in this type of situation you have no idea how you will react. Been there done that.


Wrong conclusion for you. I have been in a few altercations. I have been hit in the face with a fist. I see it different than you.


----------



## farmrbrown

The only problem I see in this trial discussion is that it seems obvious who has been in a fight, carried a firearm in a holster or waistband, who has been ambushed and assaulted, who has been in genuine fear for their life..........and who has not been there.
When it happens to you, the seconds will seem like hours, and when someone asks why you didn't do this and wait for that to happen, you'll look at them as if they have lost their mind.

I guess my last question will go unanswered, not because it was irrelevant, but because the answer is too hard to admit.
So, here's another one.

Who here thinks Trayvon was committing a felony assault? And if so, just how long would YOU have waited for the assault to stop by itself.
If you've never been feloniously assaulted please include that in your answer.


----------



## dixiegal62

O'Mara just did a really skilled job showing many, many areas of reasonable doubt.


----------



## Ambereyes

painterswife said:


> Wrong conclusion for you. I have been in a few altercations. I have been hit in the face with a fist. I see it different than you.



Good for you, your experience is not everyone else's, nor is your reaction. That is one of the problems in this discussion, people tend to think everyone should think and react in the same manner.. Very unrealistic attitude.


----------



## painterswife

Ambereyes said:


> Good for you, your experience is not everyone else's, nor is your reaction. That is one of the problems in this discussion, people tend to think everyone should think and react in the same manner.. Very unrealistic attitude.


I understand that not everyone will react the same. However if people on the jury have the same questions as me then how can anyone discount our opinions.
That is why I started this thread. I wanted to see how others see the evidence and if they will bring in their life experiences to the deliberation and how the jury might see it.

This is not about who is right and who is wrong but what the verdict might be.


----------



## Ambereyes

My question is what would the verdict be if it was Zimmerman beaten to death on that sidewalk? Got a feeling there probably wouldn't be one.. But continue on it is about lights out here, long day tomorrow.


----------



## Darren

farmrbrown said:


> The only problem I see in this trial discussion is that it seems obvious who has been in a fight, carried a firearm in a holster or waistband, who has been ambushed and assaulted, who has been in genuine fear for their life..........and who has not been there.
> When it happens to you, the seconds will seem like hours, and when someone asks why you didn't do this and wait for that to happen, you'll look at them as if they have lost their mind.
> 
> I guess my last question will go unanswered, not because it was irrelevant, but because the answer is too hard to admit.
> So, here's another one.
> 
> Who here thinks Trayvon was committing a felony assault? And if so, just how long would YOU have waited for the assault to stop by itself.
> If you've never been feloniously assaulted please include that in your answer.


Does anyone here not believe that Martin was punching Zimmerman in the face? Anyway you look at it, that was battery. There was no evidence found in the autopsy of Martin getting hit. There's been a few excuses posed as justification for the beating but absolutely no evidence.

A beating like that under those circumstances is without doubt felonius.


----------



## 7thswan

painterswife said:


> Wrong conclusion for you. I have been in a few altercations. I have been hit in the face with a fist. I see it different than you.


 What was your reaction, fear, flight, ?, what?


----------



## dixiegal62

Darren said:


> Does anyone here not believe that Martin was punching Zimmerman in the face? Anyway you look at it, that was battery. There was no evidence found in the autopsy of Martin getting hit. There's been a few excuses posed as justification for the beating but absolutely no evidence.
> 
> A beating like that under those circumstances is without doubt felonius.


 
O'Mara brought up an excellent point, right now at this moment Zimmerman is an innocent man. The jury has to start there.... he's innocent and wait for the state to prove without a reasonable doubt that he's guilty. O'Mara has done an excellent job showing many areas of reasonable doubt.


----------



## painterswife

7thswan said:


> What was your reaction, fear, flight, ?, what?


All of the above. Either way scared or wanting to get a way, I had to fight to do it.


----------



## dixiegal62

" I'm asking you to use your heart." Is the state really asking the jury to decide with emotion instead of fact?


----------



## 7thswan

painterswife said:


> All of the above. Either way scared or wanting to get a way, I had to fight to do it.


 That is why I'm having to put myself in Zimmermans place. My father was abusive and I grew up determined to beable to protect myself. I have been in fights later. Never once have I hit anyone first. I have also never felt fear during a fight. Zimmerman must have really been pushed to cross over a line,in my eyes anyway. Maybe he started out being in fear(during the fight) and went right to panic? All I can figure is that some things are more natural,more instant for people to do. It's got to be like people that jump in a river to save someone and they can't even swim themselves, they just react. Some freeze up. I just do not feel that Zimmerman is the kind of person to start a fight with a stranger over nothing, especialy if he wasn't attacked first.


----------



## dixiegal62

The defendant choose the weather conditions..


----------



## TheMartianChick

7thswan said:


> That is why I'm having to put myself in Zimmermans place. My father was abusive and I grew up determined to beable to protect myself. I have been in fights later. Never once have I hit anyone first. I have also never felt fear during a fight. Zimmerman must have really been pushed to cross over a line,in my eyes anyway. Maybe he started out being in fear(during the fight) and went right to panic? All I can figure is that some things are more natural,more instant for people to do. It's got to be like people that jump in a river to save someone and they can't even swim themselves, they just react. Some freeze up. I just do not feel that Zimmerman is the kind of person to start a fight with a stranger over nothing, especialy if he wasn't attacked first.


And yet he swung at an undercover officer.


----------



## dixiegal62

TheMartianChick said:


> And yet he swung at an undercover officer.


 
Didn't TM take a swing at or hit a bus driver? Z wouldn't know an undercover cop was a cop, but T sure knew who the bus driver was.


----------



## 7thswan

TheMartianChick said:


> And yet he swung at an undercover officer.


 What was going on,did he know the person was a cop and did he belive he was a cop, were their witnesses...


----------



## partndn

I hate this dude saying "child." He's the same dude who, if Trayvon shot 7-11 manager, would be arguing charging him as a grown man for sure.


----------



## painterswife

Zimmerman hit a cop and he knew he was a cop. Both not in evidence.


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> Zimmerman hit a cop and he knew he was a cop. Both not in evidence.


 
Didn't state it as evidence just commenting on a subject someone else brought up.


----------



## 7thswan

I really hate these closing arguments. Just give me the evidence , all this story telling is just more like our media garbage, telling me what to think.


----------



## painterswife

I think the prosecution nailed it. I think however the jury instructions will be key. I have never heard them before and am very curious what they say.

Both sides have agreed to them so their should be no fireworks there.


----------



## painterswife

It is going to be manslaughter.( if convicted)


----------



## watcher

katydidagain said:


> Same here. My question about why GZ didn't identify himself and ask TM who he was is now out in the open; the jurors will consider it. However, the defense has not yet spoken; they'll attack everything the prosecutor has said. What bothers me is that I think the prosecution gets another chance to speak--the last word. Am I right about that?


Asking someone who you think might be a criminal who he is and why he is in your neighborhood is a good way to wind up in just the situation Zimmerman found himself in.


----------



## katydidagain

watcher said:


> Asking someone who you think might be a criminal who he is and why he is in your neighborhood is a good way to wind up in just the situation Zimmerman found himself in.


Zimmerman is alive so obviously asking wouldn't have mattered.


----------



## vicker

Wow! According to the judge's definition there are very few modern day weapons that qualify as a firearm


----------



## painterswife

vicker said:


> Wow! According to the judges definition there are very few modern day weapons that qualify as a firearm


I need to listen to this a few times. Too much information, too fast. My head is spinning. I am glad I am not a juror.


----------



## farmrbrown

dixiegal62 said:


> " I'm asking you to use your heart." Is the state really asking the jury to decide with emotion instead of fact?


 
Yes.
When logic, physical evidence and case law are not on your side, that's all you can hope for.


----------



## poppy

painterswife said:


> This situation would never have happened if it was a cop. No comparison. The cop would have never made the decisions that GZ made.


That is complete nonsense. Cops follow people all the time to see what they are doing. Let a cop be driving by and see someone he considers suspicious walking down an alley and see if he doesn't follow them to make sure they are not up to no good.


----------



## katydidagain

poppy said:


> That is complete nonsense. Cops follow people all the time to see what they are doing. Let a cop be driving by and see someone he considers suspicious walking down an alley and see if he doesn't follow them to make sure they are not up to no good.


The cop, armed, would have the legal right to draw his weapon and detain the suspicious character. A prudent man who was not paid to enforce the law and could not brandish his weapon much less mention its existence would not take that risk.


----------



## vicker

vicker said:


> Wow! According to the judge's definition there are very few modern day weapons that qualify as a firearm


I was wrong. I had learned that Modern Gunpowder is a propellant as opposed to an explosive. I have now learned that modern gunpowder is classified as a Low Explosive. My bad.


----------



## painterswife

poppy said:


> That is complete nonsense. Cops follow people all the time to see what they are doing. Let a cop be driving by and see someone he considers suspicious walking down an alley and see if he doesn't follow them to make sure they are not up to no good.


Did I say that is was only the action of following that made me come to that conclusion?


----------



## watcher

TheMartianChick said:


> At one point, Trayvon would have had to have 3 hands in order to do everything that Zimmerman says that he did during the fight.


Ever been in a fight? Sometimes it seems like the other guy has six hands. Also studies have shown that people often 'see' things and 'know' things happened in a stressful event which didn't ever happen. This is why I take any witness testimony with a HUGE spoonful of salt.

There should be some videos on youtube of staged events where many witnesses are interviewed and the wide variety of things they saw which didn't happen.





TheMartianChick said:


> -The blood evidence that was absent from Trayvon Martin's body indicates that Zimmerman lied about the severity of the fight. Yes it was raining, but there is no Zimmerman blood on Trayvon's hands even in the earliest photos taken at the scene. The argument that the blood washed away in the rain does not seem plausible when the blood on Zimmerman's head was still visible after he also stood in the rain.


Head and face wounds bleed a LOT while cuts on the backs of the hands do not. You admit that Martin's had cuts on his hands but there was no blood on them. Were the cuts old or did the rain wash it away?

Also the time line shows the entire event happened in about 3 minutes. That's from the time the phone was hung up to the report of a gunshot on the 911 tape. The 'fight' was probably about 2 minutes. Anyone who has ever spared can tell you a lot can happen in 2 minutes.




TheMartianChick said:


> If this shooting was a righteous shooting, then why did Zimmerman have to lie about details? We know that Trayvon can't contradict Zimmerman, but why the need for lies if this was self-defense?


If Martin were alive all he could do is tell a different story. The question is whose story does the physical evidence back up? Zimmerman was on the ground (wet and grass stained clothing), Zimmerman head was at some point driven into something with enough force to break the skin (pictures and medical records), Martin had classic fight wounds on his hands (ME's report), Zimmerman had no wounds on his hands (pictures and physical exam), Martin was shot while standing over Zimmerman (ME's report on bullet angle). Everything else is just "he said", "she said", "I think", "It might have", etc.


----------



## watcher

Pearl B said:


> Anymore dont they call in an alternative juror if its deadlocked?


I don't know specifically about FL but in all the states I know of the answer is no. A alternative juror (I was one once) is only brought in if a juror must be excused or removed from the panel.


----------



## watcher

katydidagain said:


> Years ago alternates were dismissed once deliberations began; they were never in the jury room so wouldn't be up to speed. Maybe that's changed?


In my case we were required to stay in a separate jury room at the court house until the jury had reached a verdict. We then joined the jury and entered the court room for the reading of the verdict.


----------



## vicker

It is a powerful thing when the jury retires to deliberate, one of the things that make our country great.


----------



## painterswife

vicker said:


> It is a powerful thing when the jury retires to deliberate, one of the things that make our country great.


I am at a complete loss as to what the jury will do. I thought I did until I heard the jury instructions. I think I would have to spend an hour just rereading them and figuring out what they mean.


----------



## poppy

dixiegal62 said:


> " I'm asking you to use your heart." Is the state really asking the jury to decide with emotion instead of fact?


Yes, that is exactly what they are asking. Remember, they are appealing to 6 women and they want them all sobbing because of Martin's death instead of looking at the facts. Asking them to rely on feelings is perversion of our legal system. We no longer have a justice system, but a legal system instead. Facts aren't supposed to matter now. It is all about one group or another demanding retribution for something no matter why it happened.


----------



## watcher

greg273 said:


> If Zimmerman is found innocent of all crimes, the implications are that someone can pick a fight with someone else at any time, and if the going gets rough, kill them with no fear of legal reprisal, simply by claiming 'they were scared'. I mean if you kill the other guy, his side of the story doesn't get told.


Care to provide evidence Zimmerman did "pick a fight"? There is exactly zero physical evidence that I know of to support this claim.


----------



## katydidagain

painterswife said:


> I am at a complete loss as to what the jury will do. I thought I did until I heard the jury instructions. I think I would have to spend an hour just rereading them and figuring out what they mean.


And they probably will after electing the foreperson. They will undoubtedly refer back to them many times during deliberations. 

Does anyone know if they will be "off" this weekend or will they be "working"? I would assume the latter.


----------



## Hollowdweller

dixiegal62 said:


> Didn't TM take a swing at or hit a bus driver? Z wouldn't know an undercover cop was a cop, but T sure knew who the bus driver was.


 
I think the bus driver thing has been debunked.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> This is another point where Zimmermans story has always rung false to me. I have never been able to get my head around that Martin, while straddling and "pinning" Z down and concentrating on pound his head and smothering him, suddenly lifted his body and looked down to Z's waist to see the gun. It makes no sense to me that it could have happened this way.


Depending on the location of the weapon and Martin's feet/legs and Zimmerman's movements there is a very real possibility Martin felt it poke him and look down to see it.


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> It looks to me like it would be very hard to reach back and get the gun when someone is on top of you. It would be much easier to reach up gouge the assailant in some way or to grab his privates.


Most people don't react that way in a fight. They go defensive. Rather than trying to fight back they try to keep from being hurt, that gets you killed.

I tell people all the time to remember: the eyes, the throat and the crotch. And when you are in a fight you fight as dirty as possible because you are fighting for your life, not some trophy. Bite, gouge, spit, what ever it takes.


----------



## CesumPec

This thread has convinced me GZ will most likely go to prison. There are so many people with an agenda of one form or another, that I think they will go the compromise route and pick manslaughter. I don't see it in the evidence we have seen and I hope I am wrong.


----------



## Darren

Hollowdweller said:


> I think the bus driver thing has been debunked.


I know it was referred to by Martin, I believe to his brother, but there was no substantiation of it by the school unlike the jewelry. Do you have proof it was false?


----------



## Pearl B

I have a problem with the manslaughter charge. This is more to the criminal justice system.

People shouldnt be charged with crimes & then the prosecution settles for 'something'
either someone committed a crime or they didnt. Charge accordingly & prove it.

They do it all the time. They know most dont have the money to hire decent lawyers.
Far as Im concerned that is a major crime itself.


----------



## Darren

7thswan said:


> That is why I'm having to put myself in Zimmermans place. My father was abusive and I grew up determined to beable to protect myself. I have been in fights later. Never once have I hit anyone first. I have also never felt fear during a fight. Zimmerman must have really been pushed to cross over a line,in my eyes anyway. Maybe he started out being in fear(during the fight) and went right to panic? All I can figure is that some things are more natural,more instant for people to do. It's got to be like people that jump in a river to save someone and they can't even swim themselves, they just react. Some freeze up. I just do not feel that Zimmerman is the kind of person to start a fight with a stranger over nothing, especialy if he wasn't attacked first.


Unless you're put in the right situation, you don't know if you'll panic. The firefigher training is supposed to do that. We had a firefighter recently fail the live burn because he panicked wearing the air pack. My first time reaction in that situation was a first for me. 

I could almost see myself as two individuals, one wanted to get out and rip the mask off. The other was incredulous about the reaction. I can remember thinking, "This is BS." After that I was fine and it's never been a problem.

Panic is so primeval some people can't get a grip on it. That's what I think happened to Zimmerman. When he was put to the test all he wanted to do was run. By then with Martin on top beating him he couldn't. He really thought he was going to die.

There's areaction in some people when they have problems with breathing or think they're having problems. Cool and calm goes out the window.

The other point that's always been a wonder to me is Zimmerman making a one shot stop in that situation. It could not have been better. I've made shots like that with animals. They were reflexive. I didn't think or aim, I just pointed and shot.

Zimmerman's apology to the family makes sense if he panicked. Deep down he felt he had to apology because panic/fear amde him lose control. BTW, that's something men are not going to admit. Zimmerman was so much in fear for his life, I think he panicked, drew and shot. His reaction described by those afterwards is aslo indicaive of that. Literally panic took over. Zimmerman afterwards had a reaction that from my point of view was stunned and reflecive. He was trying to figure out what happened himself.

If anyone was cornered that night, it was Zimmerman. He flunked the test but instinct saved his life. After thinking about it I can see why some of he reenactment seemed so awkward. Zimmerman wasn't going to tell the police he panicked. 

I wouldn't mind having Zimmerman as a neighbor. If he tried to join the fire dept., I'd be the first to blackball him.


----------



## katydidagain

Maybe someone should post a poll that asks what the verdict will be and another that asks when the jury will finish deliberations?


----------



## JeffreyD

painterswife said:


> I am at a complete loss as to what the jury will do. I thought I did until I heard the jury instructions. I think I would have to spend an hour just rereading them and figuring out what they mean.


You really should ignore any instructions given by the judge or anyone else if you are a jurior. It's really quite simple, have ALL the evidence presented, make a decision based on law, not emotion.


----------



## 7thswan

Darren said:


> Unless you're put in the right situation, you don't know if you'll panic. The firefigher training is supposed to do that. We had a firefighter recently fail the live burn because he panicked wearing the air pack. My first time reaction in that situation was a first for me.
> 
> I could almost see myself as two individuals, one wanted to get out and rip the mask off. The other was incredulous about the reaction. I can remember thinking, "This is BS." After that I was fine and it's never been a problem.
> 
> Panic is so primeval some people can't get a grip on it. That's what I think happened to Zimmerman. When he was put to the test all he wanted to do was run. By then with Martin on top beating him he couldn't. He really thought he was going to die.
> 
> There's areaction in some people when they have problems with breathing or think they're having problems. Cool and calm goes out the window.
> 
> The other point that's always been a wonder to me is Zimmerman making a one shot stop in that situation. It could not have been better. I've made shots like that with animals. They were reflexive. I didn't think or aim, I just pointed and shot.
> 
> Zimmerman's apology to the family makes sense if he panicked. BTW, that's something men are not going to admit. Zimmerman was so much in fear for his life, I think he panicked, drew and shot. His reaction described by those afterwards is aslo indicaive of that. Literally panic took over. Zimmerman afterwards had a reaction that from my point of view was stunned and reflecive. He was trying to figure out what happened himself.
> 
> If anyone was cornered that night, it was Zimmerman. He flunked the test but instinct saved his life. After thinking about it I can see why some of he reenactment seemed so awkward. Zimmerman wasn't going to tell the police he panicked.
> 
> I wouldn't mind having Zimmerman as a neighbor. If he tried to join the fire dept., I'd be the first to blackball him.


One of the Gyms I managed, the Chief Firefighter(came in all the time to work out) of a large town tried to get me to try out. I knew it wasen't for me, later I found out on my own that I am extremly clastraphobic. I flipped out, heck, I scared even myself with the way I reacted. I can understand the air pack issue. I figure it's the loss of control, but not real sure.


----------



## Darren

7thswan said:


> One of the Gyms I managed, the Chief Firefighter(came in all the time to work out) of a large town tried to get me to try out. I knew it wasen't for me, later I found out on my own that I am extremly clastraphobic. I flipped out, heck, I scared even myself with the way I reacted. I can understand the air pack issue. I figure it's the loss of control, but not real sure.


Most of the time you're not aware of your breathing. I suspect people wih asthma experience the same thing during a severe attack. It's impossible to stay calm. With an air mask it magnifies the sound of every breath, That's hard to tune out for those that are claustrophobic. It's not harder to breathe but the sound is like what you hear for labored breathing. That's the best I can describe it. 

I think Zimmerman experienced something like a cross between that and an asthma attack when Marin tried to stop him from screaming.


----------



## painterswife

JeffreyD said:


> You really should ignore any instructions given by the judge or anyone else if you are a jurior. It's really quite simple, have ALL the evidence presented, make a decision based on law, not emotion.


Ignore the judge? That is a new one. They verdict has to take into account all the jury instructions. That is the law.


----------



## farmrbrown

painterswife said:


> Ignore the judge? That is a new one. They verdict has to take into account all the jury instructions. That is the law.



LOL.
No, not so new.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/jury+nullification
Goes back almost 300 years. Did you not read any of Fore runner's posts?
If not, check out the first Supreme Court Chief Justice, John Jay's many statements on juries.

As a side bet, can you give me the statute number of the law that you think states that a jury must follow the judge's instructions?


----------



## kasilofhome

kasilofhome said:


> question and my thoughts as this is in the hands of the jury
> 
> I have an understanding of the jury's bill of rights.
> 
> Quoting from "The citizens rule book" avalidable at www.citizensbook.com
> 
> Is this relevent (esp person with factural knowledge of court room please state you source for knowledge as I want to learn)
> 
> "As a juror in a trial seeting, when it comes to you individual vot of innocent or guilty, you truly are answerable only to GOD ALMIGHTY. (capped as written)
> 
> ........:"The jury has the poer to determine both the law and the facts" Samuel chase, US. supreme court justice
> 
> *.........."The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy" John Jay first chief justice of theU. S. supreme court 1789*
> 
> .........."The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided" Harlan F. Ston, 12 chief Justice of the U.S. supreme court 1941
> 
> *........"The pages of history shines on instances of the jury's exercise of its perrogative to disregard instructions of the judge" U.S. vs Daugherty . 47 F2nd 1113 1139 1972*




*I really was taught about this in high school.*


----------



## unregistered353870

farmrbrown said:


> LOL.
> No, not so new.
> http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/jury+nullification
> Goes back almost 300 years. Did you not read any of Fore runner's posts?
> If not, check out the first Supreme Court Chief Justice, John Jay's many statements on juries.
> 
> As a side bet, can you give me the statute number of the law that you think states that a jury must follow the judge's instructions?


I'm all about jury nullification for bad laws, but does that really apply here? The issue isn't whether murder should be illegal, but whether the defendant committed it or not. They don't have to disregard the jury instructions to find him not guilty.


----------



## JeffreyD

painterswife said:


> Ignore the judge? That is a new one. They verdict has to take into account all the jury instructions. That is the law.


Could you please post a link to "the law"? Thanks!

You need to read about being a jurist and what the Constitution says about it too!
A jurist can do whatever they please!
The Fully Informed Jury Association is a good place to start.


----------



## vicker

The jury is the law. After that, if the jury convicts, it can be struck on appeal, if the jury acquits it is over.


----------



## painterswife

JeffreyD said:


> Could you please post a link to "the law"? Thanks!
> 
> You need to read about being a jurist and what the Constitution says about it too!
> A jurist can do whatever they please!
> The Fully Informed Jury Association is a good place to start.


I am still learning about the law. I see that with regards to juries on this point I was wrong. However I do not see the jury doing this.


----------



## farmrbrown

jtbrandt said:


> I'm all about jury nullification for bad laws, but does that really apply here? The issue isn't whether murder should be illegal, but whether the defendant committed it or not.


That's not the whole definition of jury nullification, to ignore a bad law.
It also applies to ignoring judge's instruction, misconduct by the court that you witnessed during the trial, as well as special circumstances where you know the law was violated technically, but the defendant's actions were still justifiable in your own view.



jtbrandt said:


> They don't have to disregard the jury instructions to find him not guilty.


That's correct.


----------



## Nevada

Pearl B said:


> I have a problem with the manslaughter charge.


I agree. If you put a man in trial for 2nd degree murder then you should have to prove 2nd degree murder. The problem is that Zimmerman was accused of 2nd degree murder on national TV, then when the prosecution couldn't make their case they want to change the charges.

I don't like it. This is a big factor in this case too, since the prosecution didn't make their case required for the 2nd degree murder state of mind. I might be wrong about Zimmerman being acquitted, but I don't think he'll be convicted of 2nd degree murder either. If he's convicted it will be for a lesser charge.

It like the prosecution saying they'll put you on trial now and decide on the charges later.


----------



## katydidagain

They can't up the "ante"--well, I guess they could but that would be stupid since they didn't present evidence to prove such--but lesser charges are nearly always included. The defense knew this going in and prepared for such; they did not expect murder 3 because that is as serious as murder 2 (possibly more so). The judge disallowed it.


----------



## tarbe

Numerous comments in this thread convince me I would not want some of folks here on a jury deciding my fate!

Scary....


----------



## painterswife

Looks like the jury is really looking at the evidence. They stopped and asked for an inventory list.


----------



## Jim-mi

Yes the judge will want to make you think his/her instructions are the ONLY way to go....
The weak minded sheeple will follow with out question......

Jury nullification is the proper tool to use for those people who are quite capable of thinking on their own......

From all the sources I have heard Geo Z. is/has gotten the very short stick on this trial.

Equal justice for all . . . Nope


----------



## Forerunner

painterswife said:


> Ignore the judge? That is a new one. They verdict has to take into account all the jury instructions. That is the law.


*"The pages of history shines on instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge" U.S. vs Daugherty . 47 F2nd 1113 1139 1972*


----------



## katydidagain

What are they supposed to ignore in this case? The judge's instructions were clear IMO. Unless they think someone else shot TM and that GZ wasn't even there I don't understand why jury nullification would even be mentioned in this case. The jurors have been told they can convict GZ on murder 2, manslaughter or acquit him; they have been told how the law applies to each situation.


----------



## dixiegal62

tarbe said:


> Numerous comments in this thread convince me I would not want some of folks here on a jury deciding my fate!
> 
> Scary....


Imagine how GZ feels right now!


----------



## dixiegal62

NOW the White House says Obama's not going to comment on the GZ trial!:yuck:


----------



## vicker

Numerous people on this thread refuse to admit that there are good reasons for GZ to be there.


----------



## katydidagain

vicker said:


> Numerous people on this thread refuse to admit that there are good reasons for GZ to be there.


Be where? I'm confused.


----------



## Darren

vicker said:


> Numerous people on this thread refuse to admit that there are good reasons for GZ to be there.


When Allan Dershowitz said there was no reason for charges you can take it to the bank. Dershowitz' reputation gives great weight to what he said. His credentials are beyong reproach. It was his comment's that got me looking beyond the propaganda the media was parroting. Reuters is the only news agency that realized they had been deceived. 

"Professor Alan M. Dershowitz is a Brooklyn native who has been called &#8220;the nation&#8217;s most peripatetic civil liberties lawyer&#8221; and one of its &#8220;most distinguished defenders of individual rights,&#8221; &#8220;the best-known criminal lawyer in the world,&#8221; 

http://www.alandershowitz.com/biography.php


----------



## Karen

about jury instructions and nullification. Jury instructions aren't just made up by the attorneys. There are standard jury instructions that the attorneys have to use (except in WV and I think it's Texas if I remember correctly). Basically, it's a fill-in the blank type. There will always be a few wording details that change with the type of case, any added charges, etc., but the jury instructions given to this jury will be almost identical to the jury instructions given to any other criminal trial jury. 

Jury nullification is only for when something is just not right with the due process of law. It isn't so jurors can just do their own thing. In Florida, it rarely happens because jury instructions are so specific and covers any avenues where misconduct could have come into play. Jury instructions in FL are based upon evidence, how the charges are spelled out, why, and what you need to determine if those charges apply, how the law reads, etc. In other words, it's very clear and clean cut. FL actually is one of the best states for jury instructions because they are constantly being revised and updated when flaws are discovered.


----------



## farmrbrown

katydidagain said:


> What are they supposed to ignore in this case? The judge's instructions were clear IMO. Unless they think someone else shot TM and that GZ wasn't even there
> 
> * I don't understand why jury nullification would even be mentioned in this case. *
> 
> 
> The jurors have been told they can convict GZ on murder 2, manslaughter or acquit him; they have been told how the law applies to each situation.


Read this.
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/instructions.shtml


Note the pop up when you go to that page that the self defense instructions are currently under review.
The *reason* why jury nullification was mentioned (by me) is precisely because a judge can have tremendous power over uninformed minds.
If you read all the case law on jury nullification, and that will take you quite a while, you'll see that in many cases if the judge gives incorrect instructions or selectively omits instructions, a jury can unknowingly convict someone that should have been ruled innocent.
That's why it's VERY important to know, read, and understand the law for yourself and if need be, ignore instructions that go against the law and/or its intent.
The responsibility of a juror is very serious, you are the instrument of last resort. You stand deciding the fate of someone's life.

Let me give you a example. 
This may seem like a mundane or even silly example, but before you rush to that conclusion, consider that this was given by Scalia, I believe, in the D.C. case that just overruled that city's gun law.

Jay walking.
Seems pretty cut and dry, right?
You either crossed at the legal crosswalk or you didn't.
The judge reads the law, tells you to only consider whether the defendant entered the street at the legal crosswalk or not. If he did, innocent, if not he's guilty of breaking the jaywalking law.

BUT, what you heard in court, was the defendant say that a car careened onto the sidewalk and was coming at him. Fearing for his life , he jumped out of the way and ran across the street to safety.

What would your vote as a juror be?

I'll see if I can pull that out of the SCOTUS case if you'd like.
Now, that example may seem frivolous discussing a murder trial, but I think the ramifications of jury instructions, judges and jurors, should be clear.
We've seen earlier on this thread that some people mistakenly believed that it was a *law* that a juror must follow a judges instructions, implying that they would actually commit a crime if they didn't.
Yet that's not true, but it still is thought to be true.



From D.C. vs Heller...



A broader point about the laws that Justice Breyer cites: All of them punished the discharge (or loading) of guns with a small fine and forfeiture of the weapon (or in a few cases a very brief stay in the local jail), not with significant criminal penalties.29 They are akin to modern penalties for minor public-safety infractions like speeding or jaywalking. And although such public-safety laws may not contain exceptions for self-defense, it is inconceivable that the threat of a jaywalking ticket would deter someone from disregarding a &#8220;Do Not Walk&#8221; sign in order to flee an attacker, or that the Government would enforce those laws under such circumstances. Likewise, we do not think that a law imposing a 5-shilling fine and forfeiture of the gun would have prevented a person in the founding era from using a gun to protect himself or his family from violence, or that if he did so the law would be enforced against him. The District law, by contrast, far from imposing a minor fine, threatens citizens with a year in prison (five years for a second violation) for even obtaining a gun in the first place. See D. C. Code Â§7&#8211;2507.06.



Note.
My example used a careening car, Justice Scalia used fleeing an attacker.


----------



## katydidagain

I humbly defer to Karen on this. I do know that the Judge mentioned that there is something under review; this was when she was speaking with the attorneys and the jury was not present.


----------



## kasilofhome

I humble defer to the SCOUS


----------



## katydidagain

kasilofhome said:


> I humble defer to the SCOUS


And if he's convicted because of improper instructions, they may have a say in it.


----------



## kasilofhome

It is a wait and see.


----------



## plowhand

I'm afraid innocent or guilty the feller is in for trouble. The media has milked this cow just about dry. I wish they all would report 1/3 less trouble and wickedness....and replace it with good and uplifting news. That gets pushed to the wayside I'm afraid...isn't sensational enough.


----------



## farmrbrown

katydidagain said:


> And if he's convicted because of improper instructions, they may have a say in it.


They already have over the years.


----------



## katydidagain

farmrbrown said:


> They already have over the years.


Sure, they've spoken many times. If GZ is convicted and there is case law to support that the instructions or FL laws were improper, there will be an appeal.


----------



## farmrbrown

That's true.
I started to post links, but there were so many cases, I didn't bother.
One of the interesting ones was on omission in instructions.
There were several from California and other states on including lessor crimes.


----------



## Karen

Which of the jury instructions did you feel was inproper or out of line?


----------



## katydidagain

Karen said:


> Which of the jury instructions did you feel was inproper or out of line?


Not sure if I'm saving you any time but according the link posted I think it was this: _

ALERTS - Criminal Jury Instructions
Updated 05/31/2013

The following instructions are currently under review by the Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases because of recent legislation or case law: 

&#8226;Instruction 3.6(f) and (g) - Self-defense. See Bassallo v. State, 46 So. 3d 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA November 10, 2010); Talley v. State, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D426a (Fla. 2nd DCA Feb. 22, 2013)
_
And I have a question--if it's under review (I think the judge may have mentioned it), what happens if GZ is found guilty and it's subsequently changed materially? Do you know?


----------



## farmrbrown

Karen said:


> Which of the jury instructions did you feel was inproper or out of line?



I didn't hear any of the instructions, so I have no idea whether they were, or not.
My point was about whether the instructions were allowed to be ignored or not, as is the privilege of a juror.
But, since I found the review on FL jury instructions when I posted the link, I thought I'd share this very relevant case that is on appeal and the basis of the court's review of self defense instructions....

http://www.4dca.org/opinions/Nov 2010/11-10-10/4D08-5068.op.pdf

The second case under appeal is even more relevant to Zimmerman's....

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district-court-of-appeal/1624046.html


Both hinge on jury instructions and how even a comma that isn't in the statute can affect the verdict a jury renders.

Both cases that caused this review of jury instructions involve two key points brought out on this thread.
1. Injuries
2. Retreat

Back on post #395 the FL statute was quoted, partially. I later posted the whole thing.
If you don't read it all the way thru, or you pause or misread an "and" or "or", you can get the whole meaning wrong.
That's what happened in these 2 cases when the judge instructed the jury. That's my own simplified summary of course, the actions in the case were a little more complicated than that, but even the appellate case is a little hard to follow, lol.
Interesting as I read some of the case law on this stuff, whether the defense agrees with the instructions or objects can make a difference too.

That's why I said it was important for the jurors to see the law and read it for themselves rather than blindly follow "instructions".


----------



## kasilofhome

If we accept the repeated statements that the Jury MUST obey the Judges order then the knowledge which MAY one day be needed will not be there. The mere fact that it is even in question about it shows a lack of knowledge (that is not an insult--so do not get offended) due to this NOT being taught or talked about.

The mere thought of judgeing both the law and the person seems to many and the spewing of fantsy yet a lack of knowledge can be dealt with. The court system is not out tell this so where are people to learn about this. For some reason I did have teachers who did teach this --In the leasons they compared the founding fathers siduations with the issues of the day. From a person who came to this country as an indentured slave with a set amount of time to work for the person who paid passage and after a time did not fullfill the terms and the reasons per English law did not matter and persons for whom the crown placed changes against and for years court trials for colonist were held in America and the jury would be a jury of the peers --people who knew the person charged where the jury judged the if the law aplied and if there was a logical rational reason that the law did not apply. Often times people were guilty of the charges but the jury set the free. 

----sounds so wroung right --I thought so too. But more discussions lead by the teacher asking us questions like the above mentions Jaywalker---who really Jaywalked and then different siduation that could have lead to the Jaywalking and if it would be right to punish the Jaywalker based on the siduation for the Jaywalking

What if the man Jaywalked to run into a buring building to save a life.
What if the man Jaywalked because he was stumbling drunk.
What if the man jaywalked because he was having a sesiour.

Then he moved up to prohition days 
and then he moved the example to the current using issues of the day.

I remember one be (70's) drugs. 

Having drugs on you was a jail sentence.
A persons is stopped driving and is high-- drugs are found in the car. Thus he is guilty of having drugs right
A man is giving the wrough coat at a coat check and is stopped and allow the car and himself to be searched and drugs are found. He is guilty of having drugs on his person.

I found it very interesting and learned the power of the jurior. Now, a days people think that I have lost it. But I know that the Judge can tell me anything and the law and be black and white and if a person did not do the crime out of malice, or greed, anger, but in trying to do good and that was the intent I will follow my gut and hold them harmless. 

Think of the recent plane crash where the victim of the plane crash was run over by the emergcy rig. -Hit and run?, maybe velical manslauter (if it is found that the girl was alive prior to be run over)-----To me it is common sence. --If the girl was alive I could not hold the drive guilty for any charge period. No intent, no greed, ----just a sad horridable set of events which I imagine will haunt the driver and that justice would not be served in punishing the driver. 

I feel that way about this case. Bad, Sad Horridable things happen and there is not right to destroy a living person just because you can.



On and on the teacher went.


----------



## vicker

Sadly, the jaywalker was shot and killed by another jaywalker. Often, when a life is taken people who valued the taken life will demand payment. One needs to be able to show that the life was taken by no fault of ones's own. If that one can not show lack of fault he is a troubled one in deed, and may find himself in an even more defensive stance than the stance from which he killed.


----------



## vicker

I hate it. I think GZ is a good man, and he only intended good. He never set out to murder a young man, but I'm afraid that he did. That has consequences . I think the jury will convict for manslaughter.


----------



## Shrek

plowhand said:


> I'm afraid innocent or guilty the feller is in for trouble. The media has milked this cow just about dry. I wish they all would report 1/3 less trouble and wickedness....and replace it with good and uplifting news. That gets pushed to the wayside I'm afraid...isn't sensational enough.


"Milk the cow till it runs dry". This media cow started blowing out dust clouds of non dairy powdered coffee creamer during the daily milkings months ago. When it comes on the news now I generally use the opportunity to peruse one of my magazines until a more current news item replaces it.

Next week when the jury hopefully returns a verdict I may watch the coverage as it will be newer coverage, not the cut and paste of aged confetti the lamestream media has been feeding the public for for over a year.


----------



## Karen

The related Florida Jury Instructions currently under review don't really apply in the Zimmerman case. The one the judge was talking about elements is Chapter 3.6(f)(g); however, the reason it is under review is related to the _Bassallo v. State_ case where:"The trial court abused its discretion in giving a self-defense instruction that indicated the defense applied only if the victim suffered an &#8220;injury,&#8221; when no injury occurred, which negated the theory of the defense."​These circumstances do not apply in the Zimmerman case, so as 3.6 stands now is the correct jury instructions for the Zimmerman case. If, however, Zimmerman _had not been injured at all,_ then 3.6 review could have been a problem. Although, there are very smart attorneys and judge in this case and they would have used another instruction and totally eliminated this one. 

Basically what you do in jury instructions is that there is a VERY long list of instructions available. The attorneys are the ones responsible for creating the actual jury instructions for the jury to follow. The attorneys pick and choose which ones apply to their case and include those; eliminate the rest. For instance, under self-defense, there are many options and they choose the one(s) that fit their particular case. Both the prosecution & defense have to agree on all of the choices and wording for the jury instructions. 

Finally, just prior to closing arguments, the final draft of the jury instructions are submitted to the court. There is then a little mini-hearing to finalize the official instructions. The judge reviews the instructions and gets involved in that selection under 2 circumstance: If a judge sees something that doesn't apply, they will make a ruling to change or eliminate it, or if the prosecution & defense cannot agree on an instruction, then the judge will be the tie breaker (so-to-speak) and will rule on whether it is included or excluded. Bear in mind that these jury instructions have been going back and forth between all the attorneys for a long time prior to actually seeing the light of day in the courtroom since both prosecution and defense have to agree on all points of the instructions. 

This is one of the reason that the defense will get annoyed if the prosecution (who is the one responsible for presenting the final set of jury instructions to the court), tosses in extra charges or last minute changes. But it's never a total surprise to the defense. They all know it's a possibility (as it's very common practice) and should always have a prepared for argument if it does happen. 

3.6 wouldn't be repealed anyway. One of 2 things will happen. Only additional wording would change to include covering the case circumstances listed above, or the no injury circumstances will be given their own sub-chapter.


----------



## farmrbrown

Karen said:


> The related Florida Jury Instructions currently under review don't really apply in the Zimmerman case. The one the judge was talking about elements is Chapter 3.6(f)(g); however, the reason it is under review is related to the _Bassallo v. State_ case where:"The trial court abused its discretion in giving a self-defense instruction that indicated the defense applied only if the victim suffered an &#8220;injury,&#8221; when no injury occurred, which negated the theory of the defense."​These circumstances do not apply in the Zimmerman case, so as 3.6 stands now is the correct jury instructions for the Zimmerman case. If, however, Zimmerman _had not been injured at all,_ then 3.6 review could have been a problem. Although, there are very smart attorneys and judge in this case and they would have used another instruction and totally eliminated this one.
> 
> Basically what you do in jury instructions is that there is a VERY long list of instructions available. The attorneys are the ones responsible for creating the actual jury instructions for the jury to follow. The attorneys pick and choose which ones apply to their case and include those; eliminate the rest. For instance, under self-defense, there are many options and they choose the one(s) that fit their particular case. Both the prosecution & defense have to agree on all of the choices and wording for the jury instructions.
> 
> Finally, just prior to closing arguments, the final draft of the jury instructions are submitted to the court. There is then a little mini-hearing to finalize the official instructions. The judge reviews the instructions and gets involved in that selection under 2 circumstance: If a judge sees something that doesn't apply, they will make a ruling to change or eliminate it, or if the prosecution & defense cannot agree on an instruction, then the judge will be the tie breaker (so-to-speak) and will rule on whether it is included or excluded. Bear in mind that these jury instructions have been going back and forth between all the attorneys for a long time prior to actually seeing the light of day in the courtroom since both prosecution and defense have to agree on all points of the instructions.
> 
> This is one of the reason that the defense will get annoyed if the prosecution (who is the one responsible for presenting the final set of jury instructions to the court), tosses in extra charges or last minute changes. But it's never a total surprise to the defense. They all know it's a possibility (as it's very common practice) and should always have a prepared for argument if it does happen.
> 
> 3.6 wouldn't be repealed anyway. One of 2 things will happen. Only additional wording would change to include covering the case circumstances listed above, or the no injury circumstances will be given their own sub-chapter.


There were 2 parts in 3.6.....(f) and (g). Non deadly force and deadly force. It's the (g) part that is the issue in Zimmerman's case.
That is likely true for the Bassallo case, however the Talley case's parallels bear a closer look........




TALLEY v. STATE
Douglas Wayne TALLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 2D12&#8211;869.

-- February 22, 2013


Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Richard J. Sanders, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and John M. Klawikofsky, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

Douglas Wayne Talley appeals his conviction and sentence for felony battery, arguing that the standard jury instructions on self defense given by the trial court constitute fundamental error. We reverse and remand for a new trial.

Talley was charged with aggravated battery (great bodily harm) and battery (domestic violence) on September 30, 2011. A jury trial was held. Talley's only defense was that the alleged victim, John Mullendore, had attacked him with nondeadly force and thus Talley was justified in using nondeadly force in self defense. Mullendore testified that Talley stabbed him with something sharp two times without provocation and that he punched Talley in the jaw as he pushed Talley away from him. Talley, on the other hand, testified that Mullendore started the altercation by punching him in the jaw and that Mullendore was injured as the two men wrestled against a chain link fence. The trial court gave the following standard instructions on self defense:

An issue in this case is whether the defendant acted in self-defense. It is a defense to the offense with which Douglas Talley is charged if the injury to John Mullendore resulted from the justifiable use of non-deadly force.

&#8220;Non-deadly&#8221; force means force not likely to cause death or great bodily harm.

Douglas Talley would be justified in using non-deadly force against John Mullendore if the following two facts are proved:

1. Douglas Talley must have reasonably believed that such conduct was necessary to defend himself against John Mullendore's imminent use of unlawful force against Douglas Talley.

2. The use of unlawful force by John Mullendore must have appeared to Douglas Talley to be ready to take place.

If the defendant was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he has a right to be.

In deciding whether the defendant was justified in the use of non-deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing the defendant need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of non-deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, the defendant must have actually believed that the danger was real.

(Emphasis added.) The jury found Talley guilty of the lesser-included offense of felony battery. The battery (domestic violence) charge was nolle prossed. Talley was sentenced to 68.25 months in prison, and he timely appealed.

On appeal, Talley argues that the standard jury instructions given are fundamentally erroneous because they were misleading and eviscerated Talley's only defense. He points out that there is a comma after the phrase &#8220;including deadly force&#8221; in the standard jury instruction, emphasized above, but not in the statutory section upon which the instruction is based. Section 776.013, Florida Statutes (2012), provides as follows:






As you can see it wasn't that the wording of the judge was wrong, but *how* the judge said it. 
I still say there is no reason for a juror to listen to another person's words when the statute can be found and read for themselves.

This has some useful links on the different instructions for the different charges...
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/zimmerman-trial-the-jury-instructions/


----------



## Forerunner

Let me shed some light on just how far the the people's awareness has deteriorated in re matters of jury rights and court procedure.

"Requiring" the jury to swear an oath to the court and judge, promising to deliver a verdict on his instructions, alone, is jury tampering, plain and simple.

As for the right of jury nullification, a juror has the full right to acquit if he simply doesn't like the tone of the prosecutor's voice.....or what he's wearing that day.

The system was designed, originally, to give the accused every advantage.

....and, as has been mentioned in this thread many times, the rampant ignorance/bias shown here gives little hope to justice.

If the judge, or the prosecutor, are particularly suave, the defendant fries.


----------



## Forerunner

farmrbrown said:


> I still say there is no reason for a juror to listen to another person's words when the statute can be found and read for themselves.


The juror has no obligation to follow the letter of a statute, either.......no matter how well he/she may or may not be able to read or comprehend it.

Jury nullification, if you recall, is the people's last prerogative to judge both the _law_ and the facts of the case, and thus, to "make" law..

In a free nation, that right is prized, and exercised often.

In a nanny state, the majority can't imagine themselves having the wisdom, nor the fortitude, to decide law. Best leave that to the vested interest bureaucrats on the STATE payroll.


----------



## unregistered353870

The jury instructions end with a blatant lie:


> In closing, let me remind you that it is important that you follow the law spelled out in these instructions in deciding your verdict. There are no other laws that apply to this case. Even if you do not like the laws that must be applied, you must use them. For two centuries we have lived by the Constitution and the law. No juror has the right to violate rules we all share.


http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Zimmerman_Final_Jury_Instructions.pdf


----------



## katydidagain

jtbrandt said:


> The jury instructions end with a blatant liehttp://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Zimmerman_Final_Jury_Instructions.pdf


Then it's the same lie told everywhere or was when I served over 30 years ago. 

BTW, I don't know if anyone mentioned it but the jury was working today. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/13/zimmerman-jurors-to-begin-2nd-day-deliberations/ I have no idea what that means; I'm not there. Pundits generally would say they will either acquit or find GZ guilty of manslaughter and that 2nd degree is off the table.


----------



## farmrbrown

Yes it's the same lie.
Look up who John Jay is and what HE said about that lie.
Verdict is in now.
NOT GUILTY!!!


----------



## partndn

Yay!!!!!


----------



## unregistered353870

Impressive.


----------



## po boy

*Justice!*


----------



## arabian knight

BREAKING NEWS: Jury finds George Zimmerman not guilty. Developing.
No link yet

This IS good news.


----------



## kasilofhome

katydidagain said:


> Then it's the same lie told everywhere or was when I served over 30 years ago.
> 
> .


 
And if your told a LIE LONG ENOUGH it becomes the truth for those who do not question. When Everyone forgets the truth the lie will be your reality. Please check into this. Question it study it. Learn and KNOW for yourself. 


Thank God. Now let's deal with the coruption clean house before it is you replacing George in that seat--in that cell. Coruption has no friend.


----------



## dixiegal62

It's not going t be over, state is still giving press conference and STILL calling GZ guilty. Still saying it was racial and T was being profiled


----------



## kasilofhome

dixiegal62 said:


> It's not going t be over, state is still giving press conference and STILL calling GZ guilty. Still saying it was racial and T was being profiled


 
Gotta link--just because I see it does not mean it is not real. I want to hear it. What you are saying is distrubing in that that is inciting.


----------



## dixiegal62

kasilofhome said:


> Gotta link--just because I see it does not mean it is not real. I want to hear it. What you are saying is distrubing in that that is inciting.


No sorry I was watching it live on cnn. He also was calling those accusations fact.


----------



## Karen

dixiegal62 said:


> It's not going t be over, state is still giving press conference and STILL calling GZ guilty. Still saying it was racial and T was being profiled


That's not at all what they said. They are being asked by the audience why they made the decisions they did, the evidence they had, etc. They were just establishing _why_ they felt he was guilty to bring the charges, witnesses and evidence that they did. 

If you notice, many times they said they respect and accept the jury's decision totally and hope and pray everyone else does too.


----------



## partndn

kasilofhome said:


> Gotta link--just because I see it does not mean it is not real. I want to hear it. What you are saying is distrubing in that that is inciting.


It's live right now on Fox News, and probably all the majors. You missed the DA of Florida, I guess. 
The defense is speaking now.


----------



## dixiegal62

Karen said:


> That's not at all what they said. They are being asked by the audience why they made the decisions they did, the evidence they had, etc. They were just establishing _why_ they felt he was guilty to bring the charges, witnesses and evidence that they did.
> 
> If you notice, many times they said they respect and accept the jury's decision totally and hope and pray everyone else does too.


 
Karen, I was watching it, I know exactly what was said. Yes he did say he respected the jury BUT he also said what I posted.


----------



## partndn

dixiegal62 said:


> No sorry I was watching it live on cnn. He also was calling those accusations fact.


Yea, Bernie said that it was a FACT that GZ was following TM. And it was clear what he meant based on the context of the question he was asked. ?? I don't think he was there...

I realize they need to put on a good face and make statements, but that was just silly.


----------



## tarbe

Something I don't understand:

The prosecutors said they respected the jury's finding, but then Angela Corey refers to Martin as a victim of a crime. This was in her statement that I watched live, after the verdict.

I would think she'd refrain from basically saying the jury got it wrong...how will that play on the street?


----------



## dixiegal62

Notice too her statement: Now everyone in the country because of you all covering this case can say that they know the facts that where allowed in front of the jury and now they know and can make up there own minds about the guilt of GZ and know that the jury gave this a lot of time and attention.

The wording just seems off to me. GZ isn't guilty he never was.... during the trial he was innocent until proved guilty and was found not guilty.


----------



## copperkid3

dixiegal62 said:


> It's not going t be over, state is still giving press conference and STILL calling GZ guilty. Still saying it was racial and T was being profiled


* * * * * * * * * * * *
Anyone want to venture a guess on how soon the W.H. stooge weighs in

with his learned opinion; afterall, if he had a son . . . he shouldn't have

jumped a man with a gun and begin smashing his head into the sidewalk . 

l'm firmly convinced, THIS case was going to be one of those "never let a crisis

go to waste" orchestrated to give him the excuse to enact an executive order and

declare martial law. If this one doesn't work out to his satisfaction, be ever watchful

and wait for the next . . . because it will be coming . . . make no doubt about it.


----------



## Forerunner

There is a lot of egg on a lot of face....including many in this thread.

......of course they all "respect the decision of the jury" on one hand, while saving face on the other.


----------



## Nevada

Forerunner said:


> There is a lot of egg on a lot of face....including many in this thread.
> 
> ......of course they all "respect the decision of the jury" on one hand, while saving face on the other.


I can honestly say that I expected a Not Guilty verdict. I was pretty open about that.


----------



## unregistered353870

Karen said:


> If you notice, many times they said they respect and accept the jury's decision totally and hope and pray everyone else does too.


It's kind of ridiculous to say you accept the jury's verdict and then moments later call Martin the victim of a crime. It's official...there was NO crime!


----------



## unregistered353870

tarbe said:


> Something I don't understand:
> 
> The prosecutors said they respected the jury's finding, but then Angela Corey refers to Martin as a victim of a crime. This was in her statement that I watched live, after the verdict.
> 
> I would think she'd refrain from basically saying the jury got it wrong...how will that play on the street?


You beat me to it. I was yelling at the TV during her statement. "WHAT CRIME?!" As far as the legal system is concerned, no crime was committed in this incident. As a prosecutor, she should know that.


----------



## davel745

That jerk Geraldo has been interviewing people and someone asked why the federal grand jury cant do something about this verdict. I cant believe this. it isn't over yet, the spin is on. And as far as the prosecutor her whole office should be brought up on charges, they flat outright lied. Now they are saying poor Travone's family how are they going to deal with the unfairness of the verdict. It isn't over yet they are building another case against Zimmerman. Some black lady said they are going to the governors office, they want the verdict overthrown. This is just crazy.

Don't unload yet.


----------



## davel745

dixiegal62 said:


> Notice too her statement: Now everyone in the country because of you all covering this case can say that they know the facts that where allowed in front of the jury and now they know and can make up there own minds about the guilt of GZ and know that the jury gave this a lot of time and attention.
> 
> The wording just seems off to me. GZ isn't guilty he never was.... during the trial he was innocent until proved guilty and was found not guilty.


GZ will never be innocent. He has been tried and convicted by the press and government. The trial was just window dressing even if it didn't go as expected. They thought he would be convicted on sentiment. The judge gave it to the defense.


----------



## davel745

The ladies of the jury were no nonsense and didn't fall for the prosecutions play for a poor black child thing. I wondered yesterday before the verdict if they were moms then they were really good at seeing a lie. I am so glad that they could.


----------



## mmoetc

jtbrandt said:


> It's kind of ridiculous to say you accept the jury's verdict and then moments later call Martin the victim of a crime. It's official...there was NO crime!


What is official is that the state was not able to prove their case. It doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed. There is a reason that verdicts are guilty or not guilty. Innocence doesn't come into play. I've said all along that based on the information about the incident that was available that Zimmerman would be found not guilty. I still stand by my opinion that there are unanswered holes in his story. It may well be that these answers would sway me to his side. Unfortunately these questions will likely never be answered under oath.


----------



## farmrbrown

dixiegal62 said:


> It's not going t be over, state is still giving press conference and STILL calling GZ guilty. Still saying it was racial and T was being profiled





Karen said:


> That's not at all what they said. They are being asked by the audience why they made the decisions they did, the evidence they had, etc. They were just establishing _why_ they felt he was guilty to bring the charges, witnesses and evidence that they did.
> 
> If you notice, many times they said they respect and accept the jury's decision totally and hope and pray everyone else does too.



Uh huh.
I watched the same statements made over and over again during the trial.
So, if someone blatantly says that Zimmerman killed Martin because of his race in court, and after the verdict, then says that they "respect" the jury's decision........which one is the lie and which statement is the truth?

Hint.
Liars rarely tell the truth.



kasilofhome said:


> Gotta link--just because I see it does not mean it is not real. I want to hear it. What you are saying is distrubing in that that is inciting.



Yes it is. I think that the ones who need to fear the aftermath of all this are the prosecutors, not the people of Sanford.


----------



## painterswife

Well that was some process. Watching a highly volatile trial from beginning to end. I have learned quite a bit and come out the other still believing that GZ was the direct cause of this death but understanding that there was not enough evidence to convict him of any crime. 

I hope the jury is not made public. Their lives have already been impacted way to much and they do not need to face any of the public or have to explain their choice. I would however welcome hearing about their process and decisions if they could remain anonymous.

I had not even thought about civil suits. I find it very possible the Trayvon's family would win a case but I don't believe that is the right thing to do. I have always thought that taking it to civil court after losing in criminal court is wrong.
GZ has already paid for what he did in many ways and punishing him any more will not change anything.

I am appalled at how some people are calling and encouraging riots. I am even more appalled by the people who are reveling in the discord and poking both sides of the divide in some kind of game or sport to cause further problems because people did not agree on the outcome. No one won here. Two family's are harmed for ever. This glee in " I am right and you are wrong" is pathetic.


----------



## TheMartianChick

I deliberately didn't post anything after the verdict last night because I wanted to take the time to think about it.

For those of you who thought that this trial was merely a show that was being put on to appease black people...I now believe you. I was naive enough to think that the prosecution was going after Zimmerman in the pursuit of justice. 

After the verdict, my family was appalled by the press conference. We weren't the only ones. I saw a lot of posts on Facebook that wondered what the purpose of the press conference was. I saw it for EXACTLY what it was. It was a media blackout. 

Remember when Bin Laden would release a new video? The US based news agencies would refuse to air them to ensure that his words didn't stir up potential terrorists. Last night's press conference went on and on and on, with each attorney prattling on about next-to-nothing. While the conference was on, there was only a video of the reaction from the crowd outside of the courthouse. Most of us wanted to know what those people were saying and yet the audio was never aired.

Whether you believe that the State proved its case or not...This case has sparked a movement. Black people are tired of non-diverse juries and disproportionate sentencing.

http://www.theroot.com/views/zimmerman-trial-already-decided?wpisrc=root_lightbox

As I've expressed in other forum topics over the past few years, we are also tired of double standards that require us to train African American boys to just submit to unfair treatment by the police in order to not be delivered in body bags.

There is such a thing as shooter bias. A black man with a wallet in his hand is far more likely to be shot than a white man with an actual gun in his hand.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ulterior-motives/201210/shooter-bias-and-stereotypes


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> Uh huh.
> I watched the same statements made over and over again during the trial.
> So, if someone blatantly says that Zimmerman killed Martin because of his race in court, and after the verdict, then says that they "respect" the jury's decision........which one is the lie and which statement is the truth?
> 
> Hint.
> Liars rarely tell the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is. I think that the ones who need to fear the aftermath of all this are the prosecutors, not the people of Sanford.


Respect and agreement are often two seperate things. I respect the opinions of many here even though I disagree with them.


----------



## tarbe

Any color man sitting on top of me, beating me with his closed fists, hitting my head on concrete and telling me I am going to die, will get shot if at all possible.


----------



## Txsteader

TheMartianChick said:


> This case has sparked a movement. Black people are tired of non-diverse juries and disproportionate sentencing.


What would have been a more diverse (I presume you mean 'fair'?) jury in your opinion?


----------



## Darren

I hope Zimmerman wins his defamation lawsuit against NBC and he goes after the other media that altered facts to portray him as something he wasn't. He'll need the money because the media incited hate will result in someone killing him.

I also hope the entire report from the IT director ends up on the internet. That should at least give some a better picture of what Zimmerman faced that night.


----------



## greg273

Darren said:


> I hope Zimmerman wins his defamation lawsuit against NBC and he goes after the other media that altered facts to portray him as something he wasn't.


 Portraying him as what? Someone who shot and killed someone?


----------



## katydidagain

I don't think the trial was put on to appease anyone. I think TM's family pushed for a full investigation and a trial was the only way to accomplish that. Families do that--the bride who died scuba diving comes to mind--I know there are others. BTW, her husband was found not guilty thus I'm certain some observers felt there was never any case.

A jury comprised of 5 mothers would be most likely to find guilt if they could IMO. A black man might understand being singled out but TM could have been my child--my baby--that would have been in my thoughts throughout the trial and deliberations. 

Women in this country have long been trained to be super vigilant. We can't walk down a dark street; we best not get too tipsy at a bar. If we put ourselves in danger, what happens is our fault. Rape victims are still guilty until proven innocent IMO.


----------



## farmrbrown

greg273 said:


> Portraying him as what? Someone who shot and killed someone?


No, a racist.
But you already know that.
You know, the kind of racist that helps a black homeless man, the kind of racists that helps his black neighbors after they have a break-in.


----------



## TheMartianChick

Txsteader said:


> What would have been a more diverse (I presume you mean 'fair'?) jury in your opinion?


I believe that the jury should have been more reflective of the community of Sanford and/or Seminole County. The demographics are:

*Sanford *

White or Caucasian 57.3% 
Black or African-American	30.5% 
Hispanic or Latino 20.2% 


*Seminole Cty
*
White or Caucasian 78.2%	
Black or African-American	11.1%	
Hispanic or Latino 17.1%


The first issue is a 6 person jury for everything except death penalty cases. Most cases are NOT death penalty eligible, so the odds of getting a diverse panel is severely reduced when you have so few jurors. A 12 person jury allows for a wider cross-section of the community. Per the link that I provided a few posts back, justice is more evenly applied with a diverse jury and conviction disparities are brought back into line.

Secondly, the lack of male jurors on this jury is astonishing. 50% of the population of Sanford/Seminole County is comprised of males. The victim and the defendant were both males and yet no male (minority or otherwise) was there to weigh in on the situation.

We all bring our own set of biases and experiences to the table. When we are making difficult decisions (both in and outside) of the courtroom, we need all of those different perspectives in order to provide the whole picture. That is something that was sorely missing from this trial.


----------



## TheMartianChick

farmrbrown said:


> No, a racist.
> But you already know that.
> You know, the kind of racist that helps a black homeless man, the kind of racists that helps his black neighbors after they have a break-in.


People can be racists or biased and still support exceptions. Where I was raised, our family was known as the colored family on the hill and I was frequently told (by whites), 'You're black , but you're different.'

I'm no more different from other black people, than I am from other white people. I am a unique individual, but we are all unique individuals.


----------



## farmrbrown

TheMartianChick said:


> I believe that the jury should have been more reflective of the community of Sanford and/or Seminole County. The demographics are:
> 
> *Sanford *
> 
> White or Caucasian 57.3%
> Black or African-American	30.5%
> Hispanic or Latino 20.2%
> 
> 
> *Seminole Cty
> *
> White or Caucasian 78.2%
> Black or African-American	11.1%
> Hispanic or Latino 17.1%
> 
> 
> The first issue is a 6 person jury for everything except death penalty cases. Most cases are NOT death penalty eligible, so the odds of getting a diverse panel is severely reduced when you have so few jurors. A 12 person jury allows for a wider cross-section of the community. Per the link that I provided a few posts back, justice is more evenly applied with a diverse jury and conviction disparities are brought back into line.
> 
> Secondly, the lack of male jurors on this jury is astonishing. 50% of the population of Sanford/Seminole County is comprised of males. The victim and the defendant were both males and yet no male (minority or otherwise) was there to weigh in on the situation.
> 
> We all bring our own set of biases and experiences to the table. When we are making difficult decisions (both in and outside) of the courtroom, we need all of those different perspectives in order to provide the whole picture. That is something that was sorely missing from this trial.



You might want to recheck your stats.
The "Seminole City" stats are actually Sanford's.
And note that when you look up seminole "county" you will also get redirected to seminole "city" sometimes.
Seminole city is Waaay south of Sanford, down by the Glades.

Ask me how I know all this......


----------



## unregistered168043

Darren said:


> I hope Zimmerman wins his defamation lawsuit against NBC and he goes after the other media that altered facts to portray him as something he wasn't. He'll need the money because the media incited hate will result in someone killing him.
> 
> I also hope the entire report from the IT director ends up on the internet. That should at least give some a better picture of what Zimmerman faced that night.



He'll write a book, give interviews and end up as a millionaire. I'm not worried about Zimmerman now that justice has been served. He will go on to prosper. :clap:


----------



## TheMartianChick

The original statistics that I posted were based upon a search for Seminole County and Sanford Florida.

While I admit that I got my statistics from Wikipedia, I just went to the Census website and found that the city and county have similar demographics:

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12/12117.html

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12/1263650.html


----------



## farmrbrown

TheMartianChick said:


> The original statistics that I posted were based upon a search for Seminole County and Sanford Florida.
> 
> While I admit that I got my statistics from Wikipedia, I just went to the Census website and found that the city and county have similar demographics:
> 
> http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12/12117.html
> 
> http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12/1263650.html


Yes I know, I did the same search 3 days ago.
I recognized something was wrong with the numbers and and realized that I was looking at Seminole "City" when I actually typed Seminole "county".

Remember that Wiki is posted by amateurs and not verified.
I was born and raised down there, that's how I know what is and what isn't true.



Look at these one more time, and tell me the math error......



Sanford 

White or Caucasian 57.3%	
Black or African-American	30.5% 
Hispanic or Latino 20.2%




57.3 + 30.5 + 20.2 = ?



This same point was made over and over again this morning on here and in the media.
They seem to be confused about who was in the defendant's chair during the trial........


----------



## TheMartianChick

Darntootin said:


> He'll write a book, give interviews and end up as a millionaire. I'm not worried about Zimmerman now that justice has been served. He will go on to prosper. :clap:


I actually disagree. I believe that (as in the OJ case) he will eventually do something else which will reveal what I believe to be his true character. As I posted several days ago...Zimmerman's brother, Robert proved himself to be a racist through his Twitter activity.

While I believe strongly in the existence of God, I also believe that there is something akin to Kharma which will keep him from prospering from the needless death of a child.


----------



## TheMartianChick

farmrbrown said:


> Yes I know, I did the same search 3 days ago.
> I recognized something was wrong with the numbers and and realized that I was looking at Seminole "City" when I actually typed Seminole "county".
> 
> Remember that Wiki is posted by amateurs and not verified.
> I was born and raised down there, that's how I know what is and what isn't true.


Even based upon the 2010 census data that I just posted, the jury was in no way representative of the people who live in that area.


----------



## Darren

greg273 said:


> Portraying him as what? Someone who shot and killed someone?


Greg, the media altered and interpreted the tape to show Zimmerman as racist. It's the basis for the defamation suit against NBC. That was Crump's intended result with the media release. He needed to portray Zimmerman as a racist to further his plan. Another media source seems to have photoshopped Zimmerman's picture because he wasn't white enough. 

All of the media except Reuters who finally realized they had been scammed, have been emphasizing the race angle.

You and all of the general public have been played.


----------



## farmrbrown

TheMartianChick said:


> Even based upon the 2010 census data that I just posted, the jury was in no way representative of the people who live in that area.


No, but it was close.
Do the math equation I posted.
57.3 + 30.5 + 20.2 = ?

Now add in the REST of the population and see how far over 100% it goes. Bottom line that link isn't true.

Asian alone, percent, 2010 (a)	2.8%	
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, percent, 2010 (a)	0.1%	
Two or More Races, percent, 2010	3.3%

And yes, a jury will NEVER be the same as the population, any where in the entire country.
Wanna know why?
Where does the jury pool come from?

Truth is, you don't get your cake and eat it too.
Not now, not ever.


----------



## TheMartianChick

I just heard a guest on the Melissa Harris Perry Show that said something along the lines of, There are legally acceptable verdicts that are not morally acceptable. 

The Dred Scott decision is a good example of this. The law stated that slaves were property and the SCOTUS supported that traveling through a free state with one's master did not convert a slave to freed status. Of course, that decision was not a moral one.


----------



## TheMartianChick

farmrbrown said:


> No, but it was close.
> Do the math equation I posted.
> 
> And yes a jury will NEVER be the same as the population, any where in the entire country.
> Wanna know why?
> Where does the jury pool come from?
> 
> Truth is, you don't get your cake and eat it too.
> Not now, not ever.


The jury is supposed to be pulled from the community. It should be a jury of your peers. How was this jury close? It was comprised of 6 women, one of which was Hispanic and no men? Unless Zimmerman was secretly female, this was not even close to being representative of the community.


----------



## unregistered168043

TheMartianChick said:


> I actually disagree. I believe that (as in the OJ case) he will eventually do something else which will reveal what I believe to be his true character. As I posted several days ago...Zimmerman's brother, Robert proved himself to be a racist through his Twitter activity.
> 
> While I believe strongly in the existence of God, I also believe that there is something akin to Kharma which will keep him from prospering from the needless death of a child.



The only way Trayvon's death could be considered "needless" is if you assign 0 value to the life of the man he was trying to kill.

If you value all human life ( regardless of color), then Trayvon's death was very needful, especially by Zimmerman if he wanted to continue to breath. 

I'm just glad that the black on white racism that was promoted by the media was not permitted to influence the jury. Justice was done, Trayvon was committing a violent crime and answered for it.


----------



## arabian knight

Darren said:


> Greg, the media altered and interpreted the tape to show Zimmerman as racist. It's the basis for the defamation suit against NBC. That was Crump's intended result with the media release. He needed to portray Zimmerman as a racist to further his plan. Another media source seems to have photoshopped Zimmerman's picture because he wasn't white enough.
> 
> All of the media except Reuters who finally realized they had been scammed, have been emphasizing the race angle.
> 
> You and all of the general public have been played.


So true and I hope he wins BIG. This kind of stuff by the media has got to stop.


----------



## painterswife

I never thought about Zimmerman writing a book and profiting. I would then have to support Trayvon's family suing in civil court. I understand that GZ has gone through a lot but he caused the death of someone because he made bad decisions. He should not make money from it.


----------



## farmrbrown

TheMartianChick said:


> The jury is supposed to be pulled from the community. It should be a jury of your peers. How was this jury close? It was comprised of 6 women, one of which was Hispanic and no men? Unless Zimmerman was secretly female, this was not even close to being representative of the community.



OK, if you don't know, I'll understand.
If you already know this, I'll put you in the same category as greg 273 and Nevada.
The jury pool does NOT come "from the community"......anywhere in the U.S.A.
They get the names, send the postcard to appear, from the same place, every time........the voter registration pool.

If you need a math tutorial on percentages and how "close" close is, I'll be willing to do it via pm, but it's a lot of typing on a forum.

I'll start with this though.
5/6 = 83.3% Sanford is 78% white.
1/6 = 16.6 % and Sanford is 11% black and 11% hispanic.(some stats say 17 or 18%) We don't know exactly what the specific race of the one juror was from Chicago with 7 kids.
I also noticed that the white and white/hispanic numbers tend to skew the results over 100% on those census links. That's why the white/hispanic numbers could be off depending on how they are recorded.
It really is a moot point.
There isn't a court in this country that guarantees an exact racial/gender/economic makeup of a jury. That's the mark of desperation.


----------



## SteveD(TX)

TheMartianChick said:


> The jury is supposed to be pulled from the community. It should be a jury of your peers. How was this jury close? It was comprised of 6 women, one of which was Hispanic and no men? Unless Zimmerman was secretly female, this was not even close to being representative of the community.


Why do you think the definition of "peers" means the same race and the same sex?

The attorneys for each side essentially pick the jurors during the selection process by a process of elimination and compromise.


----------



## TheMartianChick

Darntootin said:


> The only way Trayvon's death could be considered "needless" is if you assign 0 value to the life of the man he was trying to kill.
> 
> If you value all human life ( regardless of color), then Trayvon's death was very needful, especially by Zimmerman if he wanted to continue to breath.
> 
> I'm just glad that the black on white racism that was promoted by the media was not permitted to influence the jury. Justice was done, Trayvon was committing a violent crime and answered for it.



Your statement might be true if every word out of Zimmerman's mouth was true. If only there was a time machine to go back to find out Trayvon's version of the story.


----------



## mmoetc

TheMartianChick said:


> Your statement might be true if every word out of Zimmerman's mouth was true. If only there was a time machine to go back to find out Trayvon's version of the story.


This is one of the problems I had with the trial. Zimmerman was essentially allowed to testify through his statements and the video reenactment without the prosecution being allowed to cross examine him.


----------



## TheMartianChick

farmrbrown said:


> OK, if you don't know, I'll understand.
> If you already know this, I'll put you in the same category as greg 273 and Nevada.
> The jury pool does NOT come "from the community"......anywhere in the U.S.A.
> They get the names, send the postcard to appear, from the same place, every time........the voter registration pool.
> 
> If you need a math tutorial on percentages and how "close" close is, I'll be willing to do it via pm, but it's a lot of typing on a forum.


I do know that potential jurors are identified via voter registration. However, when you consider the disparate sentencing that occurs in cases, many black people are not allowed to vote and are automatically ineligible to be on juries due to felony convictions.

While I might agree that a criminal might not make the best juror, I do think that a white man convicted of possession of cocaine (as a misdemeanor) and a black man convicted of the same amount of crack (as a felony) to be equal.

While George Zimmerman struck an undercover officer and was sentenced to anger management, a black man would have received a beat down on the way to jail and then received time in a jail.


----------



## farmrbrown

All righty then.
You posed the question about jury pools, seeming to not understand why, while already knowing what the true answer was.
Got it now.


----------



## Darren

mmoetc said:


> This is one of the problems I had with the trial. Zimmerman was essentially allowed to testify through his statements and the video reenactment without the prosecution being allowed to cross examine him.


Granted the prosecution didn't get to cross examine Zimmerman but the police sure did. IIRC correctly the first time was either 3 or 5 hours of challenge interviewing. My guess is the police are far better at that sort of thing and get much more practice than a prosecutor.


----------



## TheMartianChick

SteveD(TX) said:


> Why do you think the definition of "peers" means the same race and the same sex?
> 
> The attorneys for each side essentially pick the jurors during the selection process by a process of elimination and compromise.


I do understand the jury selection process, as well. With a body of only 6 jurors, there is less room for elimination and compromise.

I don't believe that it means that all of the members of the jury should be of the same race and sex as the defendant and/or the victim. I believe that it should be representative of the community. 

If you were charged with a crime, would you want the jury to all be of one ethnic background and not representative of your own? Would you wonder if they were capable of putting aside their own prejudices and be able to judge the situation appropriately? 

We all carry prejudices and bias. When there is diversity around the table, it helps to blunt the impact of any one set of experiences and point of view.


----------



## TheMartianChick

farmrbrown said:


> All righty then.
> You posed the question about jury pools, seeming to not understand why, while already knowing what the true answer was.
> Got it now.


Your interpretation was that I didn't understand the source of jurors. My questions were rhetorical...You chose to answer them.


----------



## TheMartianChick

I spotted this going around Facebook today and I think that it sums things up rather nicely from the perspective of the black community:

Dear George Zimmerman,

For the rest of your life you are now going to feel what its like to be a black man in America.

You will feel people stare at you. Judging you for what you think are unfair reasons. You will lose out on getting jobs for something you feel is outside of your control. You will believe yourself to be an upstanding citizen and wonder why people choose to not see that. 

People will cross the street when they see you coming. They will call you hurtful names. It will drive you so insane some days that you'll want to scream at the top of your lungs. But you will have to wake up the next day, put on firm look and push through life.

I bet you never thought that by shooting a black male you'd end up inheriting all of his struggles.

Enjoy your "freedom."

Sincerely,

A black male who could have been Trayvon Martin


----------



## farmrbrown

Here's one from a Florida Cracker.

Dear Trayvon fans.
Next time you want to beat on a white man because you just don't like the way he "looks" at you.
Think twice.

Z


----------



## farmrbrown

TheMartianChick said:


> Your interpretation was that I didn't understand the source of jurors. My questions were rhetorical...You chose to answer them.



Yeah, I'm funny that way.
Until someone shows their true colors, I treat them the way I would want to be treated.:shrug:


----------



## kasilofhome

I do not agree TM did make life choices which brought him to a rainy dark night with a man who also made life choices.

No person is without fault in life but each day is a new day and a choices are to be made.

Gz made mistakes and he will make mistakes. You and I too will do that--it is human.

This is should NEVER have been about race. Playing that card was to invole people in it and to create a mob. Minorities have been trained by certain public figures that bad thing happen to black because they are black. There will never be a person that is loved and adored by all and we will all face being offended. In blaming ever offence that one deals with and marking it up to something you can not controll----your phyical looks based on you genes you do not have to look any further at your role in the offence. It is nice to blame others and have little or no fault in an event. But that is unreal seldem is that the truth.

Even though TM was black in looks-- he was into drugs, stealing and gang group behavior. Underage to buy a guy is legal. His life was short it is sad because he made a life ending choice to jump and pumle GZ.

Even though Gz is of hispanic and to me middle eastern (remember looks are pheno not geno type--it is what my eyes and stored infor from past info-that I personal have had) he did strick strick another person before. He also (note he had about ten more years than TM and mature more that TM) sought out ways to improve his life, he tried to get in shape, he followed the laws in getting the gun he had helped people and did not refuse help to black looking people.

Look the people who support TM because he was black are the racist just as the people who supported GZ because he wasn't black--the Media and high ranking social political people are using both of those groups of people. 

Do better for yourself stop viewing yourself as a skin color ---


----------



## davel745

painterswife said:


> I never thought about Zimmerman writing a book and profiting. I would then have to support Trayvon's family suing in civil court. I understand that GZ has gone through a lot but he caused the death of someone because he made bad decisions. He should not make money from it.


All your babble before about how you were trying to see it from the jury's standpoint and to not insult you for trying to see the facts was a crock.


----------



## mmoetc

Darren said:


> Granted the prosecution didn't get to cross examine Zimmerman but the police sure did. IIRC correctly the first time was either 3 or 5 hours of challenge interviewing. My guess is the police are far better at that sort of thing and get much more practice than a prosecutor.


At the same time, there is no penalty for lying to the police. In fact, it may serve one's best interests to do so. There seemed to be little challenge by the police during the video walk through. I'm not advocating that anyone be required to testify against them self, but this did help Zimmerman.


----------



## unregistered168043

painterswife said:


> I never thought about Zimmerman writing a book and profiting. I would then have to support Trayvon's family suing in civil court. I understand that GZ has gone through a lot but he caused the death of someone because he made bad decisions. He should not make money from it.



Trayvon caused his own death. Zimmerman had a right to defend himself against Trayvon's attempted homicide.

Zimmerman did nothing wrong and he should be compensated for the trauma that Trayvon's actions caused him. He will write a book and prosper, it usually happens that way. Personally, I will buy one of the first copies.


----------



## Darren

I'll always wonder how much Trayvon''s father's actions predestined the kid's life including the father's gang membership. No one has the whole story yet but it's there just out of reach. I'm hoping the upcoming legal action brings out more of the story.

At least it's now known that the Crump gravy train has been derailed. There will be no civil suit under Florida law. Whether the justice department risks throwing more fuel on fire and offending Hispanics by filing civil rights charges remains to be seen.

The incident and the bizarre and improper actions by representatives of the State of Florida ensure there's more to come.


----------



## kasilofhome

George was on the path of improvement 

What path was TM on.

Their paths crossed and instead of a dead George it was a dead TM.


----------



## painterswife

Darntootin said:


> Trayvon caused his own death. Zimmerman had a right to defend himself against Trayvon's attempted homicide.
> 
> Zimmerman did nothing wrong and he should be compensated for the trauma that Trayvon's actions caused him.


I do not agree. Zimmerman made assumptions that caused Trayvon's death. The trial proved it. I have no doubt about that. The trial found GC not guilty of murder and manslaughter. That by no means finds GC not guilty of causing a death.


----------



## mmoetc

Darntootin said:


> Trayvon caused his own death. Zimmerman had a right to defend himself against Trayvon's attempted homicide.
> 
> Zimmerman did nothing wrong and he should be compensated for the trauma that Trayvon's actions caused him. He will write a book and prosper, it usually happens that way. Personally, I will buy one of the first copies.


He'll be we'll compensated as soon as all the book, movie and interview rights are negotiated. Of course he'll have to share a good portion of those proceeds with his legal staff who are probably writing their own memoirs as we speak.


----------



## painterswife

davel745 said:


> All your babble before about how you were trying to see it from the jury's standpoint and to not insult you for trying to see the facts was a crock.


Calling my opinions babble is crossing the line and the rules of this forum.


----------



## arabian knight

Darntootin said:


> Trayvon caused his own death. Zimmerman had a right to defend himself against Trayvon's attempted homicide.
> 
> Zimmerman did nothing wrong and he should be compensated for the trauma that Trayvon's actions caused him. He will write a book and prosper, it usually happens that way. Personally, I will buy one of the first copies.


Agree, and I hope he does write a book and gets rich. The best thing to happen and put put this part of his life behind and move on. But a book deal would be cool.


----------



## unregistered168043

TheMartianChick said:


> Your statement might be true if every word out of Zimmerman's mouth was true. If only there was a time machine to go back to find out Trayvon's version of the story.


Well we don't have a time machine. All we have is the evidence that is left, all of which corroborate's Zimmermans account.

Aren't you just making up your own version of events when you call TM's death "needless" and call GZ a racist?


----------



## farmrbrown

Hmmmmmm.......the verdict doesn't go the "right" way.....so we want to change the rules.
Forum doesn't go the "right" way.......so we want to change the rules.
Just my opinion of course, lol.


----------



## Lazaryss

TheMartianChick said:


> Even based upon the 2010 census data that I just posted, the jury was in no way representative of the people who live in that area.


Funny... I always thought the jury was supposed to be of his peers, not a representation of people that live in the area. I suppose I could be wrong though.


----------



## Darren

painterswife said:


> I do not agree. Zimmerman made assumptions that caused Trayvon's death. The trial proved it. I have no doubt about that. The trial found GC not guilty of murder and manslaughter. That by no means finds GC not guilty of causing a death.


That's not a surprise. Zimmerman told the first cop on the scene, he'd killed Martin. Now that the verdict's in, Martin's death is classified as an justified killing. Note I said justified not accidental.

Zimmerman never said, to his credit, it was an accident. He owned up to it. That was my first clue that it may have been self-defense. Guilty people often come up with all kinds of excuses. In this case Zimmerman did not claim the dog ate his homework.


----------



## TheMartianChick

kasilofhome said:


> Do better for yourself stop viewing yourself as a skin color ---


I've never seen myself as a skin color. However, there are people who do only see my color. As I've said before, I considered myself to be unfit to serve on the Zimmerman jury because of my feelings as a mom. 

This case has broader implications. While Stand Your Ground wasn't something that was pursued in this case, this case made it clear that it would be so easy in Florida (and other SYG states)to set up a situation where you kill someone and then blame them for starting the altercation. It would be easy for this to play out in a domestic dispute, too. I can see opportunities for one spouse to rid themselves of another with an inexpensive bullet, rather than a costly divorce.

Have you checked out the Stand Your Ground and self-defense cases and how the law is being applied? The cases are appalling and frightening. 

Do you realize that George Zimmerman or someone like him could go out tonight, follow and shoot a kid of any color and then say that he feared for his life? Depending on the color of that person, he may not be prosecuted in the same way. If you don't believe that, then check out these cases from Florida:

http://www.tampabay.com/news/public...s-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133

While I know that black males are not treated or valued in our society, I never failed to see that this could have easily have been a kid of any ethnicity. Any 17 year old could have gone out to the 7-11 at 7pm. 

While the black community has been complaining for years that police officers were hassling their children and young black men. This case seems to imply that it is now somehow alright for average citizens to do the same to them. If this were directed at your children, brothers, uncles, etc...you would find it completely unacceptable.


----------



## unregistered168043

painterswife said:


> I do not agree. Zimmerman made assumptions that caused Trayvon's death. The trial proved it. I have no doubt about that. The trial found GC not guilty of murder and manslaughter. That by no means finds GC not guilty of causing a death.


Yes he caused Trayvon's death by shooting him, while Trayvon was beating him to death.

Most people believe that an individual has a right to defend his life while others believe that all violence is wrong and that GZ should have just let TM kill him rather than retaliate. I think that is where our disagreement stems from. Luckily, the laws, and jury thought differently.


----------



## Lazaryss

painterswife said:


> Calling my opinions babble is crossing the line and the rules of this forum.


Then report it.


----------



## kasilofhome

painterswife said:


> I do not agree.* Zimmerman made assumptions that caused Trayvon's death. *The trial proved it. I have no doubt about that. The trial found GC not guilty of murder and manslaughter. That by no means finds GC not guilty of causing a death.


 
TZ proved that George was validated in picking up on TZ being a person of interest for a Neighborhood watch ---what if it was not George but you that night. I am sorry any of this happen but it was not a race issue--the media made it one--they doctored the news we got --it was filtered to created a race divied. We ALL must rise above. Demand correct NEWS not distorted news.


----------



## Darren

Lazaryss said:


> Funny... I always thought the jury was supposed to be of his peers, not a representation of people that live in the area. I suppose I could be wrong though.


There was a Black/Hispanic juror. Since Zimmerman was a Hispanic/Black/White,. I guess one of the jurors could relate to his heritage. I was worried about the absence of men and the fact that all were mothers. Even with that, they saw through the prosecution's histrionics. For once emotion was left out despite the prosecution's appeal.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> TZ proved that George was validated in picking up on TZ being a person of interest for a Neighborhood watch ---what if it was not George but you that night. I am sorry any of this happen but it was not a race issue--the media made it one--they doctored the news we got --it was filtered to created a race divied. We ALL must rise above. Demand correct NEWS not distorted news.


I never believed it was a race issue. I have always believed it was that act of one man making assumptions that someone was up to no good and making bad decisions when trying to prove it. I just did not know if it rose to the level of a criminal act on GZ part.


----------



## Lazaryss

painterswife said:


> I never believed it was a race issue. I have always believed it was that act of one man making assumptions that someone was up to no good and making bad decisions when trying to prove it. I just did not know where it rose to the level of a criminal act on GZ part.


The simplest answer is it did not.


----------



## kasilofhome

MC ---I do respect you but you do mention your race in post. Now, is it needed each time. \


----------



## painterswife

Lazaryss said:


> Then report it.


I prefer to be upfront and tell people when I believe they are not abiding by the rules.


----------



## kasilofhome

Gz was proven in court not to have commited a crimminal act.


----------



## Darren

TheMartianChick said:


> I've never seen myself as a skin color. However, there are people who do only see my color. As I've said before, I considered myself to be unfit to serve on the Zimmerman jury because of my feelings as a mom.
> 
> This case has broader implications. While Stand Your Ground wasn't something that was pursued in this case, this case made it clear that it would be so easy in Florida (and other SYG states)to set up a situation where you kill someone and then blame them for starting the altercation. It would be easy for this to play out in a domestic dispute, too. I can see opportunities for one spouse to rid themselves of another with an inexpensive bullet, rather than a costly divorce.
> 
> Have you checked out the Stand Your Ground and self-defense cases and how the law is being applied? The cases are appalling and frightening.
> 
> Do you realize that George Zimmerman or someone like him could go out tonight, follow and shoot a kid of any color and then say that he feared for his life? Depending on the color of that person, he may not be prosecuted in the same way. If you don't believe that, then check out these cases from Florida:
> 
> http://www.tampabay.com/news/public...s-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133
> 
> While I know that black males are not treated or valued in our society, I never failed to see that this could have easily have been a kid of any ethnicity. Any 17 year old could have gone out to the 7-11 at 7pm.
> 
> While the black community has been complaining for years that police officers were hassling their children and young black men. This case seems to imply that it is now somehow alright for average citizens to do the same to them. If this were directed at your children, brothers, uncles, etc...you would find it completely unacceptable.


\

As a white male, I don't see that implication. What I did hear loud and clear is that self defense is still legal. You may go though hell later, but when your choice is death or severe injury, you still have the right to defend yourself against an attacker.

That's important in a society increasingly immersed in violence. People need to be comfortable in their right to defend themselves and their families. 

I've often wondered about big cities with a predominant Black population that restrict legal firearms ownership. Essentially they are preventing Black families from defending themselves and their property from the criminal element.


----------



## CesumPec

painterswife said:


> I do not agree. Zimmerman made assumptions that caused Trayvon's death. The trial proved it. I have no doubt about that. The trial found GC not guilty of murder and manslaughter. That by no means finds GC not guilty of causing a death.


I'm still in the camp that says we do not know exactly what happened, so I did not think GZ should be convicted - there was reasonable doubt. You say GZ "caused Trayvon's death." 

Does a cop who shoots a hostage taker "cause" the death or did the hostage taker cause his own death? 

If TM circled back and attacked GZ, regardless of GZ being a racist, creepy cracker, jerk, cop-wannbee, or what ever else he may or may not be, then TM caused his own death.


----------



## painterswife

Lazaryss said:


> The simplest answer is it did not.


Now that I have seen the whole trial, the laws and the rules for what is and is not criminal in regards to what is charged, I agree.


----------



## painterswife

CesumPec said:


> I'm still in the camp that says we do not know exactly what happened, so I did not think GZ should be convicted - there was reasonable doubt. You say GZ "caused Trayvon's death."
> 
> Does a cop who shoots a hostage taker "cause" the death or did the hostage taker cause his own death?
> 
> If TM circled back and attacked GZ, regardless of GZ being a racist, creepy cracker, jerk, cop-wannbee, or what ever else he may or may not be, then TM caused his own death.


Those what if's are just that what if's. We don't know what happened and it was not proven that GZ was telling the truth or that he was not.


----------



## TheMartianChick

Darren said:


> I'll always wonder how much Trayvon''s father's actions predestined the kid's life including the father's gang membership. No one has the whole story yet but it's there just out of reach. I'm hoping the upcoming legal action brings out more of the story.
> 
> At least it's now known that the Crump gravy train has been derailed. There will be no civil suit under Florida law. Whether the justice department risks throwing more fuel on fire and offending Hispanics by filing civil rights charges remains to be seen.
> 
> The incident and the bizarre and improper actions by representatives of the State of Florida ensure there's more to come.


The so-called gang photo with everyone wearing red shirts is nothing more than Tracy Martin's Masonic Temple group posing for a photo. The shirt logo is that of the Masons. I don't know a lot about the Masons as a whole, but Black Masonic groups often flash specific hand signals that mean something to them. They are not gang signs as the circulating stories alleged.

Their Masonic Lodge name is clearly printed on some of the photos. It is the King Vincent Lodge 477 in Fort Lauderdale.


----------



## TheMartianChick

farmrbrown said:


> Hmmmmmm.......the verdict doesn't go the "right" way.....so we want to change the rules.
> Forum doesn't go the "right" way.......so we want to change the rules.
> Just my opinion of course, lol.


This is about far more than THIS verdict. The statistics show that this is something far more pervasive than just one case. It is systemic.


----------



## Lazaryss

painterswife said:


> Those what if's are just that what if's. We don't know what happened and it was not proven that GZ was telling the truth or that he was not.


Well considering your view from the jury's point of view, you must come to the conclusion that this did not matter as Zimmerman is not guilty.


----------



## Lazaryss

TheMartianChick said:


> This is about far more than THIS verdict. The statistics show that this is something far more pervasive than just one case. It is systemic.


Well thank God because THIS verdict was just.


----------



## TheMartianChick

painterswife said:


> I never believed it was a race issue. I have always believed it was that act of one man making assumptions that someone was up to no good and making bad decisions when trying to prove it. I just did not know if it rose to the level of a criminal act on GZ part.


But why did Zimmerman decide that Trayvon was up to no good?


----------



## CesumPec

kasilofhome said:


> Gz was proven in court not to have commited a crimminal act.


Exactly. If GZ "caused" TM''s death, GZ would be guilty of SOMETHING. The prosecutor had all sorts of choices like negligent homicide if GZ had committed stupid, reckless, and/or careless acts that resulted in death. I don't know the law well enough to say what all those choices are, but as much time and effort as the prosecution put into this case, you've got to believe they would have tried every avenue possible.


----------



## unregistered168043

painterswife said:


> Those what if's are just that what if's. We don't know what happened and it was not proven that GZ was telling the truth or that he was not.



Therefore he was acquitted. You can't condemn a man without knowing what happened.


----------



## greg273

Darren said:


> Guilty people often come up with all kinds of excuses.


 Like 'He went for my gun'. And 'I was just walking back to my truck'.


----------



## Lazaryss

greg273 said:


> Like 'He went for my gun'. And 'I was just walking back to my truck'.


Those sound like the words of the not guilty in my opinion.


----------



## painterswife

Lazaryss said:


> Well considering your view from the jury's point of view, you must come to the conclusion that this did not matter as Zimmerman is not guilty.


Not mattering and not rising to the level of a criminal act are not the same thing and not within the scope of the jury verdict.


----------



## unregistered168043

TheMartianChick said:


> But why did Zimmerman decide that Trayvon was up to no good?


It doesn't matter. You can suspect someone of something for any reason you want. I can call the police if I see someone that I don't like the looks of, for any reason. That does not justify Trayvon's attempt to kill GZ. This may be a surprise to some of you, but it is against the law to assault someone even if they are being unfair to you.


----------



## CesumPec

painterswife said:


> Those what if's are just that what if's. We don't know what happened and it was not proven that GZ was telling the truth or that he was not.


I know that, that is why I used the word, "if", that's why I said i was still in the camp of we don't know. 

You are the one that used the phrase that GZ "caused" TM's death, as if you know exactly what happened. Now you say we don't know what happened. Which is it, do we know or do we not know what happened? You're entitled to your opinion, I just wish it consistent from post to post.


----------



## katydidagain

TheMartianChick said:


> But why did Zimmerman decide that Trayvon was up to no good?


IMO he took his "job" too seriously and that any sole young man he didn't recognize walking around in "his turf" would have been targeted. If TM had been with friends, GZ would have known he was outnumbered and left. Safety in numbers I guess.


----------



## Lazaryss

painterswife said:


> Not mattering and not rising to the level of a criminal act are not the same thing and not within the scope of the jury verdict.


So in essence, it was not criminal so it did not matter.


----------



## TheMartianChick

Lazaryss said:


> Well thank God because THIS verdict was just.


That is your opinion and though I don't agree with it, you are entitled to it. While it seemed that all of America was watching this case, discussing the case and ultimately taking a side, I have a vested interest and serious concerns.

While we live in New York, we have a lot of family members in Florida. Since 2006 or so, we've been Florida property owners and Marion County taxpayers. We are seriously considering our options.


----------



## Tiempo

> Originally Posted by *kasilofhome*
> _Gz was proven in court not to have commited a crimminal act._


So were OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony.


----------



## farmrbrown

painterswife said:


> I never believed it was a race issue. I have always believed it was that act of one man making assumptions that someone was up to no good and making bad decisions when trying to prove it.
> 
> 
> *I just did not know if it rose to the level of a criminal act on GZ part.*


Well, now you know.......


----------



## TheMartianChick

CesumPec said:


> Exactly. If GZ "caused" TM''s death, GZ would be guilty of SOMETHING. The prosecutor had all sorts of choices like negligent homicide if GZ had committed stupid, reckless, and/or careless acts that resulted in death. I don't know the law well enough to say what all those choices are, but as much time and effort as the prosecution put into this case, you've got to believe they would have tried every avenue possible.


As I stated earlier, I now believe that the prosecution was a sham that was designed to quiet the firestorm... They never planned to win the case, just make it look as though they gave it a shot.


----------



## farmrbrown

Tiempo said:


> So were OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony.



Again, let's tell the whole story, when we tell it.
Casey Anthony actually did plead guilty to crime in court.
And O.J. ......well, you can google where he is right now too......


----------



## farmrbrown

TheMartianChick said:


> As I stated earlier, I now believe that the prosecution was a sham that was designed to quiet the firestorm... They never planned to win the case, just make it look as though they gave it a shot.


Wow.
I wouldn't try making wine with those sour grapes.....


----------



## CesumPec

TheMartianChick said:


> But why did Zimmerman decide that Trayvon was up to no good?


Why does it matter? If GZ thought TM was up to no good for all the worst reasons, that is still not a crime. It might make GZ a VERY bad man deserving to be shunned, worhty of being thrown out of your house and mine, but that doesn't take away his right to self defense.


----------



## painterswife

Lazaryss said:


> So in essence, it was not criminal so it did not matter.


That is what you get from my post?


----------



## Lazaryss

TheMartianChick said:


> While it seemed that all of America was watching this case, discussing the case and ultimately taking a side, I have a vested interest and serious concerns.


As do all of us gun owners that believe in a right to self defense when attacked.


----------



## TheMartianChick

farmrbrown said:


> Wow.
> I wouldn't try making wine with those sour grapes.....


Come on! Would you have put that medical examiner on the stand? Seriously?


----------



## katydidagain

TheMartianChick said:


> As I stated earlier, I now believe that the prosecution was a sham that was designed to quiet the firestorm... They never planned to win the case, just make it look as though they gave it a shot.


I disagree. They put their best lawyers on the case. They were emotionally involved; their remarks after the verdict demonstrated their disappointment. I don't think they thought they could win--not given FL laws--but they were not just going through motions.


----------



## TheMartianChick

Lazaryss said:


> As do all of us gun owners that believe in a right to self defense when attacked.


We are also responsible gun owners. This isn't about guns and I'm not in favor of getting them banned. My dad used to run a NY State Armory, so I'm about as far from being anti-gun as you can get.


----------



## TheMartianChick

katydidagain said:


> I disagree. They put their best lawyers on the case. They were emotionally involved; their remarks after the verdict demonstrated their disappointment. I don't think they thought they could win--not given FL laws--but they were not just going through motions.


I didn't get that sense at all from their comments after the verdict.


----------



## Tiempo

> As do all of us gun owners that believe in a right to self defense when attacked.


Not all of us in that category came to the same conclusions about this case.


----------



## Lazaryss

painterswife said:


> That is what you get from my post?


Let's go at your post from a different angle then. They jury found Zimmerman not guilty. It would stand to reason that the jury felt that Zimmerman was telling the truth, would it not?


----------



## Lazaryss

Tiempo said:


> Not all of us in that category came to the same conclusions about this case.


I never said we did. I was stating that we also have/had a vested interest in the case.


----------



## katydidagain

TheMartianChick said:


> I didn't get that sense at all from their comments after the verdict.


I guess we disagree on this.


----------



## Lazaryss

TheMartianChick said:


> We are also responsible gun owners. This isn't about guns and I'm not in favor of getting them banned. My dad used to run a NY State Armory, so I'm about as far from being anti-gun as you can get.


Which has nothing to do with the fact that you are not the only person or part of the only group that had a vested interest in the case.


----------



## painterswife

Lazaryss said:


> Let's go at your post from a different angle then. They jury found Zimmerman not guilty. It would stand to reason that the jury felt that Zimmerman was telling the truth, would it not?


Not in the least. All the verdict tells us is that the prosecution did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt he was guilty of charges.


----------



## davel745

Darntootin said:


> Therefore he was acquitted. You can't condemn a man without knowing what happened.


I think he was acquitted because the judge couldn't give a good answer to the manslaughter question and the moms said well ok lets move on. I want to go home. this court is no help, lets just find him NOT GUILTY and go home.


----------



## Lazaryss

painterswife said:


> Not in the least. All the verdict tells us is that the prosecution did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt he was guilty of charges.


Well, either way, he is not guilty. I personally think it stands to reason that if the jury did not believe Zimmerman, the verdict would have gone a different way. Don't you?


----------



## Lazaryss

davel745 said:


> I think he was acquitted because the judge couldn't give a good answer to the manslaughter question and the moms said well ok lets move on. I want to go home. this court is no help, lets just find him NOT GUILTY and go home.


I VERY highly doubt that the jury was so weak minded that they decided to find him not guilty so they could go home sooner. I honestly think your statement is an insult to the people on the jury, as well as to moms.


----------



## Karen

I still can't understand how people feel there was absolutely no evidence of guilt. There are a lot of unanswered questions and, it still remains M isn't here to give his side of the encounter, so we only have one side of the story. I still think both were at fault and that the truth is just something we will never know.

But even with that said, I think it was a fair jury and that they took the case very seriously, took their time and great effort to listen and review all the evidence. A jury's only option is to decide a case based on evidence -- not unanswered questions or maybe's. It's not a perfect system, but it's what we have and the best there can be. 

If you base the verdict on the evidence, I don't see how a comprehensive jury could come to any other decision. Is it the right verdict? I think so. Is it the fair one? Maybe not because a boy is still dead and, as a mother, I'd want justice. If I was a person of color who has been profiled and discriminated against for not only my entire life, but decades of every other person of color, I'd want justice. 

Personally, as a mother and someone who is color blind and can't get how others can't be, I almost wanted Z to be guilty. But I sat and listened to that trial and jury instructions. If I sat on that jury, regardless of how I feel in my heart, I just could not have come to no other decision but 'innocent'. Sometimes justice isn't served for all involved in a trial, but it's still the best we can do.


----------



## Txsteader

TheMartianChick said:


> As I stated earlier, I now believe that the prosecution was a sham that was designed to quiet the firestorm... They never planned to win the case, just make it look as though they gave it a shot.


Frankly, I think so, too......but for a different reason. I think they knew they couldn't win the case; they just didn't have the evidence. But because of political and public pressure, they had to at least _look_ like they were going through the motions of seeking justice.

The prosecution did their best w/ what they had to work with.


----------



## TheMartianChick

Lazaryss said:


> Let's go at your post from a different angle then. They jury found Zimmerman not guilty. It would stand to reason that the jury felt that Zimmerman was telling the truth, would it not?


No... It means that they were not presented with another scenario that was plausible. Deceased kids can't testify.


----------



## painterswife

Lazaryss said:


> Well, either way, he is not guilty. I personally think it stands to reason that if the jury did not believe Zimmerman, the verdict would have gone a different way. Don't you?


I don't know. I can not even begin to guess. That was why I said before that I would love to hear about the jury deliberation and how they came to their conclusions.

If I was on the jury, I would think the case was not proven but I would have my doubts on GZ's story. I don't think I could convict on the evidence presented in court either even though I don't believe GZ's story.


----------



## Lazaryss

TheMartianChick said:


> No... It means that they were not presented with another scenario that was plausible. Deceased kids can't testify.


And if that young adult had just continued to his destination and not been beating Zimmerman, he would not be deceased.


----------



## CesumPec

farmrbrown said:


> Wow.
> I wouldn't try making wine with those sour grapes.....


No way, not fair. It was always my fear this was nothing but a sham case, you can see that in my prior messages in this thread. I agree with MC at least this once and I am content with the results of the trial. 

I do hope that further investigation of the gov't people brings out the proof and conviction of those that abused their power.


----------



## katydidagain

Lazaryss said:


> And if that young adult had just continued to his destination and not been beating Zimmerman, he would not be deceased.


And if Zimmerman had reported the suspicious character and then left there would never have been a trial.


----------



## farmrbrown

TheMartianChick said:


> I wondered if it was some kind of strategy so that (if convicted) George Zimmerman could use it as an excuse for why his defense was inadequate. It was a very odd moment...





TheMartianChick said:


> I agree about this witness (Dr. Rao). However, I felt that the physicians assistant's opinion was essentially saying the same thing. The PA did not make his injuries sound as though they were very serious...
> 
> Dr. Rao asserted that none of Zimmerman's lacerations were life-threatening and that they were insignificant in their severity.





TheMartianChick said:


> Zimmerman was asked for a description in the police call. He described Trayvon as being in his teens. He also repeated his ethnicity twice.





TheMartianChick said:


> Actually, an officer on the stand yesterday admitted that what they had initially thought was a slim jim was actually part of Frank Taafe's (Zimmerman's friend) awning.




Seemed like they were doing an ok job.......right until the verdict came in.....:shrug:


----------



## Lazaryss

katydidagain said:


> And if Zimmerman had reported the suspicious character and then left there would never have been a trial.


And if Zimmerman had done that, Martin may have actually been up to no good. Isn't speculation fun?


----------



## katydidagain

Lazaryss said:


> And if Zimmerman had done that, Martin *may* have actually been up to no good. Isn't speculation fun?


Up until now only facts were stated. I'm not a fan of speculation.


----------



## CesumPec

katydidagain said:


> Up until now only facts were stated. I'm not a fan of speculation.


LOL - oh the irony. You just speculated in your prior msg


----------



## farmrbrown

My dad used to have a saying.
I can't post it verbatim, due to rules here, but it goes like this.....

"If the dog hadn't stop to  (poop) , he would have caught the rabbit."


----------



## Lazaryss

katydidagain said:


> Up until now only facts were stated. I'm not a fan of speculation.


And yet you assert that there would have been no trial. Maybe not this one but there is no telling what could have happened otherwise. It is all speculation.


----------



## katydidagain

Lazaryss said:


> And yet you assert that there would have been no trial. Maybe not this one but there is no telling what could have happened otherwise. It is all speculation.


GZ would not have been the defendant; he would not have killed TM.


----------



## Saffron

Lazaryss said:


> Let's go at your post from a different angle then. They jury found Zimmerman not guilty. It would stand to reason that the jury felt that Zimmerman was telling the truth, would it not?





Lazaryss said:


> Well, either way, he is not guilty. I personally think it stands to reason that if the jury did not believe Zimmerman, the verdict would have gone a different way. Don't you?



No and No. 
Just because he was found Not Guilty doesn't mean the jury believed Z's story.
If the jury didn't believe Z's story, it doesn't mean they would automatically decide against him.
While the attorney may have told the jury to decide with their heart, they are required to decide based on law and what was presented at court.
The prosecution did not bring forth a strong enough case against Z in order to gain anything other than Not Guilty.

I agree with Karen, and it is what I keep trying to point out:


Karen said:


> *I still think both were at fault and that the truth is just something we will never know.*
> 
> But even with that said, I think it was a fair jury and that they took the case very seriously, took their time and great effort to listen and review all the evidence. A jury's only option is to decide a case based on evidence -- not unanswered questions or maybe's. It's not a perfect system, but it's what we have and the best there can be.
> 
> If you base the verdict on the evidence, I don't see how a comprehensive jury could come to any other decision. Is it the right verdict? I think so. Is it the fair one? Maybe not because a boy is still dead and, as a mother, I'd want justice. If I was a person of color who has been profiled and discriminated against for not only my entire life, but decades of every other person of color, I'd want justice.
> 
> Personally, as a mother and someone who is color blind and can't get how others can't be, I almost wanted Z to be guilty. But I sat and listened to that trial and jury instructions. If I sat on that jury, regardless of how I feel in my heart, I just could not have come to no other decision but 'innocent'. Sometimes justice isn't served for all involved in a trial, but it's still the best we can do.


----------



## unregistered168043

TheMartianChick said:


> While we live in New York, we have a lot of family members in Florida. Since 2006 or so, we've been Florida property owners and Marion County taxpayers. *We are seriously considering our options*.



I suggest that your best option is not to assault anyone, and teach your children the same.


----------



## greg273

Darntootin said:


> I suggest that your best option is not to assault anyone, and teach your children the same.


 And if you get into a scrap with someone, make sure you kill them so they can't tell their side of the story.


----------



## unregistered168043

Saffron said:


> No and No.
> Just because he was found Not Guilty doesn't mean the jury believed Z's story.
> If the jury didn't believe Z's story, it doesn't mean they would automatically decide against him.
> While the attorney may have told the jury to decide with their heart, they are required to decide based on law and what was presented at court.
> The prosecution did not bring forth a strong enough case against Z in order to gain anything other than Not Guilty.
> 
> I agree with Karen, and it is what I keep trying to point out:



All we can say is that, based on all the actual evidence, it doesn't appear that GZ is guilty of any crime. 

Whether or not we believe that there is more to the story is just speculation. We can speculate that any one is guilty of murder. Just because you aren't in jail right now, doesn't mean you don't have a body hidden in your attic. Luckily, in this country we do not condemn someone based on imaginary crimes...we must prove guilt. Not just imagine it and accuse.


----------



## unregistered168043

greg273 said:


> And if you get into a scrap with someone, make sure you kill them so they can't tell their side of the story.



If I do get into a scrap, it will be self defense and I will be legally within my right to defend myself. I was taught that I never have the right to assault someone just because they are following me or looking at me suspiciously. Likewise, if assaulted I have the right to defend myself.


----------



## JeffreyD

Saffron said:


> No and No.
> Just because he was found Not Guilty doesn't mean the jury believed Z's story.
> If the jury didn't believe Z's story, it doesn't mean they would automatically decide against him.
> While the attorney may have told the jury to decide with their heart, they are required to decide based on law and what was presented at court.
> The prosecution did not bring forth a strong enough case against Z in order to gain anything other than Not Guilty.
> 
> I agree with Karen, and it is what I keep trying to point out:


It seems like a lot here are confused about what a jury can and cannot do. They can do anything they want. Their are no "laws" which they HAVE to follow, they are THE law.

A jurist can decide any way they choose, regardless of what the law is. A jurist can find a defendant guilty because he/she didn't like the attorney! They don't have to give a reason why they voted the way they did to anybody, ever!


----------



## sss3

What struck me, was how stoic GZ seemed to be; when the verdict was read.


----------



## CesumPec

Sandra Spiess said:


> What struck me, was how stoic GZ seemed to be; when the verdict was read.


His lawyers admitted to advising him to be that way. Once the cameras were gone he could celebrate and it wouldn't be another tool the Sharpton types could use against him in the press.


----------



## unregistered168043

Sandra Spiess said:


> What struck me, was how stoic GZ seemed to be; when the verdict was read.



Well my guess is that a guy who has been through what Zimmerman has, would be hardened quite a bit. He came very close to death at the hands of Trayvon Martin, had been treated like a criminal for defending himself, spent alot of time in jail, his character slandered in the media...the emotional toll that this would take on anyone is hard to imagine. You can see that he gained an enormous amount of weight in a very short time which generally is a sign of emotional stress.

I just hope that he can put this behind him, pick up the pieces and get on with his life.


----------



## unregistered353870

mmoetc said:


> What is official is that the state was not able to prove their case. It doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed.


Legally speaking, it DOES mean a crime was not committed. Of course the facts of what actually happened are not changed by a verdict, but legally it is official. As the representative of the state, Angela Corey should respect that. 



mmoetc said:


> This is one of the problems I had with the trial. Zimmerman was essentially allowed to testify through his statements and the video reenactment without the prosecution being allowed to cross examine him.


Zimmerman was not "allowed to testify." The prosecution didn't have to introduce those statements into evidence.


----------



## Saffron

JeffreyD said:


> It seems like a lot here are confused about what a jury can and cannot do. They can do anything they want. Their are no "laws" which they HAVE to follow, they are THE law.
> 
> A jurist can decide any way they choose, regardless of what the law is. A jurist can find a defendant guilty because he/she didn't like the attorney! They don't have to give a reason why they voted the way they did to anybody, ever!


ok, I will rephrase - they "should" decide based on law and what was presented at court.


----------



## JeffreyD

Saffron said:


> ok, I will rephrase - they "should" decide based on law and what was presented at court.


It really doesn't matter what they "should" do, they will do as they please.

They ALL voted that no crime was commited, and set GZ free. The jury spoke and it was a fair trial.

Next!


----------



## Forerunner

Second-guessing a bona-fide jury that has been closer to the facts than anyone, and looked into the eyes of the accused, at length, and heard arguments from both sides, and sacrificed a chunk of their lives, besides.........is perhaps one of the most arrogant, petty and impudent gestures in existence.


----------



## TheMartianChick

farmrbrown said:


> Seemed like they were doing an ok job.......right until the verdict came in.....:shrug:


I think that the posts that you quoted were from the first day or two of the prosecution's case.


----------



## TheMartianChick

Forerunner said:


> Second-guessing a bona-fide jury that has been closer to the facts than anyone, and looked into the eyes of the accused, at length, and heard arguments from both sides, and sacrificed a chunk of their lives, besides.........is perhaps one of the most arrogant, petty and impudent gestures in existence.


I don't know, Forerunner... There are a lot of people who have been exonerated of crimes after first being convicted of them. :shrug:


----------



## unregistered353870

TheMartianChick said:


> Come on! Would you have put that medical examiner on the stand? Seriously?


They didn't have much of a choice...he did the autopsy. If the prosecution hadn't called him the defense could have.


----------



## unregistered168043

While I am glad that justice was done and the jury rendered the correct verdict, I do feel for Zimmerman and his family. When you think about it, this poor guy really got put through the ringer. Here he was trying to keep his community safe, acting within the law, when this thug attacked him and nearly killed him. He was desperately screaming for help for quite a while, as can be heard on the 911 calls. It is a testament to his respect for the law and his desire to do good that he didn't pull his gun and fire long before that, as many would have.

Then, even though there is no evidence of any crime committed, he is arrested, and demonized by blatant lies in the media. The black panthers offered a 10k reward for his life while in prison. He is forced through this media circus, his SS number is read out to the public, and this absurd trial that never should have taken place. The guy gains 50lbs from obvious emotional stress. "Justice" at that point is very hard to achieve since he is already damaged beyond compensation...but he gets the acquittal at least..and yet there are still those who simply hate him and speculate that he might be guilty of some crime that there is no evidence for...but they just "feel" he is guilty.

Personally, my sympathies go out to George Zimmerman and his family. I also feel for the family of Trayvon Martin though not for Trayvon himself as he clearly assaulted George violently and, in my opinion ( and the opinion of the jury ) his death was fully justified and if it weren't for his violent and deviant behavior all this suffering could have been avoided.


----------



## cast iron

This may have already been covered in the thread, if so I apologize. 

Does Florida have a provision for reimbursement of the defendants legal costs should they be found not guilty as in this case? I ask because Washington does have such a provision but I don't know if that's common among the rest of the states or not.


----------



## davel745

greg273 said:


> And if you get into a scrap with someone, make sure you kill them so they can't tell their side of the story.


Good advise


----------



## snowcap

greg273 said:


> and if you get into a scrap with someone, make sure you kill them so they can't tell their side of the story.


 
drivel


----------



## mmoetc

jtbrandt said:


> Legally speaking, it DOES mean a crime was not committed. Of course the facts of what actually happened are not changed by a verdict, but legally it is official. As the representative of the state, Angela Corey should respect that.
> 
> 
> 
> Zimmerman was not "allowed to testify." The prosecution didn't have to introduce those statements into evidence.


Next time quote me fully, please. If the prosecution hasn't introduced them the defense would have. The prosecution introduced them in an attempt to get first crack at how to control the info. 

The fact that Zimmerman was not convicted does not mean no crime occurred. If a bank is robbed but the perpetrators are not convicted was the bank then not robbed?


----------



## unregistered168043

mmoetc said:


> Next time quote me fully, please. If the prosecution hasn't introduced them the defense would have. The prosecution introduced them in an attempt to get first crack at how to control the info.
> 
> The fact that Zimmerman was not convicted does not mean no crime occurred. *If a bank is robbed but the perpetrators are not convicted was the bank then not robbed?*



The bank was found to not have been robbed, it was a legal withdrawal.


----------



## TheMartianChick

Wayne02 said:


> This may have already been covered in the thread, if so I apologize.
> 
> Does Florida have a provision for reimbursement of the defendants legal costs should they be found not guilty as in this case? I ask because Washington does have such a provision but I don't know if that's common among the rest of the states or not.


I'm not sure if they do or not, but I did just hear that if there is a civil suit, and the Plaintiff (Martin Family) were to lose, then they would be responsible for paying the legal fees that Zimmerman incurred to defend himself against the civil complaint. I'm not sure how it works in the case of a criminal case, though.


----------



## unregistered353870

mmoetc said:


> Next time quote me fully, please. If the prosecution hasn't introduced them the defense would have. The prosecution introduced them in an attempt to get first crack at how to control the info.
> 
> The fact that Zimmerman was not convicted does not mean no crime occurred. If a bank is robbed but the perpetrators are not convicted was the bank then not robbed?


I didn't need to quote you fully since the rest of your post was not relevant. I may be wrong, but I suspect the defense would not have been allowed to introduce the defendant's statements without being cross-examined.

Yes, the fact Zimmerman was not convicted does mean no crime occurred. There is no doubt that he committed the shooting, but the finding of the jury was that he did not commit a crime. If he didn't commit a crime, who did?


----------



## farmrbrown

TheMartianChick said:


> I was completely unimpressed with the defense's dummy act, but that may be my own case prejudice showing. (I already admitted that I cannot be unbiased in this case.)
> 
> The dummy demonstrations proved to me that Trayvon couldn't have seen/reached for a gun that was essentially UNDER Zimmerman due to the placement of his holster. It was tucked into GZ's back, not at his side.
> 
> If Trayvon was straddling Zimmerman, then Trayvon's body would have obstructed both of them from reaching the gun holstered on Zimmerman's back.
> 
> At one point, Trayvon would have had to have 3 hands in order to do everything that Zimmerman says that he did during the fight.
> 
> *I thought that the prosecution did a decent job of showcasing the lies and implausibility of Zimmerman:*
> 
> -Zimmerman claims that he didn't know the names of all three streets in his neighborhood, though he's lived there for 4 years.
> 
> - Zimmerman claimed that Trayvon jumped out of the bushes and yet there were no bushes. In the re-enactment video, Zimmerman said that Trayvon appeared in the same place that one of the investigators was standing. There are definitely no bushes anywhere near that spot.
> 
> - In the re-enactment,Zimmerman says that the dispatcher told him to continue after Trayvon Martin. Listening to the non-emergency call, we know that this is a lie.
> 
> -Zimmerman said that there were no addresses on any of the houses and he had to travel along Trayvon's path to find one. There is a clear address on the house directly behind and over Zimmerman's right shoulder in the re-enactment video.
> 
> -Zimmerman claims that he had no knowledge of Stand Your Ground to Sean Hannity, but his instructor contradicted him and said that he did teach the topic and that Zimmerman was an excellent student.
> 
> -Zimmerman says that he was hit 20-25 times in the face and that his head was banged on the pavement multiple times. His injuries do not indicate that level of severity, leading me to believe that he lied. The lead investigating officer also thought that Zimmerman exaggerated his injuries.
> 
> -Trayvon had two (very) tiny cuts on his hand, which would be consistent with punching someone in the nose and possibly getting a nick from a tooth. Had Trayvon beaten Zimmerman as badly as was claimed, then Trayvon would have had more injuries to his hands. Anyone who has ever been in a real fight knows this.
> 
> -The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following Trayvon. Zimmerman said yes and the dispatcher told him that that wasn't needed. In the Hannity interview, Zimmerman said that he wasn't following Trayvon, but that he was merely going in the same direction.
> 
> -Zimmerman said that he had forgotten that he was carrying his "firearm". While I could understand a woman saying this if she carried a weapon in a large handbag, a weapon wedged into the back of your pants is somewhat heavy. I don't believe that he ever forgot the presence of his firearm. If he was on his back during the struggle, then he would have been reminded of the gun's presence as it pressed into his back.
> 
> -The blood evidence that was absent from Trayvon Martin's body indicates that Zimmerman lied about the severity of the fight. Yes it was raining, but there is no Zimmerman blood on Trayvon's hands even in the earliest photos taken at the scene. The argument that the blood washed away in the rain does not seem plausible when the blood on Zimmerman's head was still visible after he also stood in the rain.
> 
> If this shooting was a righteous shooting, then why did Zimmerman have to lie about details? We know that Trayvon can't contradict Zimmerman, but why the need for lies if this was self-defense?





TheMartianChick said:


> I think that the posts that you quoted were from the first day or two of the prosecution's case.


They varied, from post #19 at the beginning to #428 (7/3/13)
This last one was #1388......3 days ago........the day the prosecution gave its closing statement.


----------



## unregistered353870

Wayne02 said:


> This may have already been covered in the thread, if so I apologize.
> 
> Does Florida have a provision for reimbursement of the defendants legal costs should they be found not guilty as in this case? I ask because Washington does have such a provision but I don't know if that's common among the rest of the states or not.


Yes, they do. I don't think it covers all legal costs, but O'Mara mentioned that was something they will be pursuing.


----------



## gapeach

Last year after Casey Anthony was found innocent I was just really upset. I said then that I would never follow a case and trial in Florida again. I still shudder at what happened to little Caylee.
I did not get very involved in the TM/GZ case except for reading about it. I think GZ should not have been found guilty except for involuntary manslaughter at the very most. However, the jury did seem to do a very good job of being attentive, serious,dedicated and they gave the verdict that they did not reach until they had gone over all of the evidence. The prosecution never proved without a doubt that GZ was not acting self defense. I hope that the rabble rousers will go home and that there will not be any violence anywhere over the verdict. I also hope that the jurors are not identified to the public.


----------



## farmrbrown

Wayne02 said:


> This may have already been covered in the thread, if so I apologize.
> 
> Does Florida have a provision for reimbursement of the defendants legal costs should they be found not guilty as in this case? I ask because Washington does have such a provision but I don't know if that's common among the rest of the states or not.





jtbrandt said:


> Yes, they do. I don't think it covers all legal costs, but O'Mara mentioned that was something they will be pursuing.


I found this, but don't know if it has been changed.....

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/10/n...-follow-acquittals.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm


According to case law, acquitted defendants can be reimbursed for court reporters' deposition fees, the costs of witnesses' subpoenas and process servers, the standard witness fees of about $5 each and the bills of expert witnesses for time spent in court. The statute does not provide compensation for lawyer's fees. The costs of private investigators and the fees for expert witness consultation outside of court are still a matter of debate.


----------



## unregistered353870

I may have misunderstood what O'Mara said. In trying to find information on it, it seems that he may have been referring to being reimbursed for the additional costs incurred because of the prosecutor's misconduct. That may not be available to defendants who have been treated fairly by the state.


----------



## farmrbrown

TheMartianChick said:


> Come on! Would you have put that medical examiner on the stand? Seriously?



Hmmmmm........is this one rhetorical?

Let's see.
Hypothetically, I'm the state's attorney in this case.
So, it's the state's charges in a the state's courthouse. The witness is a state ME with evidence from an autopsy preformed at the state's expense for a state trial........
Should I call the witness for the state to testify or not?..............

:shrug: 

I guess it would depend on whether I was more interested in the truth, or my win/loss record.

What would you do?


----------



## unregistered353870

I suspect the medical examiner will be looking for a new job soon. Testifying in court is part of his job and he is completely incompetent at it.


----------



## farmrbrown

jtbrandt said:


> I may have misunderstood what O'Mara said. In trying to find information on it, it seems that he may have been referring to being reimbursed for the additional costs incurred because of the prosecutor's misconduct. That may not be available to defendants who have been treated fairly by the state.



That's the issue.
By law, public officials have a vast coverage of immunity. It is almost unheard of for any of them to be held liable for damages, even in cases of misconduct that SENT someone to prison.
Hiring a lawyer to defend yourself successfully in court is considered the "cost of doing business."
Now if he is continually harassed after this and repeatedly charged and taken to court, he MAY have a case for reimbursed atty fees.
But at this point, no.


----------



## mmoetc

jtbrandt said:


> I didn't need to quote you fully since the rest of your post was not relevant. I may be wrong, but I suspect the defense would not have been allowed to introduce the defendant's statements without being cross-examined.
> 
> Yes, the fact Zimmerman was not convicted does mean no crime occurred. There is no doubt that he committed the shooting, but the finding of the jury was that he did not commit a crime. If he didn't commit a crime, who did?


The finding of the jury was that Zimmerman was not guilty of the crimes accused. They could have decided that no crime occurred or they may have decided while it was likely a crime occurred that the prosecution didn't meet its burden of proof. A fine line, but until the jurors speak of why they decided as they did I won't presume to speak for them. 

You may not have found my complete post relevant but I write in complete sentences for a reason. I would like to be quoted as such.


----------



## Jakk

katydidagain said:


> And if Zimmerman had reported the suspicious character and then left there would never have been a trial.


If the parents of the child suspended from school for bringing in drugs had grounded said child, he wouldn't have been out to even run into Zimmerman.


----------



## unregistered353870

mmoetc said:


> The finding of the jury was that Zimmerman was not guilty of the crimes accused.


Essentially what the jury did was to make the LEGAL presumption of innocence PERMANENT.


----------



## unregistered353870

farmrbrown said:


> That's the issue.
> By law, public officials have a vast coverage of immunity. It is almost unheard of for any of them to be held liable for damages, even in cases of misconduct that SENT someone to prison.
> Hiring a lawyer to defend yourself successfully in court is considered the "cost of doing business."
> Now if he is continually harassed after this and repeatedly charged and taken to court, he MAY have a case for reimbursed atty fees.
> But at this point, no.


This is the quote I'm going off of from O'Mara. I'm not sure exactly what he means, but it sounds like he intends to try to get some significant reimbursement of some of the costs.



> There's a sanctions hearing, to be set. There is not only that, but of course the state is then responsible for a lot of the costs that we've incurred to acquit George Zimmerman, so we're going to have a hearing on that as well.


----------



## katydidagain

Jakk said:


> If the parents of the child suspended from school for bringing in drugs had grounded said child, he wouldn't have been out to even run into Zimmerman.


I was under the impression that he had been sent to live with him father; it sounds like he was testing his mother (as boys living with their Moms do--BTDT) and she felt he needed a male figure. How long had he been in Sanford? Long enough to find his way home in the dark? GZ had lived there long enough to become involved in the neighborhood watch program but still didn't know the streets of the development. 

I don't know the details; I doubt you do either. I don't understand why you (generic you) are so determined to make TM the scapegoat for this tragedy. You won; it's okay to shoot an unarmed person. I get it. I grew up believing you didn't have the right to defend yourself with more weaponry than the other party brought to the table. Stupid me.


----------



## unregistered353870

> I grew up believing you didn't have the right to defend yourself with more weaponry than the other party brought to the table.


Picture this scenario: A 6'5" tall 300 pound man wants to rape/murder you. He has no weaponry other than his body.

You want to defend yourself with no more weaponry than your own body?


----------



## katydidagain

jtbrandt said:


> Picture this scenario: A 6'5" tall 300 pound man wants to rape/murder you. He has no weaponry other than his body.
> 
> You want to defend yourself with no more weaponry than your own body?


Actually it happened. Well, kinda. He was more like 6'2" and 250lbs; he was 7" taller and outweighed me by 130lbs. But he did have a gun. I escaped unharmed by using my wits which, in hindsight, I guess meant I used superior weaponry.

Difference in GZ and TM sizes? Not so great. Brains? Not sure.


----------



## unregistered353870

> Difference in GZ and TM sizes? Not so great. Brains? Not sure.


Actually Zimmerman outweighed him by 30 pounds, but that doesn't mean a whole lot if Martin was a good fighter and Zimmerman wasn't. Anyway, I was making a broader point more about self defense in general. I consider guns to be a good tool to give the weaker members of society the ability to protect themselves from those stronger than them. May or may not apply to this case.


----------



## CesumPec

katydidagain said:


> I grew up believing you didn't have the right to defend yourself with more weaponry than the other party brought to the table. Stupid me.


Wow, I'll let your description of that stand. Are you saying an 80 yr old great grandma that weighs 98 lbs has to toss away her trusty revolver because the guy mugging her is just using his hands? That's a cruel world you believe in.


----------



## katydidagain

CesumPec said:


> Wow, I'll let your description of that stand. Are you saying an 80 yr old great grandma that weighs 98 lbs has to toss away her trusty revolver because the guy mugging her is just using his hands? That's a cruel world you believe in.


Silly.


----------



## Darren

Karen said:


> *I still can't understand how people feel there was absolutely no evidence of guilt.* There are a lot of unanswered questions and, it still remains M isn't here to give his side of the encounter, so we only have one side of the story. I still think both were at fault and that the truth is just something we will never know.
> 
> But even with that said, I think it was a fair jury and that they took the case very seriously, took their time and great effort to listen and review all the evidence. A jury's only option is to decide a case based on evidence -- not unanswered questions or maybe's. It's not a perfect system, but it's what we have and the best there can be.
> 
> If you base the verdict on the evidence, I don't see how a comprehensive jury could come to any other decision. Is it the right verdict? I think so. Is it the fair one? Maybe not because a boy is still dead and, as a mother, I'd want justice. If I was a person of color who has been profiled and discriminated against for not only my entire life, but decades of every other person of color, I'd want justice.
> 
> Personally, as a mother and someone who is color blind and can't get how others can't be, I almost wanted Z to be guilty. But I sat and listened to that trial and jury instructions. If I sat on that jury, regardless of how I feel in my heart, I just could not have come to no other decision but 'innocent'. Sometimes justice isn't served for all involved in a trial, but it's still the best we can do.


Karen, I've looked at material on Martin and Trayvon that was not presented to the jury. I don't recall what first drew my attention but the real Martin wasn't the sweet twelve year old portrayed by the media. That was invented by Benjamin Crump.

Long before the trial the timeline and the layout of the development was on the internet along with the 911 transcript. Much of what Martin posted convinced me that he was capable and willing to attack someone. Sure it was just words. But the school history and the recent revelation that the jewelry found in his book bag was indeed stolen firmed up the picture of a young thug. 

Zimmerman on the other hand was not the cop wannabe as presented by the media and based on the people he had helped in the past he came across as basically a decent person.

We will never know exactly what happened in the three minutes after the two met other than what witnesses saw and heard and, for what it's worth, what Zimmerman recounted.

Am I prejudiced? In this case reading posts where Martin named himself no_limit_****** convinced me he was a minor leaguer trying to impress people. 

I believe Martin was upset by the girl's suggestion he run home ... like a frightened child. Young adults at that age take a challenge like that seriously. The girl probably didn't realize she did in fact disrespect the persona Martin was building. 

We know Martin took off running. I don't think it was to get away. It was to hide and ambush Zimmerman. I regret but understand why the police didn't check the patios for wet foot prints. If they had they would have found them. There's no other way Martin could have hid from Zimmerman given the arrangement of the buildings.

While it's entirely supposition, until Zimmerman shot him, Martin was well along the way to getting new bragging rights. He'd just beat the snot out of a creepy cracker. All that to impress his friends and a girl who later couldn't be bothered to go to his funeral.

It just goes to show that what many think is important in life, especially the young, is not really important. I believe Martin's self image and how he wanted others to see him got him killed. He crossed the line when Zimmerman cried for help and he didn't stop. I thought when one called uncle in the schoolyard, the other was supposed to stop. Apparently Martin didn't learn that. He flunked the test life and circumstance put before him. Unfortunately he doesn't get to take the test again.


----------



## kasilofhome

Darren said:


> Karen, I've looked at material on Martin and Trayvon that was not presented to the jury. I don't recall what first drew my attention but the real Martin wasn't the sweet twelve year old portrayed by the media. That was invented by Benjamin Crump.
> 
> Long before the trial the timeline and the layout of the development was on the internet along with the 911 transcript. Much of what Martin posted convinced me that he was capable and willing to attack someone. Sure it was just words. But the school history and the recent revelation that the jewelry found in his book bag was indeed stolen firmed up the picture of a young thug.
> 
> Zimmerman on the other hand was not the cop wannabe as presented by the media and based on the people he had helped in the past he came across as basically a decent person.
> 
> We will never know exactly what happened in the three minutes after the two met other than what witnesses saw and heard and, for what it's worth, what Zimmerman recounted.
> 
> Am I prejudiced? In this case reading posts where Martin named himself no_limit_****** convinced me he was a minor leaguer trying to impress people.
> 
> I believe Martin was upset by the girl's suggestion he run home ... like a frightened child. Young adults at that age take a challenge like that seriously. The girl probably didn't realize she did in fact disrespect the persona Martin was building.
> 
> We know Martin took off running. I don't think it was to get away. It was to hide and ambush Zimmerman. I regret but understand why the police didn't check the patios for wet foot prints. If they had they would have found them. There's no other way Martin could have hid from Zimmerman given the arrangement of the buildings.
> 
> While it's entirely supposition, until Zimmerman shot him, Martin was well along the way to getting new bragging rights. He'd just beat the snot out of a creepy cracker. All that to impress his friends and a girl who later couldn't be bothered to go to his funeral.
> 
> It just goes to show that what many think is important in life, especially the young, is not really important. I believe Martin's self image and how he wanted others to see him got him killed. He crossed the line when Zimmerman cried for help and he didn't stop. I thought when one called uncle in the schoolyard, the other was supposed to stop. Apparently Martin didn't learn that. He flunked the test life and circumstance put before him. Unfortunately he doesn't get to take the test again.


 
Thank you for expressing what I would if I was any good at writing.


----------



## Jakk

katydidagain said:


> _*I was under the impression that he had been sent to live with him father; *_it sounds like he was testing his mother (as boys living with their Moms do--BTDT) and she felt he needed a male figure. How long had he been in Sanford? Long enough to find his way home in the dark? GZ had lived there long enough to become involved in the neighborhood watch program but still didn't know the streets of the development.
> 
> I don't know the details; I doubt you do either. I don't understand why you (generic you) are so determined to make TM the scapegoat for this tragedy. You won; it's okay to shoot an unarmed person. I get it. I grew up believing you didn't have the right to defend yourself with more weaponry than the other party brought to the table. Stupid me.


He was living with an adult. Father, Mother, Step parent.... who ever it was, it was an ADULT. I have four kids, two of them grown sons. I can say with 100% certainty that if they were suspended from school for bringing in drugs, they would NOT be out on the streets at any time of the day unsupervised while serving that suspension. I have a 17 yr old daughter and the same goes for her. It's BS that a parent can't discipline a 17 yr old.

I was taught that I had a right to defend myself by any means necessary. If someone is attacking me, you can bet your bippy I'm going to shoot him, armed or not.


----------



## CesumPec

katydidagain said:


> Silly.


I couldn't agree more, yet you advocate the idea.


----------



## Tobster

greg273 said:


> And if you get into a scrap with someone, make sure you kill them so they can't tell their side of the story.


Death row is populated with many people who decided to kill someone to prevent them from telling their side of the story. What I don't understand is why someone involved in a dust up (or scrap as you call it) decides to kill the other person to maintain silence. What is so damaging about the story of a fight that warrants an execution? Please elaborate. . . or were you merely engaging in hyperbole and silly rhetoric?


----------



## katydidagain

CesumPec said:


> I couldn't agree more, yet you advocate the idea.


It's Biblical I believe--something about an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth--not a Howitzer against fists.. This gleeful "we won" celebration sickens me; beating your chests without considering the life lost is disgusting. If the verdict had been guilty, would you be rioting? Just curious.


----------



## kasilofhome

Gleeful ????????????????????????? NO ------------RELEAVED. Fearful of riot that are theatened. You are mistaking showing that there IS justice done on the case not racisim. It was not racist ---it was a SAD event involing two males that ended with the person phyically assulting the other ending up being fatally shot. No one wants that. If this is viewed a a race thing -----------look at who is pushing that. 

WHY

Think it is to divide America and to unifie a group simply by skin tone--push the vision that those who have dark skins ---even with a black man in the white house ----------can not achieve. 

Hate is not color blind nor are punks ---skin tone is not the reason --it is Angry lifestyles that is the real problem. 

NO one is truly glad that TM is dead --ok sick people in need of help and pity but normal people simply want to live in peace with out criminal elements for which are all to common and are not limited to any race.


----------



## Jakk

katydidagain said:


> It's Biblical I believe--something about an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth--not a Howitzer against fists.. This gleeful "we won" celebration sickens me; beating your chests without considering the life lost is disgusting. If the verdict had been guilty, would you be rioting? Just curious.


It says an eye FOR an eye, not an eye WITH an eye. 

Rioting? Me? Absolutely not. I see nothing good that can come from rioting. Peaceful protest yes, rioting no. 

Call me cold but I do not mourn the loss of a thug that took to assaulting someone. Following someone is not illegal, assaulting someone is. That does not make me "gleeful".


----------



## Jakk

katydidagain said:


> deleted post was quoted here


According to the evidence presented in court, this fine upstanding young child could have just went home. He didn't, he doubled back and confronted GZ. That tells me he was not in fear for his life, but looking for a fight.


----------



## farmrbrown

katydidagain said:


> It's Biblical I believe--something about an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth--not a Howitzer against fists.. This gleeful "we won" celebration sickens me; beating your chests without considering the life lost is disgusting. If the verdict had been guilty, would you be rioting? Just curious.


Interesting you brought out that particular verse.....often quoted, but rarely understood.
I'd be willing to bet most people are taught that phrase means to knock out a tooth if yours is knocked out.
You might be surprised to learn what it means in the language it was written.
It is actually given in a list of legal remedies for damages.
It actually means an amount of monetary compensation is required for such damages, not an invitation to violence.
Among the other things listed in that passage are penalties for manslaughter (an ox, IIRC), murder (famously mistranslated as "kill" in the 10 commandments) as well as exoneration of self defense.

I find no joy in that young man's death, or in the verdict of self defense for Zimmerman, only relief. The only "rioting" that has been confirmed were by people who have criminal minds to begin with, most of us enjoy peace and quiet.


----------



## katydidagain

Jakk said:


> According to the evidence presented in court, this fine upstanding young child could have just went home. He didn't, he doubled back and confronted GZ. That tells me he was not in fear for his life, but looking for a fight.


And GZ could have gotten in his car and driven off. Neither party is blameless. Do I need to post the Elephant poem again?


----------



## Old Vet

katydidagain said:


> And GZ could have gotten in his car and driven off. Neither party is blameless. Do I need to post the Elephant poem again?


Yes he could have gone home and quit the neighbor hood watch. That is what you said but he felt a responsibly to follow him until he left the neighbor hood like he should have. That is why the 911 operator asked him where is he now.He should have told her I am going home and don't bother sending the cops. Is that what you are saying?


----------



## unregistered353870

> This gleeful "we won" celebration sickens me; beating your chests without considering the life lost is disgusting.


I would agree if I saw that, but I have seen very little of it here. I haven't read every post, though.


----------



## Karen

Folks, please be careful not to personally insult or attack another member. Be sure and word your responses as staying on task with the topic, rather than making a comment about the member themselves. 

I know the Zimmerman case is a hot topic and it is difficult to not get fired up, so this is just a friendly reminder to re-read your posts before hitting that 'submit reply' button.


----------



## davel745

jtbrandt said:


> I suspect the medical examiner will be looking for a new job soon. Testifying in court is part of his job and he is completely incompetent at it.


He wasn't the only one incompetent. They are talking about the federal stuff on fox news. This whole thing goes all the way to the top. Racism at its worst. But they were so stupid to try to tie an Hispanic in as a white person. I think the Hispanics are upset about this whole thing now. And remember the media is controlled by Obama.


----------



## davel745

katydidagain said:


> Actually it happened. Well, kinda. He was more like 6'2" and 250lbs; he was 7" taller and outweighed me by 130lbs. But he did have a gun. I escaped unharmed by using my wits which, in hindsight, I guess meant I used superior weaponry.
> 
> Difference in GZ and TM sizes? Not so great. Brains? Not sure.


You were lucky.


----------



## Hollowdweller

Hmmm. What would be the difference in between this case and the Travyvon Martin case?? One guess besides the assilant being an adult.


http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/story.aspx?stor---=283139


----------



## Saffron

Hollowdweller said:


> Hmmm. What would be the difference in between this case and the Travyvon Martin case?? One guess besides the assilant being an adult.
> 
> 
> http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/story.aspx?stor---=283139



Your link doesn't work.


----------



## watcher

TheMartianChick said:


> As I've expressed in other forum topics over the past few years, we are also tired of double standards that require us to train African American boys to just submit to unfair treatment by the police in order to not be delivered in body bags.
> 
> There is such a thing as shooter bias. A black man with a wallet in his hand is far more likely to be shot than a white man with an actual gun in his hand.


Again I ask you to think of why this is. The reason is minorities, like it or not, commit a larger percentage of _violent _crime than whites. Answer the following question honestly.

In one weekend in Chicago 20 people were shot 2 of which died what race do you think the victims and shooters were?



IMO, its a cultural thing. Not the white culture but the black culture. You have to admit there are different subcultures in the US. People from New England have a different culture than someone from Cajun country. The intercity minority (black, hispanic, asian, etc) culture has made violent crime something to be looked up to.

You also have a culture where there are very few fathers which means young males have no one to lead them into manhood. Add to that the fact society has declared being male a bad thing and you have major problems. There's an story called Two Males, No Men (a google search will find the link, it was emailed to me) which has something in I found very interesting. It says (emphasis mine):

_Civilizing men out of existence has come at great cost to civilization. Instead of men, we get feminine imitations lacking beauty. *We get lost boys compensating by becoming barbarians*. We get Sanford, Florida, February 26, 2012._

In the black subculture you have a different way of speaking, a different way of dressing and a different way of acting.


----------



## watcher

TheMartianChick said:


> I believe that the jury should have been more reflective of the community of Sanford and/or Seminole County. The demographics are:
> 
> *Sanford *
> 
> White or Caucasian 57.3%
> Black or African-American 30.5%
> Hispanic or Latino 20.2%
> 
> 
> *Seminole Cty
> *
> White or Caucasian 78.2%
> Black or African-American 11.1%
> Hispanic or Latino 17.1%
> 
> 
> The first issue is a 6 person jury for everything except death penalty cases. Most cases are NOT death penalty eligible, so the odds of getting a diverse panel is severely reduced when you have so few jurors. A 12 person jury allows for a wider cross-section of the community. Per the link that I provided a few posts back, justice is more evenly applied with a diverse jury and conviction disparities are brought back into line.
> 
> Secondly, the lack of male jurors on this jury is astonishing. 50% of the population of Sanford/Seminole County is comprised of males. The victim and the defendant were both males and yet no male (minority or otherwise) was there to weigh in on the situation.
> 
> We all bring our own set of biases and experiences to the table. When we are making difficult decisions (both in and outside) of the courtroom, we need all of those different perspectives in order to provide the whole picture. That is something that was sorely missing from this trial.


I'll let you know how the process of selecting a jury works. The government sends out jury notices based on what ever standard they have (usually voter and tax rolls). When these people show up they are assigned a random number based on the number of people who are there. IOW, if there are 97 people everyone is given a number between 1 and 97 inclusive. 

Then the group is broken down into 'pools'. That pool varies based on how difficult they think its going to be to get the needed number of jurors. If its a widely known case the pool will be larger than if its an unknown civil case between two neighbors.

A pool is called in and is seated by their number. The judge then ask general questions to eliminate some. E.g. is anyone related to anyone involved in the case; anyone have medical issues which would prevent them from sitting for a couple of hours.

After that the 1st remaining pool member is asked questions by each sides lawyer. Based on those answers either side can ask for that member to be excused. If the other side has no objections that person is excused. But each side has the ability to have a number (3 in the cases I have been involved in) be excused even if the other side doesn't agree.

Once the needed number of jurors has been reached the rest of the pool is excused and the jury is seated.

In this way the selection of a jury is, more or less, random and fair to both sides. Plus it prevents one side from being able to load the jury with people it thinks are more inclined to their POV.


----------



## watcher

TheMartianChick said:


> People can be racists or biased and still support exceptions. Where I was raised, our family was known as the colored family on the hill and I was frequently told (by whites), 'You're black , but you're different.'
> 
> I'm no more different from other black people, than I am from other white people. I am a unique individual, but we are all unique individuals.


As I have said before we are all bias. We prefer to be around those as like us than to be around those who are not. Go to a large gathering and notice the groups. You will see people self segregate. Either by skin color, religion, gender or something else. Its human nature.

In a group I rather hang around with people interested in football and computers than those into golf and needle point. 

But there is a major difference in being bias and being bigoted. A bigot views people different from himself as not a good and not deserving of the same things.


----------



## watcher

TheMartianChick said:


> The jury is supposed to be pulled from the community. It should be a jury of your peers. How was this jury close? It was comprised of 6 women, one of which was Hispanic and no men? Unless Zimmerman was secretly female, this was not even close to being representative of the community.


So the jury should have been made up of 6 half hispanic men?


----------



## watcher

TheMartianChick said:


> While I know that black males are not treated or valued in our society, I never failed to see that this could have easily have been a kid of any ethnicity. Any 17 year old could have gone out to the 7-11 at 7pm.
> 
> While the black community has been complaining for years that police officers were hassling their children and young black men. This case seems to imply that it is now somehow alright for average citizens to do the same to them. If this were directed at your children, brothers, uncles, etc...you would find it completely unacceptable.


Again why is this? Could it be that each and every day the police have to deal the the crimes of those young black men? 

Ever looked into the numbers? How many young black men are killed by whites of any age? How many of them are killed by other young black men? How many blacks of all ages are killed by whites of all ages? How many blacks of all ages are killed by blacks of all ages? I think if you check you will find the greatest danger to a black of any age is another black person.

I live in a rural area and most of the young black men I deal with are find upstanding people, no more or less a problem than young white or asian or mixed race men. But even in the small local 'cities' near me there is much more crime of all types in the "black" areas (and its ALL black on black crime) than in the other parts. Even the parts where is a racial mixture.

Maybe the blacks should be looking at their own not trying to put the blame on others.


----------



## watcher

TheMartianChick said:


> Come on! Would you have put that medical examiner on the stand? Seriously?


If he was the one who wrote the report they had to.


----------



## watcher

Karen said:


> I still can't understand how people feel there was absolutely no evidence of guilt. There are a lot of unanswered questions and, it still remains M isn't here to give his side of the encounter, so we only have one side of the story. I still think both were at fault and that the truth is just something we will never know.


One more time. What do you think Martin could have said which would have over came the physical evidence?

Look at my cookie jar example I posted.


----------



## watcher

TheMartianChick said:


> No... It means that they were not presented with another scenario that was plausible. Deceased kids can't testify.


The problem is there was no other *BELIEVABLE* scenario that could be supported by the physical evidence.

Martin could have testified that Zimmerman grabbed him and tried to rape him and he only fought him to prevented being raped. The problem is no physical evidence to support it. That means it becomes like two kids in a "did not" "did too" argument when confronted by a parent.


----------



## watcher

greg273 said:


> And if you get into a scrap with someone, make sure you kill them so they can't tell their side of the story.


And if the physical evidence doesn't support your story you go to jail.


----------



## watcher

Wayne02 said:


> This may have already been covered in the thread, if so I apologize.
> 
> Does Florida have a provision for reimbursement of the defendants legal costs should they be found not guilty as in this case? I ask because Washington does have such a provision but I don't know if that's common among the rest of the states or not.


Only if you can prove wrongful prosecution.


----------



## Karen

I'm sure there would have been a lot he would have said and explained an entirely different view of how it happened. That different scenario would have produced additional evidence. 

But that's neither here nor there. What I'm saying is that people keep stating there was no evidence at all that M was at fault. There certainly was. It may be weak in some views, but it was still there and there are unanswered questions that no one but Martin could answer. 

I have no problem with the jury's verdict and do respect that they did their best with the evidence they had. But IMHO, continuing to argue about it is pointless and only continues breed contempt and unfairness for both sides.


----------



## watcher

Karen said:


> Folks, please be careful not to personally insult or attack another member. Be sure and word your responses as staying on task with the topic, rather than making a comment about the member themselves.


Is it ok if I say something stupid about myself? :happy:

Had to try to lighten up things.


----------



## watcher

Karen said:


> I'm sure there would have been a lot he would have said and explained an entirely different view of how it happened. That different scenario would have produced additional evidence.


How so? What could he have said which would have changed the physical evidence?




Karen said:


> But that's neither here nor there. What I'm saying is that people keep stating there was no evidence at all that M was at fault. There certainly was. It may be weak in some views, but it was still there and there are unanswered questions that no one but Martin could answer.


But would have answers have been supported by the physical evidence? There are many of cases and studies which show that even eyewitnesses stories can not have been what happened when compared with the physical evidence.

A quick google search on "how reliable is eyewitness testimony" will give you a lot of hits to show it.


----------



## Karen

Regarding a jury of your peers. People misunderstand this all time because they think this is a 'guaranteed right' we possess. It isn't. No where in the Constitution/Bill of Rights do these words appear. It's actually from the Magna Carta.

What "peers" mean is "from your community" (again from the Magna Carta). During that time there were only 2 classes of people: peasants and the nobel. It was to differentiate that if your a peasant and go to trial, the jury will not be from the nobel.

What the Constitution does guarantee is a trial by an*  impartial *jury; meaning ordinary people from your community (the general area of where the court proceedings will occur).


----------



## kasilofhome

Karen PLEASE---you are the mod, and you have express having some legal knowledge Please inform how you deal with the knowledge backed with facts provided by myself and others about the "jury's rights" with case law in the SCoUS as rescent as 1972. Why is it that so many have stated that the Jury MUST follow the Judges instructions.

From an outsider of the court system that info has been shoved to the deepest filing cabinet and carefully gaurded.  I see that this is a great time to learn --

With the information not taught or shared it and the falsehood propped up as a fact what are we doing to the justice system. WHY are is it being done.

I say it puts the private person under the thumb of the government. To the point were court cases results can forced on an ignorent jury --ignorent is just a lack of information---it is NOT an insult 

I find that those personal involed as in employment do not accept and do not want to discuss this and that has been comfirmed yet again thur the brush over of the subject. Some good can come from a bad siduation and the death of a person is sad.


----------



## Karen

In the massive pages of jury instructions, which includes all types of cases, it does state that the jury must follow the jury instructions. It is always included in the jury instructions. I've never heard of a case that it didn't include.

But here's the kicker, there is no Florida statute that says a jury must follow them. I have a message into old office to get some clarification and will let you know what I find out.


----------



## JeffreyD

Karen said:


> In the massive pages of jury instructions, which includes all types of cases, it does state that the jury must follow the jury instructions. It is always included in the jury instructions. I've never heard of a case that it didn't include.
> 
> But here's the kicker, there is no Florida statute that says a jury must follow them. I have a message into old office to get some clarification and will let you know what I find out.


There is no requirement for a jury to follow ANY instructions by anyone. They are free to make their own decisions. End of story.


----------



## TraderBob

katydidagain said:


> I grew up believing you didn't have the right to defend yourself with more weaponry than the other party brought to the table. Stupid me.


I grew up _knowing_ that you defended yourself with whatever was available if you feared for your life or GBH, especially including better weaponry, because that is my _right_. I prefer to be the one to walk away.


----------



## TraderBob

JeffreyD said:


> There is no requirement for a jury to follow ANY instructions by anyone. They are free to make their own decisions. End of story.


That's why jury nullification is always an option...and it ISN'T included in any jury instructions....and if you mention it in jury selection it's a sure way to get excused from the pool.


----------



## kasilofhome

Thank you karen for looking into this.


----------



## Old Vet

I have sees jury nullification progress. It was a jury for a civil case. One persion wanted to find one party guilty to make sure the chairs they make were safe any time. The case was about a cafe that bout second hand chairs from a Wendy that were dissembled and stored in a ware house. One chair gave away and a customer fell and sued the cafe and the chair manufacture and the company that soled the chair. She wanted to find the chair manufacture guilty so that they would build a better chair. I asked her what kind of money should we give to the plaintiff she couldn't make up her mind but eventuality settled for a dollar. All the rest of the jurors had a big laugh over that and we found the manufacturer not guilty. All the rest of the jurors could have voted not guilty in 5 minuets but it delayed the process over 2 hours.


----------



## How Do I

wes917 said:


> I haven't commented because of all the speculations so far, but at 30' that's 10 or so steps from where it started at 20' that's 6-7 steps. Don't know about you but during a fight its not unlikely to move that distance or farther.
> 
> Also ever been hit in the nose? You say you'd retreat, when getting hit that hard your eyes water and its easy to get disoriented.



I was just speculating with what evidence I knew of at the time, but being nosy after hearing the verdict read, started trying to find out more. That same night I was doing some more searching and came across Zimmerman's written statement. I had not seen this before. Was using the reenactment video, crime scene photos and the 911 call to go by.




> ....and tried to find my phone to dial 911. *the suspect punched me in the face. I fell backwards onto my back. The suspect got on top of me.* I yelled "help" several times.........


One of the jurors talking tonight said something about his keys and something else being in the exact area where he said he was punched in the nose, so they believed that is where he was punched. George said he fell "backwards onto my back. The suspect got on top of me." No stumbling 40 feet away (which is later the distance I heard during the trial from prosecution). So how did Trayvon's body end up that distance away? If it went down like Zimmerman himself said it did? Was this ever explained during the trial? I didn't catch all of it, so might have missed this part.


----------



## Darren

The prosecution should get an award for the amount of smoke and mirrors they used in their dramatic production. Maybe someone should submit it for an Emmy. There was definitely prosecutor misconduct. The 40' was part of the show. Artistic license shouldn't be allowed in a trail. 

The keys show that Zimmerman already had them out to unlock his truck as he walked back. BTW, that's also evidence he was returning. Anytime something is hit there's a possibility of pieces flying off. It also shows how hard Martin hit Zimmerman to knock the heavier man down and send the keys flying that distance.

The more force behind the hit the greater the velocity of the pieces especially if they're being flung unintentionally by a man who got knocked down.

We were trained in he NAvy to tie everything down or stow it. The reason being in battle any hit on the ship could result in even a small item like a pencil becoming lethal as it was propelled through the air. One of the strangest things I ever saw was a smoke cloud from gun fire inside a cross ship's passageway staying still while the entire ship moved around it. That means the ship moved sideways and up and down when the 130 mm gun fired.


The final location of the body matches the planned ambush that was thwarted when Zimmerman stopped searching and complied wih the dispatcher's suggestion. At that point Marin had to go to Zimmerman since Zimmerman wasn't going to walk past where he had hid. 

The testimony is supported by the evidence, the construction and layout of the townhouses, the short elapsed time, and at its most basic, physics.


----------



## farmrbrown

You won't find a *statute* in any of the 50 states that requires a jury to follow a judges instructions in deliberation, other than the obvious, like no fighting, shooting, or setting the room on fire, lol.
You WILL find that in almost every state in every court, that the judge will TELL the jury that they must follow his/her instructions......they won't tell them no such law exists.
When they hear someone in a black robe make this decree, some unquestionably believe it is true, after all, judges don't lie or deceive, right?

This link may take a few minutes to read, but is chock full of SCOTUS decisions on this.
As late as 1993, the ruling was *unanimous*.
You will also see the lengths that the courts will go to prevent you from knowing this constitutionally protected right.

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/131jur.pdf


----------



## vicker

Jerry Clower had a great story regarding this. In the story an old fellow in the community is stricken with hard times and luck, when he finds a mule. Even knowing it belongs to someone else the feller can't pass up the opportunity of using the mule a couple of days. He is found with the mule and charged with its theft from a wealthy farmer. A jury of his peers deliberate and come out with the verdict that he is innocent and can give the mule back. The judge is furious! That's the most ridiculous verdict he's ever heard, he tells them, go back in that jury room and come back with a real verdict. A few minutes later they come out and say they find him innocent, and he can keep the mule.


----------



## kasilofhome

Karen I really thank you for looking into this matter. This is a site where knowledge is shared and passed on. You are in a career and position --respected and thus you will find info which is important--it has always been important so important that people in a position to take control have removed it from plainsight. With it being out of sight by many it has been forgotten. I bring up the Fed dept. of Ed. Note when that dept was formed and when 1979 on the ground running 1980 --here really is a conection to how to control a people. This used to be taught in school just as the other aspects of history. Teachers started to have standards and the focas is on test scores--remove what you need forgotten from the testing --teachers teach to a test. Now thoses students taught to pass an test are teaching. Ollder people will die --and who will trust the rantings of the old lady. 

I would love to learn of your evolution on this. Now think Why was it removed from US government class--it is a key to control the grow of power. Are there other keys out there? Yes this is thread is about two men -one lived --one died. I would rather remember those men as the case that reminded calm people learning thier rights and role as a cititzen.


----------



## siberian

Just wondering, with all the lawyers if the letter or intent of the law was not being followed, wouldn't, there be more noise from someone trying to make a name for theirselves:?


----------



## katydidagain

FL law was followed.


----------



## greg273

Darren said:


> The keys show that Zimmerman already had them out to unlock his truck as he walked back. BTW, that's also evidence he was returning. Anytime something is hit there's a possibility of pieces flying off. It also shows how hard Martin hit Zimmerman to knock the heavier man down and send the keys flying that distance.
> The more force behind the hit the greater the velocity of the pieces especially if they're being flung unintentionally by a man who got knocked down.
> The final location of the body matches the planned ambush that was thwarted when Zimmerman stopped searching and complied wih the dispatcher's suggestion. At that point Marin had to go to Zimmerman since Zimmerman wasn't going to walk past where he had hid.
> The testimony is supported by the evidence, the construction and layout of the townhouses, the short elapsed time, and at its most basic, physics.


 I think I saw that on an episode of Columbo. Good work detective. But seriously... you think he 'Complied with the dispatchers suggestion'.??? Huh? If by 'complying with the dispatchers suggestion' you mean 'complied with it after blatantly ignoring it', that would be closer to the truth. If he had done that originally, none of 
this would have happened. 
I can appreciate you have put a lot of thought into this, but all of your speculation is meaningless if the TRUTH is he accosted Trayvon prior to Trayvon opening up a can of whoop grits on him. But we'll never know. And YOU will never know the full truth of what happened that night, so why don't you stop pretending you have it all figured out?


----------



## Txsteader

greg273 said:


> I think I saw that on an episode of Columbo. Good work detective. But seriously... you think he 'Complied with the dispatchers suggestion'.??? Huh? If by 'complying with the dispatchers suggestion' you mean 'complied with it after blatantly ignoring it', that would be closer to the truth. If he had done that originally, none of
> this would have happened.
> I can appreciate you have put a lot of thought into this, but all of your speculation is meaningless if the TRUTH is he accosted Trayvon prior to Trayvon opening up a can of whoop grits on him. But we'll never know. And YOU will never know the full truth of what happened that night, *so why don't you stop pretending you have it all figured out*?


Yeah, Darren. You're making too much sense. Stop it, now! /sarc
.....................................................

Darren's as much entitled to express his opinion here as any of us. Personally, I appreciate the perspective. Not that any of it matters but, truth is, we're all playing armchair detective here, aren't we?


----------



## Karen

Okay, I heard back from the office and here what I found out and there is TONS of caselaw on it: 

In Florida, since the jury instructions are set by the Florida Supreme Court, there is no nullification permitted (except regarding bad laws themselves). A jury cannot just nullify a jury instruction itself. If a jury fails to follow the jury instructions, they will either be found in contempt of court and/or a mistrial will be called.


----------



## Darren

greg273 said:


> I think I saw that on an episode of Columbo. Good work detective. But seriously... you think he 'Complied with the dispatchers suggestion'.??? Huh? If by 'complying with the dispatchers suggestion' you mean 'complied with it after blatantly ignoring it', that would be closer to the truth. If he had done that originally, none of
> this would have happened.
> I can appreciate you have put a lot of thought into this, but all of your speculation is meaningless if the TRUTH is he accosted Trayvon prior to Trayvon opening up a can of whoop grits on him. But we'll never know. And YOU will never know the full truth of what happened that night, so why don't you stop pretending you have it all figured out?


The key is Jeantel's testimony coupled with her "lack of preparation" and the lies by Benjamin Crump to get her preferential treatment and keep her secluded. The messed up tape of her interview controlled by Crump is another red flag. There's an NSA analyst or two that have a much better idea of how things went down that night and it isn't remotely like the prosecution claimed or Crump put out using a publicist.

The telephone files, improperly kept out of evidence by the judge while allowing their use by the prosecution, are also going to be revealing.

BTW there is no evidence of Zimmerman confronting Martin. It comes down to what's the simplest explanation for what is known to be fact. Anything else, like gays stalking and raping Black kids, is so contrived it's ludicrous. Like I said before it's as believable as the dog eating the homework.

I'll make the same offer to you I made to Nevada. I'll only accept cash in return for a quitclaim deed to that bridge.


----------



## Forerunner

Karen said:


> Okay, I heard back from the office and here what I found out and there is TONS of caselaw on it:
> 
> In Florida, since the jury instructions are set by the Florida Supreme Court, there is no nullification permitted (except regarding bad laws themselves). A jury cannot just nullify a jury instruction itself. If a jury fails to follow the jury instructions, they will either be found in contempt of court and/or a mistrial will be called.


There is some truth in this.

The jury lost their supremacy over written law and the bureaucratic tendencies of the courts as part of the New Deal. They compromise whatever influence of substance remains when they obediently swear the dubious oath to the court and it's god.

Any instance today in which a jury is "allowed" to override is a bone tossed for the sake of maintaining the illusion of tradition.

Rest assured that you are right, for today, Karen.

The people have been emasculated.

Hurrah.

But, yesterday.......

[SIZE=+2]The pages of history shine on instances of the juryâs exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judges...â U. S. v. Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 1113, 1139 (1972)

âThe law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided.â Harlan F. Stone, 12th Chief Justice, U. S. Supreme Court, 1941.

âThe jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact.â Oliver Wendell Holmes, U. S. Supreme Court Justice, 1902.

âThe jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts.â Samuel Chase, U. S. Supreme Court Justice, 1796; Signer of the unanimous Declaration.

âThe jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.â John Jay, 1st Chief Justice, U. S. Supreme Court, 1789.

Interesting to note that the first quote comes from a 1972 decision.
[/SIZE]


----------



## Darren

Txsteader said:


> Yeah, Darren. You're making too much sense. Stop it, now! /sarc
> .....................................................
> 
> Darren's as much entitled to express his opinion here as any of us. Personally, I appreciate the perspective. Not that any of it matters but, truth is, we're all playing armchair detective here, aren't we?


That's true. You just have to use all of the pieces of the puzzle to get the picture.* I'm still interested in seeing the statistics showing gays are stalking and raping Black kids.* *

Any body?*

I think the scheme team that Crump used can be compared to a game of jeopardy with the categories of BS, More BS, Lots More BS, Piled Higher and Deeper and I can't believe I fell for that!


----------



## Darren

Turns out there was a case of UN Uruguayan troops raping an eighteen year old Black male in Haiti. It now makes sense that Jeantel, from Haiti, heard about it. Now the question is, how did Trayvon respond?

We know he didn't run home even though he could have made it to the house safely.


----------



## greg273

Darren said:


> BTW there is no evidence of Zimmerman confronting Martin. .


 There is no REAL evidence AT ALL of what happened during the beginning of the altercation, only the words of the accused. You seem to think Trayvon 'ambushed' Zimmerman. Are you forgetting he was ON THE PHONE at the time?? Who waits in ambush then assaults someone while chatting on the phone?? Then yells 'get off, get off'?? That makes ZERO sense, and I think is KEY to piecing together what REALLY happened, not the 'innocent victim' narrative Georgie spun to the police in order to save his behind.


----------



## Darren

greg273 said:


> There is no REAL evidence AT ALL of what happened during the beginning of the altercation, only the words of the accused. You seem to think Trayvon 'ambushed' Zimmerman. Are you forgetting he was ON THE PHONE at the time?? Who waits in ambush then assaults someone while chatting on the phone?? Then yells 'get off, get off'?? That makes ZERO sense, and I think is KEY to piecing together what REALLY happened, not the 'innocent victim' narrative Georgie spun to the police in order to save his behind.


I'm glad you brought that up, Greg. I take it you haven't seen the interview of Rachael Jeantel, the girl on the phone with Trayvon, when she was on the Piers Morgan show. Zimmerman didn't attack Trayvon. She said Trayvon wasn't going to kill Zimmerman, he was just going to give him a Whoop A**. It's called a bash when you want to kill someone.

Even Piers Morgan knew the wrong cat had been let out of the bag by his stunned follow up. Now you know why the judge wouldn't let the defense use an expert to verify that those were Zimmerman's screams. 

I'm not sure why anyone would think a kid grounding and pounding someone would yell, "Get off! Get off!" The assailant might talk about the guy's parentage maybe even his possibilities of living, but "Get off! Get off!"? Don't think so!

In a nut shell the girl confirmed, on TV, that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman or gave him a Whoop A**, as she put it. The DOJ civil lawsuit if it wasn't mission impossible before, is now.

I wonder how much time will pass before the tape of that show is subpoenaed. Hours? Days? Certainly not weeks.


----------



## farmrbrown

Karen said:


> Okay, I heard back from the office and here what I found out and there is TONS of caselaw on it:
> 
> In Florida, since the jury instructions are set by the Florida Supreme Court, there is no nullification permitted (except regarding bad laws themselves). A jury cannot just nullify a jury instruction itself. If a jury fails to follow the jury instructions, they will either be found in contempt of court and/or a mistrial will be called.


And if a judge ever did such a thing as jail a juror for contempt for rendering their decision (good luck *proving* nullification.....see 5th amendment), his butt would be behind bars for jury tampering before the sun went down.
Also once a verdict is read in court of "not guilty" no mistrial is permitted unless you could prove a juror was bribed or intimidated.
That action is also prohibited by the 5th amendment, it's called double jeopardy.


----------



## davel745

I have a question. I saw somewhere on HT that Zimmerman cant be sued by anyone since he was found not guilty in Florida. Some kind of law. Any one know anything about this?


----------



## farmrbrown

davel745 said:


> I have a question. I saw somewhere on HT that Zimmerman cant be sued by anyone since he was found not guilty in Florida. Some kind of law. Any one know anything about this?



What you read was probably a motion for immunity that may or may not have been made by his attorney, in essence using the stand your ground law as his protective shield, seeing how he followed the law as it was written and the jury agreed.
After seeing the evidence, what was admitted into court and what wasn't, I predict that there will be no civil suit filed against Zimmerman, unless they just like paying his attorneys' fees.


----------



## farmrbrown

Here's an interesting and ongoing case right now in Orlando involving the right to disseminate info to jurors. The judge that threw the defendant in jail for contempt for distributing fliers in the parking lot, is none other than the Casey Anthony judge.

http://www.copblock.org/29616/markschmidter/

This was a recent victory along the same lines in South Florida

http://sdfla.blogspot.com/2012/04/jury-nullification-case-dismissed.html


In fact, in researching this, I found an interesting part of a Federal case which confirmed what I said earlier.
No where, in any of the 50 states will anyone ever be able to quote a statute that says jury nullification, which is by extension is ignoring a judges instructions, is illegal.
To say that Florida SC doesn't give _permission_ is true, no one asks permission for a right they already have, and the courts KNOW this, they would rather YOU didn't know.

Buried in this case.....
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/juryseminar/USvDougherty1972.html

Is this gem, written in dissent, but very revealing.


BAZELON, Chief Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part:

My disagreement with the Court concerns the issue of jury nullification. As the Court's opinion clearly acknowledges, there can be no doubt that the jury has "an unreviewable and unreversible power * * * to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge * * *." More important, the Court apparently concedes -- although in somewhat grudging terms -- that the power of nullification is a "necessary counter to case-hardened judges and arbitrary prosecutors," and that exercise of the power may, in at least some instances, "enhance, the over-all normative effect of the rule of law." We could not withhold that concession without scoffing at the rationale that underlies the right to jury trial in criminal cases, and belittling some of the most legendary episodes in our political and jurisprudential history. 

The sticking point, however, is whether or not the jury should be told of its power to nullify the law in a particular case. Here, the trial judge not only denied a requested instruction on nullification, but also barred defense counsel from raising the issue in argument before the jury. The majority affirms that ruling. I see no justification for, and considerable harm in, this deliberate lack of candor.

At trial, the defendants made no effort to deny that they had committed the acts charged. Their defense was designed to persuade the jury that it would be unconscionable to convict them of violating a statute whose general validity and applicability they did not challenge. An instruction on nullification -- or at least some argument to the jury on that issue -- was, therefore, the linchpin of the defense. 

At the outset it is important to recognize that the trial judge was not simply neutral on the question of nullification. His instruction, set out in part in the margin, emphatically denied the existence of a "legal defense" based on "sincere religious motives" or a belief that action was justified by "some higher law." That charge was not directly inconsistent with the theory of jury nullification. Nullification is not a "defense" recognized by law, but rather a mechanism that permits a jury, as community conscience, to disregard the strict requirements of law where it finds that those requirements cannot justly be applied in a particular case. Yet the impact of the judge's instruction, whatever his intention, was almost surely to discourage the jury from measuring the defendants' action against community concepts of blameworthiness. 

Thus, we are left with a doctrine that may "enhance the over-all normative effect of the rule of law," but, at the same time, one that must not only be concealed from the jury, but also effectively condemned in the jury's presence. Plainly, the justification for this sleight-of-hand lies in a fear that an occasionally noble doctrine will, if acknowledged, often be put to ignoble and abusive purposes -- or, to borrow the Court's phrase, will "run the risk of anarchy." A breakdown of the legal order is not a result I would knowingly encourage or enjoy. But the question cannot be resolved, at least at this stage of the argument, by asking if we are for or against anarchy, or if we are willing to tolerate a little less law and order so that we can permit a little more jury nullification. No matter how horrible the effect feared by the Court, the validity of its reasoning depends on the existence of a demonstrable connection between the alleged cause (a jury nullification instruction or argument to the jury on that issue) and that effect. I am unable to see a connection.

To be sure, there are abusive purposes, discussed below, to which the doctrine might be put. The Court assumes that these abuses are most likely to occur if the doctrine is formally described to the jury by argument or instruction. That assumption, it should be clear, does not rest on any proposition of logic. It is nothing more or less than a prediction of how jurors will react to the judge's instruction or argument by counsel. And since we have no empirical data to measure the validity of the prediction, we must rely on our own rough judgments of its plausibility.

The Court reasons that a jury uninformed of its power to nullify will invoke that power only where it "feels strongly about the values involved in the case, so strongly that it [will] itself identify the case as establishing a call of high conscience * * *." In other words, the spontaneous and unsolicited act of nullification is thought less likely, on the whole, to reflect bias and a perverse sense of values than the act of nullification carried out by a jury carefully instructed on its power and responsibility.

It seems substantially more plausible to me to assume that the very opposite is true. The juror motivated by prejudice seems to me more likely to make spontaneous use of the power to nullify, and more likely to disregard the judge's exposition of the normally controlling legal standards. The conscientious juror, who could make a careful effort to consider the blameworthiness of the defendant's action in light of prevailing community values, is the one most likely to obey the judge's admonition that the jury enforce strict principles of law.

Moreover, if it were true that nullification which arises out of ignorance is in some sense more worthy than nullification which arises out of knowledge, the Court would have to go much further. For under the Court's assumption, the harm does not arise because a jury is told of its power to disregard the law, but because it knows of its power. Logically construed, the Court's opinion would seem to require the disqualification at voir dire of any prospective juror who admitted to knowledge of the doctrine. By excluding jurors with knowledge of the doctrine the Court could insure that its invocation would be spontaneous. And yet, far from requiring the exclusion of jurors who are aware of the power, the Court takes comfort in the fact that informal communication to the jury "generally conveys adequately enough the idea of prerogative, of freedom in an occasional case to depart from what the judge says." Majority opinion at 1135. One cannot, it seems to me, have the argument both ways. If, as the Court appears to concede, awareness is preferable to ignorance, then I simply do not understand the justification for relying on a haphazard process of informal communication whose effectiveness is likely to depend, to a large extent, on whether or not any of the jurors are so well-educated and astute that they are able to receive the message. If the jury should know of its power to disregard the law, then the power should be explicitly described by instruction of the court or argument of counsel.

My own view rests on the premise that nullification can and should serve an important function in the criminal process.* I do not see it as a doctrine that exists only because we lack the power to punish [*1142] jurors who refuse to enforce the law or to re-prosecute a defendant whose acquittal cannot be justified in the strict terms of law.* The doctrine permits the jury to bring to bear on the criminal process a sense of fairness and particularized justice. The drafters of legal rules cannot anticipate and take account of every case where a defendant's conduct is "unlawful" but not blameworthy, any more than they can draw a bold line to mark the boundary between an accident and negligence. It is the jury -- as spokesman for the community's sense of values -- that must explore that subtle and elusive boundary.


----------



## watcher

greg273 said:


> There is no REAL evidence AT ALL of what happened during the beginning of the altercation, only the words of the accused. You seem to think Trayvon 'ambushed' Zimmerman. Are you forgetting he was ON THE PHONE at the time?? Who waits in ambush then assaults someone while chatting on the phone?? Then yells 'get off, get off'?? That makes ZERO sense, and I think is KEY to piecing together what REALLY happened, not the 'innocent victim' narrative Georgie spun to the police in order to save his behind.


The rub is that the physical evidence supports Zimmerman's story. There is zero evidence to support any way to support Martin being attacked.


----------



## watcher

farmrbrown said:


> What you read was probably a motion for immunity that may or may not have been made by his attorney, in essence using the stand your ground law as his protective shield, seeing how he followed the law as it was written and the jury agreed.


That's another myth. Stand your ground had NOTHING to do with this case. This was a self defense case and nothing more.




farmrbrown said:


> After seeing the evidence, what was admitted into court and what wasn't, I predict that there will be no civil suit filed against Zimmerman, unless they just like paying his attorneys' fees.


I'm thinking they'll try. If Zimmerman was smart he'd have a counter suit ready to go with only the amount he's suing for blank. As soon as they file he doubles their number and files his suit. Remember Martin was a minor, 17, at the time of the attack therefore his parents are legally liability for any harm caused by his actions.


----------



## Darren

davel745 said:


> I have a question. I saw somewhere on HT that Zimmerman cant be sued by anyone since he was found not guilty in Florida. Some kind of law. Any one know anything about this?


The text of a Florida statute that was posted on another website precluded a civil suit if the defendant was found not guilty.


----------



## Darren

watcher said:


> The rub is that the physical evidence supports Zimmerman's story. There is zero evidence to support any way to support Martin being attacked.


Especially since Rachel Jeantel let the cat out of the bag that it was Martin who attacked. Her reasoning was that Zimmerman shouldn't have shot Trayvon because he was getting a "whoop a**", which is a butt kicking instead of a bash which is slang for a killing. Poor Zimmerman didn't know enough to ask whether he was getting a "whoop a**" or a bash. All stupid Zimmerman could say was, "Get off!" and call for help repeatedly.

Maybe Martin saying, "You're going to die tonight" must have given him a clue Martin was going for a bash.

Odd that Crump kept Jeantel secluded before the trial and then after the trial let her go on national media. Who couldn't see that disaster coming? Jeantel singlehandedly derailed Holder's thoughts of a federal civil rights trial and may have put Crump's career in jeopardy.


----------



## farmrbrown

watcher said:


> That's another myth. Stand your ground had NOTHING to do with this case. This was a self defense case and nothing more.



I respectfully disagree, based on the statute numbers used in Zimmerman's case, chapter 776.



Darren said:


> The text of a Florida statute that was posted on another website precluded a civil suit if the defendant was found not guilty.


This would be what you're looking for.

http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/776.032


----------



## greg273

Darren said:


> I'm glad you brought that up, Greg. I take it you haven't seen the interview of Rachael Jeantel, the girl on the phone with Trayvon, when she was on the Piers Morgan show. Zimmerman didn't attack Trayvon. She said Trayvon wasn't going to kill Zimmerman, he was just going to give him a Whoop A**. It's called a bash when you want to kill someone.
> 
> Even Piers Morgan knew the wrong cat had been let out of the bag by his stunned follow up. Now you know why the judge wouldn't let the defense use an expert to verify that those were Zimmerman's screams.
> 
> I'm not sure why anyone would think a kid grounding and pounding someone would yell, "Get off! Get off!" The assailant might talk about the guy's parentage maybe even his possibilities of living, but "Get off! Get off!"? Don't think so!
> 
> In a nut shell the girl confirmed, on TV, that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman or gave him a Whoop A**, as she put it. The DOJ civil lawsuit if it wasn't mission impossible before, is now.
> 
> I wonder how much time will pass before the tape of that show is subpoenaed. Hours? Days? Certainly not weeks.


 You're right, I hadn't heard that, and after watching it, it STILL doesn't back up your contention, or prove in any way shape or form who began the physical altercation. The person who yelled 'get off' did so BEFORE the major struggle began, it was NOT during the throw-down. The throw down was NOT captured on audio, as the phone call cut off. Her talking about a 'whoopin' was in reference to the actual fight, not what led up to it.
I see this lack of evidence has not deterred you from claiming it was Zimmerman saying 'get off', when the witness testified under oath it was Trayvon who said that. 
And the whole 'your're gonna die tonight'.... is there any witnesses other than 
Zimmerman who can attest to that as factual?? 
And would you care to comment on why someone 'waiting to attack someone' would stay on the phone? Not really a good tactic to jump someone with one hand on a cellphone.


----------



## Darren

Greg, it does not matter who started the confrontation. Jeantel's revelation proves Marin was beating Zimmerman. It correlates with eyewitnesses account of the fight. As to why Martin would jump someone with a phone in his hand, why do you assume that. Why not put the phone in a pocket?

Have you read any of Martin's stuff or seen any of the pictures on his phone. Aren't you the leas bit curious about why the prosecutor withheld evidence and the IT director who uncovered that evidence was fired when he went to an outside lawyer because he found out the evidence was withheld and he was worried about the ethical implications. The man's lawyer already said a lawsui will be fired.

There was a coordinated effort to lynch Zimmerman in the court of public opinion. The same scheme made an attempt to portray the kid as something he wasn't. The kid had a self-proclaimed mean streak.

Are you aware that the kid was caught with stolen jewelry? Are you aware the NAACP betrayed Zimmerman?

All of the manipulations associated with this mess go against everything this country is supposed to stand for. Zimmerman was pronounced guilty before the trial ever started. People still want blood.

What I find baffling is people disregarding much of the information that's available.


----------



## katydidagain

Okay, forget the poem since few seemed to "get it". Here's the explanation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant


----------



## Old Vet

greg273 said:


> You're right, I hadn't heard that, and after watching it, it STILL doesn't back up your contention, or prove in any way shape or form who began the physical altercation. The person who yelled 'get off' did so BEFORE the major struggle began, it was NOT during the throw-down. The throw down was NOT captured on audio, as the phone call cut off. Her talking about a 'whooping' was in reference to the actual fight, not what led up to it.
> I see this lack of evidence has not deterred you from claiming it was Zimmerman saying 'get off', when the witness testified under oath it was Trayvon who said that.
> And the whole 'your're gonna die tonight'.... is there any witnesses other than
> Zimmerman who can attest to that as factual??
> And would you care to comment on why someone 'waiting to attack someone' would stay on the phone? Not really a good tactic to jump someone with one hand on a cellphone.


Yep it was Trayvon that that was attacked and Zimmerman broke his own knows and shot him while standing up. At least that is what the media wants you to know. After all Travon was as innocent as any young teenager going for tea and skittles. If you listen to the truth Travon thought Zimmerman was a gay person intending to rape him. That is why he tried to put a A** whooping on him. So it was a case of homophobes but in fact it was a neighbor hood person doing his job.


----------



## katydidagain

Old Vet said:


> Yep it was Trayvon that that was attacked and Zimmerman broke his own knows and shot him while standing up. At least that is what the media wants you to know. After all Travon was as innocent as any young teenager going for tea and skittles. If you listen to the truth Travon thought Zimmerman was a gay person intending to rape him. That is why he tried to put a A** whooping on him. So it was a case of homophobes but in fact it was a neighbor hood person doing his job.


I post on a board with Obama loving women; they out liberal me or did. I've always been pretty quiet but I'm suggesting we get rid of CCW permits here and now; they think it's a great idea. They're angry as am I that the "good old boys" can't stop trying to justify King GZ's acts. 

Fists are fists. 

Fat man who is armed has no fear thus can kill without consequence; fat man with no weapon uses his smarts to avoid conflict. 

Most good old boys I've met are out of shape and very obese.


----------



## Darren

Katy, do you remember the town in Georgia that passed a law that required residents own a gun and saw the crime rate drop?

http://rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm

What about Florida?

"In 1987, my home state of Florida enacted a âshall issueâ law that has become the model for other states. Anti-gun groups, politicians and the news media predicted the new law would lead to vigilante justice and âWild Westâ shootouts on every corner. But* since adopting a concealed carry law Floridaâs total violent crime rate has dropped 32%* and its homicide rate has dropped 58%. Floridians, except for criminals, are safer due to this law. "

http://www.humanevents.com/2009/01/26/concealed-carry-permits-are-life-savers/

A friend of a friend saw someone breaking into his shed in the backyard. The man saw the friend of a friend watching him and tried to break in the back door. The would be thief died when the homeowner stopped the home invasion. He was lucky he had a shotgun. The man who tried to break in and get him wasn't.

Did you read about the young mother who cowered in her locked bedroom with her kid in Zimmerman's subdivision when someone broke into the house? She was defenseless. Not everyone is as lucky as you. 

Do you think these young adults might have survived if either had a CCW? Instead both were raped, the woman was forced to watch while the man was tortured and killed knowing her turn was next. They worked on her for a couple of days including cutting off her breast and pouring bleach down her throat while she was alive! After shooting her several times, they set her on fire too. Those young adults weren't as lucky as you either.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/newsom.asp

*About fists:*

"*Ricardo Portillo of Salt Lake City passed away at the hospital, where he was being treated following the assault last weekend,* Unified police spokesman Justin Hoyal said Saturday night. *Police have accused a 17-year-old player* in a recreational soccer league of punching Portillo after the man called a foul on him and issued him a yellow card. 
*The suspect was close to Portillo and punched him once in the face* as a result of the call," Hoyal said in a press release."

http://www.digtriad.com/news/articl...lo-Dies-After-Being-Punched-By-Teenage-Player

If you're uncomfortable with firearms by all means stay away from them. But please reconsider your desire to deny others an effective means of self-defense.


----------



## Forerunner

Excellent reference, FB.

Perhaps now the distinction between statute, judicial preference and _LAW_ will be seen more clearly......... ?



farmrbrown said:


> Here's an interesting and ongoing case right now in Orlando involving the right to disseminate info to jurors. The judge that threw the defendant in jail for contempt for distributing fliers in the parking lot, is none other than the Casey Anthony judge.
> 
> http://www.copblock.org/29616/markschmidter/
> 
> This was a recent victory along the same lines in South Florida
> 
> http://sdfla.blogspot.com/2012/04/jury-nullification-case-dismissed.html
> 
> 
> In fact, in researching this, I found an interesting part of a Federal case which confirmed what I said earlier.
> No where, in any of the 50 states will anyone ever be able to quote a statute that says jury nullification, which is by extension is ignoring a judges instructions, is illegal.
> To say that Florida SC doesn't give _permission_ is true, no one asks permission for a right they already have, and the courts KNOW this, they would rather YOU didn't know.
> 
> Buried in this case.....
> http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/juryseminar/USvDougherty1972.html
> 
> Is this gem, written in dissent, but very revealing.
> 
> 
> BAZELON, Chief Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part:
> 
> My disagreement with the Court concerns the issue of jury nullification. As the Court's opinion clearly acknowledges, there can be no doubt that the jury has "an unreviewable and unreversible power * * * to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge * * *." More important, the Court apparently concedes -- although in somewhat grudging terms -- that the power of nullification is a "necessary counter to case-hardened judges and arbitrary prosecutors," and that exercise of the power may, in at least some instances, "enhance, the over-all normative effect of the rule of law." We could not withhold that concession without scoffing at the rationale that underlies the right to jury trial in criminal cases, and belittling some of the most legendary episodes in our political and jurisprudential history.
> 
> The sticking point, however, is whether or not the jury should be told of its power to nullify the law in a particular case. Here, the trial judge not only denied a requested instruction on nullification, but also barred defense counsel from raising the issue in argument before the jury. The majority affirms that ruling. I see no justification for, and considerable harm in, this deliberate lack of candor.
> 
> At trial, the defendants made no effort to deny that they had committed the acts charged. Their defense was designed to persuade the jury that it would be unconscionable to convict them of violating a statute whose general validity and applicability they did not challenge. An instruction on nullification -- or at least some argument to the jury on that issue -- was, therefore, the linchpin of the defense.
> 
> At the outset it is important to recognize that the trial judge was not simply neutral on the question of nullification. His instruction, set out in part in the margin, emphatically denied the existence of a "legal defense" based on "sincere religious motives" or a belief that action was justified by "some higher law." That charge was not directly inconsistent with the theory of jury nullification. Nullification is not a "defense" recognized by law, but rather a mechanism that permits a jury, as community conscience, to disregard the strict requirements of law where it finds that those requirements cannot justly be applied in a particular case. Yet the impact of the judge's instruction, whatever his intention, was almost surely to discourage the jury from measuring the defendants' action against community concepts of blameworthiness.
> 
> Thus, we are left with a doctrine that may "enhance the over-all normative effect of the rule of law," but, at the same time, one that must not only be concealed from the jury, but also effectively condemned in the jury's presence. Plainly, the justification for this sleight-of-hand lies in a fear that an occasionally noble doctrine will, if acknowledged, often be put to ignoble and abusive purposes -- or, to borrow the Court's phrase, will "run the risk of anarchy." A breakdown of the legal order is not a result I would knowingly encourage or enjoy. But the question cannot be resolved, at least at this stage of the argument, by asking if we are for or against anarchy, or if we are willing to tolerate a little less law and order so that we can permit a little more jury nullification. No matter how horrible the effect feared by the Court, the validity of its reasoning depends on the existence of a demonstrable connection between the alleged cause (a jury nullification instruction or argument to the jury on that issue) and that effect. I am unable to see a connection.
> 
> To be sure, there are abusive purposes, discussed below, to which the doctrine might be put. The Court assumes that these abuses are most likely to occur if the doctrine is formally described to the jury by argument or instruction. That assumption, it should be clear, does not rest on any proposition of logic. It is nothing more or less than a prediction of how jurors will react to the judge's instruction or argument by counsel. And since we have no empirical data to measure the validity of the prediction, we must rely on our own rough judgments of its plausibility.
> 
> The Court reasons that a jury uninformed of its power to nullify will invoke that power only where it "feels strongly about the values involved in the case, so strongly that it [will] itself identify the case as establishing a call of high conscience * * *." In other words, the spontaneous and unsolicited act of nullification is thought less likely, on the whole, to reflect bias and a perverse sense of values than the act of nullification carried out by a jury carefully instructed on its power and responsibility.
> 
> It seems substantially more plausible to me to assume that the very opposite is true. The juror motivated by prejudice seems to me more likely to make spontaneous use of the power to nullify, and more likely to disregard the judge's exposition of the normally controlling legal standards. The conscientious juror, who could make a careful effort to consider the blameworthiness of the defendant's action in light of prevailing community values, is the one most likely to obey the judge's admonition that the jury enforce strict principles of law.
> 
> Moreover, if it were true that nullification which arises out of ignorance is in some sense more worthy than nullification which arises out of knowledge, the Court would have to go much further. For under the Court's assumption, the harm does not arise because a jury is told of its power to disregard the law, but because it knows of its power. Logically construed, the Court's opinion would seem to require the disqualification at voir dire of any prospective juror who admitted to knowledge of the doctrine. By excluding jurors with knowledge of the doctrine the Court could insure that its invocation would be spontaneous. And yet, far from requiring the exclusion of jurors who are aware of the power, the Court takes comfort in the fact that informal communication to the jury "generally conveys adequately enough the idea of prerogative, of freedom in an occasional case to depart from what the judge says." Majority opinion at 1135. One cannot, it seems to me, have the argument both ways. If, as the Court appears to concede, awareness is preferable to ignorance, then I simply do not understand the justification for relying on a haphazard process of informal communication whose effectiveness is likely to depend, to a large extent, on whether or not any of the jurors are so well-educated and astute that they are able to receive the message. If the jury should know of its power to disregard the law, then the power should be explicitly described by instruction of the court or argument of counsel.
> 
> My own view rests on the premise that nullification can and should serve an important function in the criminal process.* I do not see it as a doctrine that exists only because we lack the power to punish [*1142] jurors who refuse to enforce the law or to re-prosecute a defendant whose acquittal cannot be justified in the strict terms of law.* The doctrine permits the jury to bring to bear on the criminal process a sense of fairness and particularized justice. The drafters of legal rules cannot anticipate and take account of every case where a defendant's conduct is "unlawful" but not blameworthy, any more than they can draw a bold line to mark the boundary between an accident and negligence. It is the jury -- as spokesman for the community's sense of values -- that must explore that subtle and elusive boundary.


----------



## farmrbrown

Darren said:


> Katy, do you remember the town in Georgia that passed a law that required residents own a gun and saw the crime rate drop?
> 
> http://rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm
> 
> What about Florida?
> 
> "In 1987, my home state of Florida enacted a &#8220;shall issue&#8221; law that has become the model for other states. Anti-gun groups, politicians and the news media predicted the new law would lead to vigilante justice and &#8220;Wild West&#8221; shootouts on every corner. But* since adopting a concealed carry law Florida&#8217;s total violent crime rate has dropped 32%* and its homicide rate has dropped 58%. Floridians, except for criminals, are safer due to this law. "
> 
> http://www.humanevents.com/2009/01/26/concealed-carry-permits-are-life-savers/
> 
> A friend of a friend saw someone breaking into his shed in the backyard. The man saw the friend of a friend watching him and tried to break in the back door. The would be thief died when the homeowner stopped the home invasion. He was lucky he had a shotgun. The man who tried to break in and get him wasn't.
> 
> Did you read about the young mother who cowered in her locked bedroom with her kid in Zimmerman's subdivision when someone broke into the house? She was defenseless. Not everyone is as lucky as you.
> 
> Do you think these young adults might have survived if either had a CCW? Instead both were raped, the woman was forced to watch while the man was tortured and killed knowing her turn was next. They worked on her for a couple of days including cutting off her breast and pouring bleach down her throat while she was alive! After shooting her several times, they set her on fire too. Those young adults weren't as lucky as you either.
> 
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/newsom.asp
> 
> 
> If you're uncomfortable with firearms by all means stay away from them. But please reconsider your desire to deny others an effective means of self-defense.



When dealing with emotions, like a forum of Obama loving women she mentioned, facts will do you no good. They probably hate reading Ben Franklin's witticism's as well.:yawn:
I already suggested that to alleviate this "fear" of CCW holders, we simply revert to open carry. If fear of the unknown was the true fear, this would solve it - but that isn't their true goal. 
It's total disarmament.
As foolish as that is in light of world history, their emotions override all logic.

*IF* they truly wanted to save some child's life (as they will all tell you that is their goal, after all) they would insist on rearing that child to be taught not to lie or steal, and to respect one another.
But that would put the responsibility squarely where it belongs, wouldn't it?


----------



## davel745

Darren said:


> Greg, it does not matter who started the confrontation. Jeantel's revelation proves Marin was beating Zimmerman. It correlates with eyewitnesses account of the fight. As to why Martin would jump someone with a phone in his hand, why do you assume that. Why not put the phone in a pocket?
> 
> Have you read any of Martin's stuff or seen any of the pictures on his phone. Aren't you the leas bit curious about why the prosecutor withheld evidence and the IT director who uncovered that evidence was fired when he went to an outside lawyer because he found out the evidence was withheld and he was worried about the ethical implications. The man's lawyer already said a lawsui will be fired.
> 
> There was a coordinated effort to lynch Zimmerman in the court of public opinion. The same scheme made an attempt to portray the kid as something he wasn't. The kid had a self-proclaimed mean streak.
> 
> Are you aware that the kid was caught with stolen jewelry? Are you aware the NAACP betrayed Zimmerman?
> 
> All of the manipulations associated with this mess go against everything this country is supposed to stand for. Zimmerman was pronounced guilty before the trial ever started. People still want blood.
> 
> What I find baffling is people disregarding much of the information that's available.


Thanks to you and farmer brown for your help with my question. 
While I cant write like you and the Farmer brown I do try to read every word. Sometimes I miss what is being said but usually I don't. I find that most people don't read and try to understand what they have read. This is a cause for great misunderstanding in this whole country. And as can be seen some groups just cant read. So they get there info by the spoken word which in the last 40 years or so has been full of misinformation.


----------



## watcher

I sometimes go to wikipedia, click on the random article link to find something interesting to read. When I do this I usually find other links in the articles to click on. I was doing that yesterday and my round about route took me to here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense

It wasn't until this morning after reading some post here I realized this is EXACT ALLY what the people who are trying to justify/defend Martin's attack on Zimmerman are doing.


----------



## Txsteader

greg273 said:


> I see this lack of evidence has not deterred you from claiming it was Zimmerman saying 'get off', *when the witness testified under oath it was Trayvon who said that. *


Are you referring to Trayvon's mother?


----------



## Karen

farmrbrown said:


> *IF* they truly wanted to save some child's life (as they will all tell you that is their goal, after all) they would insist on rearing that child to be taught not to lie or steal, and to respect one another.
> But that would put the responsibility squarely where it belongs, wouldn't it?


That's very unfair. There are many, many, many parents of wayward kids that do teach their child those things and teach them well; even going to whatever extremes they need to get into their children's head. 

But there are some kids where there is just something built into them that, what they want, runs deeper than what they have been taught and what the consequences are. They just can't seem to make the connection.


----------



## watcher

farmrbrown said:


> I respectfully disagree, based on the statute numbers used in Zimmerman's case, chapter 776.


Disagree all you want but I challenge you to find one time where Zimmerman's lawyers mentioned it in the trial.

Just because they listed it in some of the filed papers doesn't mean they used it.

I don't know just who Mark Rubin is but he is listed as a "legal expert" for a Jacksonville radio station and he says the defense didn't even use Stand Your Ground because they had a strong enough argument for self-defense.


----------



## watcher

Karen said:


> That's very unfair.


I disagree. In this case it is very fair. From what little I know Martin never had any consequences applied to him for his actions. Neither his parents nor any of the 'systems' did anything but turn a blind eye and/or pass the buck when he 'was a bad boy'. I don't know what his school record is but I'm willing to bet a 10 day suspension was viewed by him as a vacation, not a punishment. 




Karen said:


> There are many, many, many parents of wayward kids that do teach their child those things and teach them well; even going to whatever extremes they need to get into their children's head.
> 
> But there are some kids where there is just something built into them that, what they want, runs deeper than what they have been taught and what the consequences are. They just can't seem to make the connection.


As a number I can agree due to the fact there are several million families in the nation. As a percentage I do not. Of all the 'troubled' kids I have dealt with I could count the number who fit the pattern of "a bad kid from a good family" on one hand and have fingers left over.

There are a lot of them whose family's look good but when you dig a little deeper you find out there were a LOT of problems. Most people would be amazed how well abusive people can look like very nice people with wonderful families. Also just because a parent never beats or rapes a kid that doesn't mean that parent isn't abusive.

How many times have you read news stories about someone had done a horrible thing and people say "But he was such a good person." or "He had such a nice family." but as the story unfolds you find out the person or the family was no where nice in private?


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> Disagree all you want but I challenge you to find one time where Zimmerman's lawyers mentioned it in the trial.
> 
> Just because they listed it in some of the filed papers doesn't mean they used it.
> 
> I don't know just who Mark Rubin is but he is listed as a "legal expert" for a Jacksonville radio station and he says the defense didn't even use Stand Your Ground because they had a strong enough argument for self-defense.


I don't believe it was mentioned by the defense but I believe it was mentioned as part of the jury instructions.


----------



## davel745

Karen said:


> That's very unfair. There are many, many, many parents of wayward kids that do teach their child those things and teach them well; even going to whatever extremes they need to get into their children's head.
> 
> But there are some kids where there is just something built into them that, what they want, runs deeper than what they have been taught and what the consequences are. They just can't seem to make the connection.


I bet Martin learned that his actions had consequences in last few seconds he had. This is what we are becoming a nation of bullies.


----------



## Darren

davel745 said:


> I bet Martin learned that his actions had consequences in last few seconds he had. This is what we are becoming a nation of bullies.


Martin was literally dead before he hit the ground face first. He didn't put his hands out to break his fall. That's how fast it was. After the shot stopped his heart, all he had left was the oxygen in his brain. The effect was the same as a massive heart attack or stroke only Martin knew what hit him.

As much as some tried to make out he suffered, he didn't hang on for minutes. Years ago I read an account of an auto accident that resulted in the passenger's decapitation. The head fell on the floor. The eyes moved to look up at the driver and it was over. 

Martin went that fast too.


----------



## mmoetc

Darren said:


> Martin was literally dead before he hit the ground face first. He didn't put his hands out to break his fall. That's how fast it was. After the shot stopped his heart, all he had left was the oxygen in his brain. The effect was the same as a massive heart attack or stroke only Martin knew what hit him.
> 
> As much as some tried to make out he suffered, he didn't hang on for minutes. Years ago I read an account of an auto accident that resulted in the passenger's decapitation. The head fell on the floor. The eyes moved to look up at the driver and it was over.
> 
> Martin went that fast too.


He apparently lived long enough to realize he'd been shot and to speak to Zimmerman. If you believe Zimmerman.


----------



## Nevada

Darren said:


> Martin was literally dead before he hit the ground face first. He didn't put his hands out to break his fall. That's how fast it was. After the shot stopped his heart, all he had left was the oxygen in his brain. The effect was the same as a massive heart attack or stroke only Martin knew what hit him.
> 
> As much as some tried to make out he suffered, he didn't hang on for minutes. Years ago I read an account of an auto accident that resulted in the passenger's decapitation. The head fell on the floor. The eyes moved to look up at the driver and it was over.
> 
> Martin went that fast too.


Of course it takes awhile for brain tissue to die. It's said in CPR classes that after 6 minutes significant brain damage is probable. When people talk of "death" they are talking about brain tissue dying, not the heart stopping.

The heart probably kept beating for a minute or two after the right ventricle was lacerated by the bullet. What initiated the death process was bleeding-out from the badly lacerated left ventricle, not the stopping of the heart.

The testimony about Martin suffering should have been challenged with contrary expert testimony. I have no idea why the prosecution didn't do that, since they had to see it coming in the discovery. Yet another example of the prosecution not doing its job.

While it took awhile for Martin's brain tissue to die after the fatal shot, that in no way means that he was conscious or could feel pain. We all know that we can lose consciousness just by standing up too fast, so just imagine the radical drop in blood pressure from a severely lacerated right ventricle. I believe that Martin had bled out and lost blood pressure very quickly, so could not have remained conscious for more than a matter of seconds after being shot. After that he would have been unconscious and unable to move or feel pain, since he was in deep shock.

The suggestion that Martin suffered after the first few seconds of being shot is complete nonsense.


----------



## katydidagain

Darren said:


> If you're uncomfortable with firearms by all means stay away from them. But please reconsider your desire to deny others an effective means of self-defense.


I am not uncomfortable with firearms; I carried a 38 (quite illegally) lent to me years ago by the retired Marine range instructor who taught me how to shoot. I've forgotten my lessons after 30 some years but could, if desired, regain my skills. I am not against someone having a weapon for protection on their own land; if I lived where in an isolated area or where I felt unsafe (that's why I carried years ago), then I would be armed. On my property. If you want to carry in public, support changing the rules to require notification of such to others or risk losing your "right" because the majority of citizens don't like the idea that you have the upper hand--always.


----------



## kasilofhome

I thank every open carry person carrying out in public. I do so to encourage and esp. due to the *P*ublic *C*ontrol in the news medica where legally responceable people are being pushed in to giving up a legal right in order to allow some people to take the freedom of another simply because they (anti gun people) do not like guns. Heck it worked to rid peanuts from the skys and lunchrooms. Complain and fail to be personally responcable --you know hit, strick, kill, steal yet expect to not face the resoults of their person choices. Look as harsh as it sounds TM earned the participation award for asualting --sad but he earned the wreath award.


----------



## katydidagain

kasilofhome said:


> I thank every *open carry* person carrying out in public. I do so to encourage and esp. due to the *P*ublic *C*ontrol in the news medica where legally responceable people are being pushed in to giving up a legal right in order to allow some people to take the freedom of another simply because they (anti gun people) do not like guns. Heck it worked to rid peanuts from the skys and lunchrooms. Complain and fail to be personally responcable --you know hit, strick, kill, steal yet expect to not face the resoults of their person choices. Look as harsh as it sounds TM earned the participation award for asualting --sad but he earned the wreath award.


My point is that they are not in the open; they're a secret little group of wannabee vigilantes and apparently any kind of nut can get this permit to kill others with impunity. Bell the cat by tattooing their licenses on CCW holder's foreheads so we can avoid the crazies when out minding our own business in public.


----------



## po boy

katydidagain said:


> My point is that they are not in the open; they're a secret little group of wannabee vigilantes and apparently any kind of nut can get this permit to kill others with impunity. Bell the cat by tattooing their licenses on CCW holder's foreheads so we can avoid the crazies when out minding our own business in public.


 I am sure you have stats to show that the millions of CCW holders are killing people with impunity.

Honestly based on your statement, there would be millions killed yearly by CCW holders.


----------



## kasilofhome

Kati---
Are you of the belief that there are no checks on CCW? Can you show the number of legal CCW persons involed in a shooting as a percentage of shooting against ILLEGALLY carried guns. Which is a greater number CCW or criminals? Which group really are the Crazies doing harm insocieties. Also how many of the time is a CCW fired when a crime against the holder of the permit (Permission granted after applying for and meeting the standards for the permit) of in defence of an unarmed victim. How offen has a person stopped or impeaded an exculation of violence.

http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html


----------



## Darren

katydidagain said:


> My point is that they are not in the open; they're a secret little group of wannabee vigilantes and *apparently any kind of nut can get this permit to kill others with impunity.* Bell the cat by tattooing their licenses on CCW holder's foreheads so we can avoid the crazies when out minding our own business in public.


Katy, there are requirements anyone who applies for a CCW permit has to meet. A criminal backgound check is the one that keeps the bad guys from getting one. Of course that doesn't stop them from getting a gun anyway.

This is the twenty year old manager of a Dollar Store in Dearborn, MI that was recently abducted and killed. The cashier was killed too. I doubt when she got out of bed on Monday she knew her body would be found three days later in the woods.

The lies about Martin have stirred up hate that is getting people attacked. A man was pulled out of his car and hit in the head so many times with a hammer, his father says he is unrecognizable. Again, please don't deny others the legal right to carry the means to protect themselves and their families from incidents like these.


----------



## katydidagain

kasilofhome said:


> Kati---
> Are you of the belief that there are no checks on CCW? Can you show the number of legal CCW persons involed in a shooting as a percentage of shooting against ILLEGALLY carried guns. Which is a greater number CCW or criminals? Which group really are the Crazies doing harm insocieties. Also how many of the time is a CCW fired when a crime against the holder of the permit (Permission granted after applying for and meeting the standards for the permit) of in defence of an unarmed victim. *How offen has a person stopped or impeaded an exculation of violence.*
> http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html


This time it was an unarmed person who was killed. He had no criminal record; he had every right to be on the same property as GZ. Both participants were stupid in this situation but still one is dead. He probably did attack GZ; GZ was following him. In his shoes, I'd have run but I don't have much testosterone in my body. 

No, I don't want you guys "protecting me". I know pretty much how to avoid bad guys; I do not know how to avoid those who pretend not to be. I honestly don't care how "good you folk are"; I want nothing to do with someone who could put my life or that of my loved ones in jeopardy. Keep your guns at home and defend your place.


----------



## kasilofhome

Kati--

is it legal to steal? Is it legal to do the drugs in his system? Is it legall to pound on someone? If you feel that these behavior are illegal than please accept that GZ is better at selection a potential problem person than the TSA. --Sorry I would say that TM was criminal.

I want nothing to do with someone who could put my life or that of my loved ones in jeopardy
Your wants do not elimit the rights of others.

Did you open the link--here is a sample
*More: **Gunman, two dead in Clackamas mall shooting*
The friend and baby hit the floor. Meli, who has a concealed carry permit, positioned himself behind a pillar.
"He was working on his rifle," said Meli. "He kept pulling the charging handle and hitting the side."
The break in gunfire allowed Meli to pull out his own gun, but he never took his eyes off the shooter.
"As I was going down to pull, I saw someone in the back of the Charlotte move, and I knew if I fired and missed, I could hit them," he said.
Meli took cover inside a nearby store. He never pulled the trigger. He stands by that decision.
"I'm not beating myself up cause I didn't shoot him," said Meli. "I know after he saw me, I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself."


----------



## greg273

Darren said:


> Greg, it does not matter who started the confrontation. Jeantel's revelation proves Marin was beating Zimmerman. It correlates with eyewitnesses account of the fight. As to why Martin would jump someone with a phone in his hand, why do you assume that. Why not put the phone in a pocket?
> 
> Have you read any of Martin's stuff or seen any of the pictures on his phone. Aren't you the leas bit curious about why the prosecutor withheld evidence and the IT director who uncovered that evidence was fired when he went to an outside lawyer because he found out the evidence was withheld and he was worried about the ethical implications. The man's lawyer already said a lawsui will be fired.
> 
> There was a coordinated effort to lynch Zimmerman in the court of public opinion. The same scheme made an attempt to portray the kid as something he wasn't. The kid had a self-proclaimed mean streak.
> 
> Are you aware that the kid was caught with stolen jewelry? Are you aware the NAACP betrayed Zimmerman?
> 
> All of the manipulations associated with this mess go against everything this country is supposed to stand for. Zimmerman was pronounced guilty before the trial ever started. People still want blood.
> 
> What I find baffling is people disregarding much of the information that's available.


 Trayvon wasn't on trial, GZ was. You want to delve into the pasts of both men, then go ahead. Now it comes out that GZ is accused of being a pedophile. Which is still irrelevant to the events that occurred that rainy night when he shot an unarmed man.
You still clinging to the fantasy that it was GZ yelling 'get off'?? Because that is not what the witness testified to. So it appears GZ was doing SOMETHING to cause Trayvon to say that. So by your logic, Trayvon was entirely justified in using deadly force to react to an armed attacker. He was probably scared also, correct?


----------



## kasilofhome

Greg --links and proof--back it


----------



## katydidagain

kasilofhome said:


> Kati--
> 
> is it legal to steal? Is it legal to do the drugs in his system? Is it legall to pound on someone? If you feel that these behavior are illegal than please accept that GZ is better at selection a potential problem person than the TSA. --Sorry I would say that TM was criminal.


TM was not convicted of any crime except here in GC. Did he steal? I don't know and neither do you. Drugs in his system? A little pot from who knows how long ago? (Don't get me started on that--my deceased mother who was a non practicing attorney believed convictions for using marijuana were wrong--from the 70s on--guess the apple doesn't fall fall from the tree.) Pounding on someone? Defending yourself from a stalker? Attacking 1st rather than be attacked? There is no doubt GZ targeted and followed him then played judge, jury and executioner though all he knew about TM was that he was wearing a hoodie. 

TM was not a convicted criminal; he was a kid acting out perhaps but someone's beloved child. BTW, it appears my opinion is shared by many Americans. CCW is going down I predict. I hope it doesn't snowball into people not having the right to protect themselves ON their property but who knows?


----------



## kasilofhome

GZ also was a victim of a Hate crime--he was perceived as a WHITE CRACKER a fed crime.


----------



## po boy

CCW is down I predict??????????????????????????????????// That's funny!


----------



## kasilofhome

If law abiding people and stand up to crazies out to steal their God given right to protect themselves from criminals the natural laws of people learning boundries might stand a chance to return.

(Don't get me started on that--my deceased mother who wa a non practicing attorney believed convictions for using marijuana were wrong--from the 70s on--guess the apple doesn't fall fall from the tree.) SO mom and daughter entitle themselves to pick and choose which laws to adhere to. That might be a fact but what happens when someone follows the firearm tips from the Current sitting Vice President? Your mothers and your views on laws are at your own risks and only valued if you are on a Jury dealing with that subject as what you think does not alter laws or rights. Yes, he had a stolen piece of jewlery. Beaver clever he was not.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> If law abiding people and stand up to crazies out to steal their God given right to protect themselves from criminals the natural laws of people learning boundries might stand a chance to return.


Racism is not a hate crime. Acting on that racism as a reason to hurt someone is.


----------



## katydidagain

kasilofhome said:


> GZ also was a victim of a Hate crime--he was perceived as a WHITE CRACKER a fed crime.


Grasping at straws. He is 1/2 white so the comment fits at least by half. My mother told me about stick and stones and words which means I take insults with a grain of salt and consider the source.

Got more? 

Until reading the comments here I was fully in support of the "carry a gun" concept; I am no longer. Holy cow! Apparently I'm the 1st person visiting GC who has ever changed their mind.


----------



## Nevada

Darren said:


> If you're uncomfortable with firearms by all means stay away from them. But please reconsider your desire to deny others an effective means of self-defense.


I'm not uncomfortable with firearms, although I am uncomfortable with the idea that certain people I know have firearms.

But I support the right of people protecting themselves. I think people should have the right to own, keep, and use firearms, and I support that right. In fact I happen to be the registered handgun owner myself.

What I'm NOT hearing in this discussion is the right of innocent unarmed people to walk down the street without being shot. I can't carry a gun at a lot of places I go, since most hotels & casinos around Las Vegas have a zero-tolerance policy on carrying handguns on their property. If you've got a gun in a casino, you'd better be able to prove that you-re a cop.


----------



## watcher

katydidagain said:


> My point is that they are not in the open; they're a secret little group of wannabee vigilantes and apparently any kind of nut can get this permit to kill others with impunity. Bell the cat by tattooing their licenses on CCW holder's foreheads so we can avoid the crazies when out minding our own business in public.


Not a bit bigoted against CCW people are you?


----------



## katydidagain

watcher said:


> Not a bit bigoted against CCW people are you?


Bigoted? No. Terrified of the nuts? Yep.


----------



## watcher

katydidagain said:


> This time it was an unarmed person who was killed. He had no criminal record; he had every right to be on the same property as GZ. Both participants were stupid in this situation but still one is dead. He probably did attack GZ; GZ was following him. In his shoes, I'd have run but I don't have much testosterone in my body.
> 
> No, I don't want you guys "protecting me". I know pretty much how to avoid bad guys; I do not know how to avoid those who pretend not to be. I honestly don't care how "good you folk are"; I want nothing to do with someone who could put my life or that of my loved ones in jeopardy. Keep your guns at home and defend your place.


So you support removing people's right to operate autos in public? You and your loved ones are much more likely to wind up dead or crippled by being hit by a privately owned auto than someone with a firearm, legal or illegal.


----------



## Darren

greg273 said:


> Trayvon wasn't on trial, GZ was. You want to delve into the pasts of both men, then go ahead. Now it comes out that GZ is accused of being a pedophile. Which is still irrelevant to the events that occurred that rainy night when he shot an unarmed man.
> You still clinging to the fantasy that it was GZ yelling 'get off'?? Because that is not what the witness testified to. So it appears GZ was doing SOMETHING to cause Trayvon to say that. So by your logic, Trayvon was entirely justified in using deadly force to react to an armed attacker. He was probably scared also, correct?


Like I said before Greg, once you have a man on the ground and you keep beating him after he quits, you're the one in wrong. What happens next may be beyond your control. It tuned out that way for Trayvon.


----------



## kasilofhome

TM acted on his verbally expressed view on White Crackers the proof was shown if you missed it GZ was beaten. It took more than Words to release blood from GZ it took concreat and phyical effort on the part of Saint Martin.


----------



## farmrbrown

Karen said:


> That's very unfair. There are many, many, many parents of wayward kids that do teach their child those things and teach them well; even going to whatever extremes they need to get into their children's head.
> 
> But there are some kids where there is just something built into them that, what they want, runs deeper than what they have been taught and what the consequences are. They just can't seem to make the connection.



I apologize if you thought my statement was an indictment of all parents of wayward kids, it wasn't, and wasn't meant to be seen that way.
I was referring to a small, vocal group, described as being on another forum.
IMO, instead of seeing Martin's death as result of some of his own bad decisions, they instead put the blame squarely on everyone else.
It's because of racism, it's because of CCW holders, it's because of those nosy neighborhood watch people, it's because of any gun owner.
They are the ones endangering our children, not because of anything MY child did.

That's what I meant.


----------



## kasilofhome

TM was not convicted of any crime except here in GC. In a court of LAW was GZ shown of having commited a crime that night? NO.


----------



## katydidagain

watcher said:


> So you support removing people's right to operate autos in public? You and your loved ones are much more likely to wind up dead or crippled by being hit by a privately owned auto than someone with a firearm, legal or illegal.


Of course not; I've been driving since 1970 and have only a couple of parking tickets on my record. My family has never been involved in accidents except with deer. That doesn't mean we didn't encounter "maybes" but we were trained to be defensive drivers who paid attention to the road (I don't use a cell when driving) and others around us so we're good. Some nut with a gun hidden in his panties is harder to avoid. Let's get rid of them! Keep your weapons at home and defend your own castle.


----------



## katydidagain

kasilofhome said:


> TM was not convicted of any crime except here in GC. In a court of LAW was GZ shown of having commited a crime that night? NO.


I did not say GZ was a criminal; you said TM was and I pointed out that was wrong. I did say GZ killed someone's child--TM was someone's child, wasn't he?


----------



## Lazaryss

katydidagain said:


> Of course not; I've been driving since 1970 and have only a couple of parking tickets on my record. My family has never been involved in accidents except with deer. That doesn't mean we didn't encounter "maybes" but we were trained to be defensive drivers who paid attention to the road (I don't use a cell when driving) and others around us so we're good. Some nut with a gun hidden in his panties is harder to avoid. Let's get rid of them! Keep your weapons at home and defend your own castle.


I was going to stay out of this as I stated previously but your statements are completely over the edge.

You state we should get rid of CCWs because they are harder to avoid? How about people being decent human beings don't have to worry about people with CCWs. The people that are harder to avoid are the "criminals" with "illegal" firearms that won't follow the law anyway.


----------



## watcher

katydidagain said:


> TM was not convicted of any crime except here in GC. Did he steal? I don't know and neither do you. Drugs in his system? A little pot from who knows how long ago? (Don't get me started on that--my deceased mother who was a non practicing attorney believed convictions for using marijuana were wrong--from the 70s on--guess the apple doesn't fall fall from the tree.) Pounding on someone? Defending yourself from a stalker? Attacking 1st rather than be attacked?


So Martin had the right to walk down the sidewalk but Zimmerman didn't? If someone sees you walking down the sidewalk its perfectly legal for them to follow you. Now let me ask you this. Which would cause you to worry more, if the person following you was a middle aged lighter skinned man or a young black man (assuming you were walking in an area with a wide mix of colors)?

The biggest threat of a violent death to a young black man aren't hispanic men nor white men nor asian men its other BLACK men.




katydidagain said:


> There is no doubt GZ targeted and followed him then played judge, jury and executioner though all he knew about TM was that he was wearing a hoodie.


Well it seems 6 people who sat through a criminal trial with all the evidence before them disagreed.




katydidagain said:


> TM was not a convicted criminal; he was a kid acting out perhaps but someone's beloved child. BTW, it appears my opinion is shared by many Americans. CCW is going down I predict. I hope it doesn't snowball into people not having the right to protect themselves ON their property but who knows?


I don't think so. To be honest with you the anger blacks are showing toward white and hispanic people has made a lot of people I know (black, white and others) ask me about firearms and CCWs. Many of which I would have never thought would want to carry. They have come to realize if they are attacked all the cops can do is try to clean up the mess.


----------



## kasilofhome

Well, might I suggest that you and yours become trained to be defensive and pay attention to your behavior in public and the behaivior of others in public.


----------



## katydidagain

Darren said:


> Like I said before Greg, once you have a man on the ground and you keep beating him after he quits, you're the one in wrong. What happens next may be beyond your control. It tuned out that way for Trayvon.


GZ didn't quit; he shot and killed. Not a very white flag IMHO.


----------



## Nevada

katydidagain said:


> I did say GZ killed someone's child--TM was someone's child, wasn't he?


The fact is that Zimmerman shot the wrong guy. Shooting someone who didn't belong in the complex or someone who was in the process of committing a crime would have made a big difference.

If you shoot the wrong guy you've got some explaining to do. That's what this trial was all about.


----------



## katydidagain

kasilofhome said:


> Well, might I suggest that you and yours become trained to be defensive and pay attention to your behavior in public and the behaivior of others in public.


I am very careful in public and always have been. Until this case I didn't realize that the guy or woman standing next to me at the gas station might be packing--and nutty. Time for CCW to be gone!


----------



## watcher

katydidagain said:


> Grasping at straws. He is 1/2 white so the comment fits at least by half. My mother told me about stick and stones and words which means I take insults with a grain of salt and consider the source.


So if someone calls a half black man the dreaded _N_ word just before he attacks he could not be charged with a hate crime because the person he attacked was only half black? Maybe he could be charged with a dislike crime?





katydidagain said:


> Until reading the comments here I was fully in support of the "carry a gun" concept; I am no longer. Holy cow! Apparently I'm the 1st person visiting GC who has ever changed their mind.


I can tell you my sister is glad she was carrying when a very large man approached her in a dark parking lot and informed her he was going to have forcible sexual relations with her. He quickly changed his mind when faced with the working end of a 38 revolver.

But you are blinded by emotion. I've heard it all before. Every time some state or city starts talking about relaxing their CCW rules the emotional people come out of the woodwork crying and screaming about how putting more guns into the hands of the crazies who want to carry will result in blood ankle deep on the streets and old west shootouts at high noon every day. You know what, it NEVER happens.

Look at the FACTS. Look at the number of CCW permits out there. Look at the number of shootings by CCW holders. Look at the number of of those shooters have been charged.


----------



## Lazaryss

katydidagain said:


> I am very careful in public and always have been. Until this case I didn't realize that the guy or woman standing next to me at the gas station might be packing--and nutty. Time for CCW to be gone!


Then I guess that we should ban driver licenses. Someone might be on something that you cant see! Time for driver licences to be gone.


----------



## Tobster

katydidagain said:


> I am very careful in public and always have been. Until this case I didn't realize that the guy or woman standing next to me at the gas station might be packing--and nutty. Time for CCW to be gone!


You have posted numerous times in this thread stating that you are afraid and terrified of certain people. I have no doubt the fear you are experiencing is very real in your mind. Deciding public policy based on someone's irrational fear is never a good idea.


----------



## katydidagain

Lazaryss said:


> Then I guess that we should ban driver licenses. Someone might be on something that you cant see! Time for driver licences to be gone.


Asked and answered. Scroll up. 

Next?


----------



## Lazaryss

katydidagain said:


> Asked and answered. Scroll up.
> 
> Next?


You repeat the same argument, you get the same rebuttal.

Next?


----------



## po boy

Nevada said:


> The fact is that Zimmerman shot the wrong guy. Shooting someone who didn't belong in the complex or someone who was in the process of committing a crime would have made a big difference.
> 
> If you shoot the wrong guy you've got some explaining to do. That's what this trial was all about.


 NO! He shot the guy trying to kill him!


----------



## katydidagain

watcher said:


> But you are blinded by emotion. I've heard it all before.


No, I have seen the light. My opinions and statements do not attack anyone here unlike a few of you who really are bordering on not very nice and helpful. I am speaking as a unarmed (save my wits which have served me well TYVM) citizen of the US who does not want to be gunned down at the supermarket or gas station by some nut with a license to carry. Perhaps I am being emotional....

Hearing isn't listening, is it?


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> What I'm NOT hearing in this discussion is the right of innocent unarmed people to walk down the street without being shot.


I'm sure there are a lot of people in Chicago who would agree with you. Of course I've walked down a lot of streets where I know people are carrying and have never been shot. AAMOF, I don't know of anyone who has been shot by a CCW holder while walking down the street. Care to give some examples? I'm sure you have a lot seeing how its so common.




Nevada said:


> I can't carry a gun at a lot of places I go, since most hotels & casinos around Las Vegas have a zero-tolerance policy on carrying handguns on their property. If you've got a gun in a casino, you'd better be able to prove that you-re a cop.


That has worked very well. IIRC, the Aurora, Colorado movie theater where the nut case killed all the people had a "zero-tolerance policy" on firearms. Also, IIRC, Columbine High School had a "zero-tolerance policy" on firearms. If I were a betting man I'd bet you Sandy Hook Elementary School also had a "zero-tolerance policy" on firearms. I wonder how long it will be before some nut case realizes that a casino is a target rich no danger environment?


----------



## Lazaryss

katydidagain said:


> Hearing isn't listening, is it?


No it really isn't. How is banning CCWs going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals? How will it keep them from concealing their weapons? Criminals don't care about the law, that is why they are criminals.

Your fear is extremely irrational.


----------



## dixiegal62

katydidagain said:


> This time it was an unarmed person who was killed. He had no criminal record; he had every right to be on the same property as GZ. Both participants were stupid in this situation but still one is dead. He probably did attack GZ; GZ was following him. In his shoes, I'd have run but I don't have much testosterone in my body.
> 
> No, I don't want you guys "protecting me". I know pretty much how to avoid bad guys; I do not know how to avoid those who pretend not to be. I honestly don't care how "good you folk are"; I want nothing to do with someone who could put my life or that of my loved ones in jeopardy. Keep your guns at home and defend your place.


 
You keep saying you know how to avoid the bad guys. How do you know when somebody is a bad guy? That clean cut man next to you at the bank could be a stone cold killer. Do you profile people by their looks, their race, what kind of car they drive?


----------



## katydidagain

Lazaryss said:


> No it really isn't. How is banning CCWs going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals? How will it keep them from concealing their weapons? Criminals don't care about the law, that is why they are criminals.
> 
> Your fear is extremely irrational.


No, it is not. I can, for the most part,, avoid criminals if I travel carefully and use caution deciding where to live. I cannot avoid "citizens with guns in their panties" who can justify killing me because they're afraid. And thus never pay for ending my life.


----------



## davel745

katydidagain said:


> This time it was an unarmed person who was killed. He had no criminal record; he had every right to be on the same property as GZ. Both participants were stupid in this situation but still one is dead. He probably did attack GZ; GZ was following him. In his shoes, I'd have run but I don't have much testosterone in my body.
> 
> No, I don't want you guys "protecting me". I know pretty much how to avoid bad guys; I do not know how to avoid those who pretend not to be. I honestly don't care how "good you folk are"; I want nothing to do with someone who could put my life or that of my loved ones in jeopardy. Keep your guns at home and defend your place.


It isn't the folks here you need to look out for.


----------



## katydidagain

dixiegal62 said:


> You keep saying you know how to avoid the bad guys. How do you know when somebody is a bad guy? That clean cut man next to you at the bank could be a stone cold killer. Do you profile people by their looks, their race, what kind of car they drive?


We all watch people. Don't you?. Sadly the clean cut man next to me at the bank probably has a "gun in his panties" because he isn't considered a bad guy. Take away that "right" and my odds for survival increase greatly.


----------



## Lazaryss

katydidagain said:


> No, it is not. I can, for the most part,, avoid criminals if I travel carefully and use caution deciding where to live. I cannot avoid "citizens with guns in their panties" who can justify killing me because they're afraid. And thus never pay for ending my life.


Tell you what, don't beat someone to the point where they fear for their lives and you won't have to worry about yours  Sounds simple enough to me. I like how you continually use the term panties and nuts. A nice little insult to all the CCW holders out there. Yet you say only others have been insulting...


----------



## Lazaryss

katydidagain said:


> We all watch people. Don't you?. Sadly the clean cut man next to me at the bank probably has a "gun in his panties" because he isn't considered a bad guy. Take away that "right" and my odds for survival increase greatly.


How? Do you plan to beat the man? If not, then I would say your "odds for survival" are pretty much the same.


----------



## katydidagain

Lazaryss said:


> How? Do you plan to beat the man? If not, then I would say your "odds for survival" are pretty much the same.


Don't have to. Just have to scare him. What would do that? Who knows? I honestly don't which is why I would rather anyone carrying a gun in public be identified as a potential risk to me.


----------



## Lazaryss




----------



## farmrbrown

I don't know why this didn't come to me 60 or pages ago, lol.......

Those of you that read 'Animal Farm' will need no explanation, everyone else should give it a quick read, it's not very long.

*"Some animals are more equal than others"*

If Zimmerman had been an off duty cop walking his neighborhood, not only would there be little discussion or doubt, there likely would have been no trial.
Attacked and beaten?
No immediate help available?
Suspect getting upper hand and cop says reaches towards gun?
Sorry, but that's lights out for Trayvon and shooting ruled justifiable......next!

But, you say, "Zimmerman *wasn't* a cop."
Very true, just an ordinary citizen.

Next, we have the whole judge vs. jury thing.
We can't have jurors making their own judgements and conclusions, can we?
No, they must be made to follow instructions from the _more equal_ animals with the law degrees.

Finally, all eligible citizens can apply for a CCW and defend themselves......equal and under the law.....???
Nope, some animals give up that right and wish others to be without their "equalizers" as well.

All make solid arguments for their cause, but have a hard time recognizing what that "cause" is.....
Same as it ever was.


----------



## Lazaryss

katydidagain said:


> Don't have to. Just have to scare him. What would do that? Who knows? I honestly don't which is why I would rather anyone carrying a gun in public be identified as a potential risk to me.


There is an ENORMOUS difference between scaring someone and making someone fear for their lives.


----------



## davel745

katydidagain said:


> I think you're wrong. At this point I've ticked off enough of them that, if they knew where I lived and looked like, they'd pull a GZ on me.


Katy 
I have appreciated all your comments and I don't hold any animosity toward you at all. Your comments have helped me to think of things in a different light or see the clarity of some of my questions. I may be strong about defending yourself with a gun. but the way I see it is going to be necessary very soon. Don't be afraid of anyone here. I am sure you haven't done any harm to anyone and nobody is mad at you.


----------



## katydidagain

davel745 said:


> Katy
> I have appreciated all your comments and I don't hold any animosity toward you at all. Your comments have helped me to think of things in a different light or see the clarity of some of my questions. I may be strong about defending yourself with a gun. but the way I see it is going to be necessary very soon. Don't be afraid of anyone here. I am sure you haven't done any harm to anyone and nobody is mad at you.


Thank you. I guess I look at it this way--there are many unarmed people in this country who just want to live and let live as I do. I believe when it's my time, nothing will change that. So on 1 hand I have no issues with what others chose to do unless it impacts my life and yet I do; I'm human.

However, there are many others who truly believe, as do I, that, if GZ had not been armed, TM would be alive. And the loss of a life in that manner is horrific. DS was a bit of a wild child in his teens--white or not it could have been him that night--so my heart breaks for TM's parents. Maybe he would have ended up in jail for a crime (as mine nearly did--BTW, he recently bought a house and has a great job with a huge company) and maybe he would have become a good father and parent. They will never know

And that breaks this mother's heart.


----------



## Nevada

Tobster said:


> You have posted numerous times in this thread stating that you are afraid and terrified of certain people. I have no doubt the fear you are experiencing is very real in your mind. Deciding public policy based on someone's irrational fear is never a good idea.


There is no question that there are nuts carrying firearms. I know some.


----------



## Lazaryss

Nevada said:


> There is no question that there are nuts carrying firearms. I know some.


There are nuts doing everything. The question is should those few nuts dictate the rights of everyone else?


----------



## EDDIE BUCK

katydidagain said:


> We all watch people. Don't you?. Sadly the clean cut man next to me at the bank probably has a "gun in his panties" because he isn't considered a bad guy. Take away that "right" and my odds for survival increase greatly.


Here you go.Do these guys look like they are up to no good? How different do you think they looked outside?
 The only difference out side, they had their guns inside their clothes.Here they have them in their hands and are killing three unarmed store workers.Put white faces on each one and nothing changes.

They are still 3 cold blooded murderous thugs.Race has nothing to do with it.Had I been there and saw only their backs entering the store,I would have to have followed them, and watched what was happening without my weapon in my hand,but on my side with my hand on the handle.

I might have died,but I think I could have saved some lives as well.When they turned around and I saw their weapon, I would have tried to kill all three, even if their face was the color of a rainbow.No I am not a cop,guard or some kind of security person.Just an ordinary citizen that knows a thug when he sees one.








http://www.witn.com/home/headlines/Three_People_Shot_At_Farmville_Convenience_Store_145712395.html


----------



## watcher

katydidagain said:


> No, it is not. I can, for the most part,, avoid criminals if I travel carefully and use caution deciding where to live. I cannot avoid "citizens with guns in their panties" who can justify killing me because they're afraid. And thus never pay for ending my life.


I suggest you read about a person named Ted Bundy.


----------



## watcher

katydidagain said:


> We all watch people. Don't you?. Sadly the clean cut man next to me at the bank probably has a "gun in his panties" because he isn't considered a bad guy. Take away that "right" and my odds for survival increase greatly.


A little more research of you. Take a few minutes to read about Suzanna Hupp and Luby's restaurant. It will see just how someone NOT having a gun in HER panties makes people so much safer.


----------



## katydidagain

EDDIE BUCK said:


> No I am not a cop,guard or some kind of security person.Just an ordinary citizen that knows a thug when he sees one.


I'm not perfect that way; I'm merely human. Sorry.


----------



## Shrek

katydidagain said:


> Thank you. I guess I look at it this way--there are many unarmed people in this country who just want to live and let live as I do. I believe when it's my time, nothing will change that. So on 1 hand I have no issues with what others chose to do unless it impacts my life and yet I do; I'm human.
> 
> However, there are many others who truly believe, as do I, that, if GZ had not been armed, TM would be alive. And the loss of a life in that manner is horrific. DS was a bit of a wild child in his teens--white or not it could have been him that night--so my heart breaks for TM's parents. Maybe he would have ended up in jail for a crime (as mine nearly did--BTW, he recently bought a house and has a great job with a huge company) and maybe he would have become a good father and parent. They will never know
> 
> And that breaks this mother's heart.


Wow nearly 1900 replies. Only song threads are supposed to get this long.

Yes had zimmerman not been armed , treyvan would have remained alive and possibly zimmerman would have been dead or maybe both would have been dead once the radio car finally arrived and the officer did a body shot of the one on top of the one beaten to death. :shrug:

All in all it does not matter now as the trial is over and justice was served as defined by Florida law and interpreted by a jury struck by attorneys for the prosecution and defense .

I feel sorry for the judge, attorneys, witnesses and jury tasked with serving justice to whoever the idiot is who tries to go after zimmerman on their own and gets caught in the act of retaliation for what they deem prosecution ineptness.


----------



## katydidagain

watcher said:


> A little more research of you. Take a few minutes to read about Suzanna Hupp and Luby's restaurant. It will see just how someone NOT having a gun in HER panties makes people so much safer.


Yeah, I know about Luby's and Ms. Hupp; her gun was in her car and her parents were killed. *So? So? So? So what? *She might have taken out more people than he did if she was armed; is she a crack shot? Do you really know? 

Trying to make me look stupid and uninformed by picking away at my thoughts does not serve your cause. I have said and will again that if people want to carry a gun in public then the fact that they do *should be public*. So I can choose whether to be around the crazies or not. 

Period.


----------



## katydidagain

watcher said:


> I suggest you read about a person named Ted Bundy.


I knew someone who is suspected to have killed nearly as many as Ted. Again, I escaped by using my wits. Life has taught me much I had no desire to know.


----------



## watcher

katydidagain said:


> However, there are many others who truly believe, as do I, that, if GZ had not been armed, TM would be alive.


But would have Zimmerman? You are assuming a lot. You are assuming the only reason he got out of his car is because he had a handgun.

I have placed myself in similar situations many times armed with nothing but my brain. 

Tell you what. AFTER you have been shot and stabbed then come and tell me I'm safer being denied the ability to carry a firearm. After you have been approached in a lonely dark parking lot by a man close to twice your size and told just what he plans to do to your body you can tell my sister she is safer being denied the ability to carry a firearm. 

Even if you believe in your hearts of hearts Zimmerman shot Martin just for the fun of seeing a man die your suggestion that millions of other CCW people out there are going to do the same thing is plan stupid. Its like the people who get upset that 5 people a year die slipping on the soap in the bathtub and DEMAND that soap be banned. 





katydidagain said:


> And the loss of a life in that manner is horrific. DS was a bit of a wild child in his teens--white or not it could have been him that night--so my heart breaks for TM's parents. Maybe he would have ended up in jail for a crime (as mine nearly did--BTW, he recently bought a house and has a great job with a huge company) and maybe he would have become a good father and parent. They will never know


And he could have became a killer and killed dozens of other young black men. We'll never know. But seeing as how the GREATEST killer of young black men are other young black men it does seem a possibility.




katydidagain said:


> And that breaks this mother's heart.


I've seen mothers whose sons have done things that would make you puke if you saw the aftermath screaming and crying about how their son is a good boy and it breaks their heart that people are saying he did such things.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> There is no question that there are nuts carrying firearms. I know some.


Nuts are going to carry no matter if its legal or not. Seeing as how there are more sane honest citizens than nuts and/or criminals don't you think we're better off putting as many firearms in people's hands as possible?

What if one person in Luby's restaurant had had a firearm with them? What if one of the teachers in Columbine or Sandy Hook had been able to return fire? Gun free zones are nothing but safe target rich environments for deranged killers.


----------



## kasilofhome

katydidagain said:


> No, I have seen the light. My opinions and statements do not attack anyone here unlike a few of you who really are bordering on not very nice and helpful. I am speaking as a unarmed (save my wits which have served me well TYVM) citizen of the US who does not want to be gunned down at the supermarket or gas station by some nut with a license to carry. Perhaps I am being emotional....
> 
> Hearing isn't listening, is it?


 
Would you accept being knifed by a sane person while people just turn their backs?


----------



## katydidagain

watcher said:


> I've seen mothers whose sons have done things that would make you puke if you saw the aftermath screaming and crying about how their son is a good boy and it breaks their heart that people are saying he did such things.


I raised my son to be an intelligent, caring human being and to not be judgmental; he respects others who disagree with him. He's not perfect but I'm darned proud of the person he has become.


----------



## katydidagain

kasilofhome said:


> Would you accept being knifed by a sane person while people just turn their backs?


Sure. Scroll back for my theory on why I am still dancing on this earth.


----------



## kasilofhome

Do you believe that each and every event is solved by wits?
I believe in CCW because I know many who have them it is not an ego thing for any of them it is as naturally to them as having a flashlight key ring and a leatherman and pen on them. It is a tool that is rarely needed but when needed it has to be in reach. I prefer to have my oil change by someone better skilled and I prefer that persons FAR better trained than I will ever be having a gun handy. Those that DO CC are just better prepared to handle a siduation. I always asked when my son was younger and going out with the youth group--"Who are the adults with guns" and it seems that the cities have more of a need than Alaska with bears cause Chicogo has such a HIGH crime rate.

How often to you hear of a private person prepared to step up and defend the health and lives of others? Crimes prevent are not news worth till it is a blind 99 pound female Sunday school teacher. More often than not a ccw person merely has to show the gun and the scene changes but sometimes punks need proof. Really if Martin had gone home he would be alive. He had no constutional right to lay a hand on anyone ---he, Martin, did not find a target to vent on for long --The beating stop with a bang. TM limited the opptions that GZ to deal with the siduation.

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2012/12/mass-killings-stopped-by-armed-citizens-2515074.html

There are several documented cases where armed citizens have stopped mass attacks by gunmen. Let me list a few: The Pearl, Mississippi school shooting was stopped by the vice principal Joel Myrick with a Colt .45, The Appalachian School shooting was stopped by two students with handguns. Both of the above incidents were stopped by the armed citizens threatening the shooter without firing. Pearl High School Link
Appalacian Law School Link
Plans to slay everyone in the Muskegon, Michigan, store and steal enough cash and jewelry to feed their &#8220;gnawing hunger for crack cocaine&#8221; fell apart for a band of would-be killers after one of their victims fought back. 
Muskegon Shooting Link
The mass church shooting in Colorado Springs was stopped by the shooter being shot by a church member with a CCW permit.
New Life Church Link
The Santa Clara gunshop shooting in 1999 was stopped by an armed citizen after the shooter declared that he was going to kill everyone. Police found a list of intended victims in his car. Only the perpetrator, Richard Gable Stevens was shot.
Santa Clara Gunshop Link
The December, 1991, Aniston, Alabama defense where a CCW holder stopped armed robbers who were herding employees, customers, and his wife into a cooler. He shot both robbers, killing one.
Aniston Shoney&#8217;s Shooting Link
July 13, 2009, in Virginia at the Golden Food Market: The gunman tried to shoot several people, was stopped by a CCW carrier.
Golden Food Market Shooting Link
Just recently, in Early Texas, armed citizen Vic Stacy shot and stopped a deranged man who had just murdered two neighbors and was firing at police with a rifle. Stacy made a very long shot with his revolver, three times as far as the perpetrator was from the police officer, who had an AR-15 type rifle. 
Early Texas Peach House Shooting Link
That sounds like a very good story&#8230; but it never made the national news.
I wonder who made the decision to spike that story. 
Of course, when a mass shooting is stopped by an armed citizen, there are not as many victims. This leads to the charge that it would not really have been a &#8220;mass shooting&#8221;.









2012-12-15 13:00:38


----------



## wannabechef

katydidagain said:


> I post on a board with Obama loving women; they out liberal me or did. I've always been pretty quiet but I'm suggesting we get rid of CCW permits here and now; they think it's a great idea. They're angry as am I that the "good old boys" can't stop trying to justify King GZ's acts.
> 
> Fists are fists.
> 
> Fat man who is armed has no fear thus can kill without consequence; fat man with no weapon uses his smarts to avoid conflict.
> 
> Most good old boys I've met are out of shape and very obese.


Im all for getting rid of carry permits...constitutional carry is the only way.

Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk 4 Beta


----------



## Txsteader

katydidagain said:


> Pounding on someone? Defending yourself from a stalker? Attacking 1st rather than be attacked? There is no doubt GZ targeted and followed him then played judge, jury and executioner though all he knew about TM was that he was wearing a hoodie.


Attacking first rather than be attacked?????? You've got to be kidding!

So in your mind, TM knew what Zimmerman's intentions were, huh?

How would GZ know that TM wasn't armed?


----------



## Pops2

katydidagain said:


> Grasping at straws. He is 1/2 white so the comment fits at least by half. My mother told me about stick and stones and words which means I take insults with a grain of salt and consider the source.
> 
> Got more?
> 
> Until reading the comments here I was fully in support of the "carry a gun" concept; I am no longer. Holy cow! Apparently I'm the 1st person visiting GC who has ever changed their mind.


Which half is white? Top? Bottom? Front? Back? Left? Right?

He is in point of fact as black as the POTUS, maybe more. So shouldn't this just be considered black on black violence?


----------



## AngieM2

This is getting too heated.


----------

