Skip to main content

    Rachel Jeantel, when questioned by the defense as to whether the phrase "creepy a_ _ cracker" was racist, denied that the phrase was racist.  Jeantel explained that the phrase meant that Trayvon viewed the person who subsequently murdered him as a "pervert."  And, Jeantel repeated the word "pervert" twice in her testimony, but the media has ignored that potential motivation for the shooter to have been obsessively pursuing Trayvon Martin on a dark night as Trayvon was making his way home.
     Understand that the shooter claims that he was on a mission to protect the neighborhood from crime, but at the 7 pm hour in which Trayvon was killed, most people were in their homes and apparently very watchful, as illustrated by the various witnesses who heard something and went to look outside.  Could it be that the shooter was not particularly interested in protecting the neighborhood, but in satiating a desire to rape an African-American male who was a minor and who looked vulnerable?  Is there a more perfect cover for a pedophile than to claim that he is part of law enforcement whose instructions must be obeyed by unsuspecting teenagers?
     The problem, according to Jeantel, was that Trayvon quickly categorized the shooter as a "pervert", and so the planned ruse did not work on the alert Trayvon.  Perhaps, at that point, the shooter was simply unable to control his pedophilia, and he apparently overpowered Trayvon, possibly using a taser, in order to subdue Trayvon as part of the effort to rape Trayvon.  That overpowering of Trayvon led to Trayvon stating, according to Jeantel, that the shooter should "get off" of Trayvon.
     Even the shooter's defense admits that after Trayvon was shot and killed, the shooter climbed on top of Trayvon's face-down, lifeless body and "spread" out Trayvon's arms.  Since the shooter had just been through a life-and-death struggle, during which he was forced to shoot Trayvon through the heart, why in the world would the shooter immediately climb back atop Trayvon and "spread" Trayvon's arms instead of seeking prompt assistance from every available source.
     The evidence of the shooter's taser might be in the autopsy report which lists a "cardiac monitor pad on the left flank" of Trayvon, a strange item given the fact that Trayvon was shot through the heart and would have been dead, without a heartbeat, long before the medical personnel arrived.  Even if the medical personnel were justified in placing the "cardiac" pad on Trayvon, why didn't the medical examiner remove that pad to examine the skin beneath the pad so that a complete report on the condition of Trayvon's skin could have been made?
     But there certainly should have been some analysis of any fluids which might have been on the clothes of Trayvon's shooter.  Instead, no toxicological tests were run on the shooter, but Trayvon's body was subjected to toxicological tests, and the results of those tests have been the subject of rampant speculation by the media.  If the shooter's clothes have not been tested for fluids, wouldn't it be fair for the clothes of the shooter to be examined for fluids, including blood and semen, so that the jury can have a complete picture of just why the shooter was fervently hunting down a teenager on a dark and dreary night in Florida?
       

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  it is difficult to parse through all the noise in (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ahianne

    the MSM.  An immediate example is if GZ were "the captain of a neighborhood watch" or simply a loose cannon cop wannabe who was living the fantasy when the incident occurred.

    It is certain that his neighborhood watch was not affiliated with any national organization and evidently was not even formally organized.  It appears he and a buddy appointed themselves as public guardians and were generally seen as nuisances by the homeowners.

    This may be wrong but there are local watches here with national affiliations and I don't think GZ would have been a member for very long in any of them  

  •  most cops will do a drug test (14+ / 0-)

    of people in a traffic accident. i'm surprised that you can shoot someone, claiming self-defense, and not undergo a drug test.
    zimmerman was prescribed  adderall and temazepam, according to some reports i've read.  wouldn't that be a question that police would ask the shooter, "are you on any prescriptions?"  and maybe even do a drug test???

    Loving me some Obama right about now... Economy is improving, he is moving forward, just like he said... and Michele Obama, oh my... Awesome!

    by titotitotito on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 04:41:49 AM PDT

  •  so I looked it up to see if there really was a (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Heavy Mettle, OleHippieChick, sukeyna

    "cardiac monitor pad on the left flank" in the autopsy report and there is-

    -and I heard Jeantel say "pervert" at least once and so I believed her when she said that "creepy-ass cracker" wasn't a "racist" statement, I believe she meant it as a quick descriptor of "perverted white guy."

    but unless I've missed it I don't find any mention of tasers in connection with this incident.

    Perhaps, at that point, the shooter was simply unable to control his pedophilia, and he apparently overpowered Trayvon, possibly using a taser, in order to subdue Trayvon as part of the effort to rape Trayvon.
    I think, without a solid link, that this is going too far.

    Travon knew he was being pursued and he didn't know why. That's all we know. I tip you for bringing up the "pervert" part because I think it needs to be discussed. But leave out the taser unless there really is one or your whole diary is discredited.

    We are all pupils in the eyes of God.

    by nuclear winter solstice on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 04:49:58 AM PDT

  •  If Zimmerman's intention (17+ / 0-)

    had been to rape Trayvon, I doubt he would have contacted the 911 operator and announced that he was following him.

    •  Tell me this. If the shooter was the neighborhood (0+ / 0-)

      watch commander who was familiar with the area, why wasn't the shooter able to inform the dispatcher of the precise location when queried by the dispatcher?  Thus, even assuming that the police were promptly sent, the police would have had to look for the two parties in a housing complex at night and in the rain.
      Based on the shooter's comments about "f_ _ _ing punks" who always got away with crimes, it appears that the shooter had already made up his mind that he was going to take action against Trayvon, and that he did not want the police dispatcher to know the exact location where that neo-lynching was to take place.

  •  Seriously? (14+ / 0-)

    You are suggesting that Zimmerman was  following Martin with the intent of sexually assaulting him, and he called local police to let them know where he was while he did this. With police on the way, he sexually assaulted Martin?

    Your theory makes no sense. Still, Zimmerman's clothing should have been fully examined and his blood should have been tested for drugs. But I think it is a stretch to think and sexual assault would have been indicated.

    It is certainly possible that Trayvon assumed Zimmerman to be a pervert, but nothing we know now would support that he was.  

    "Jesus don't like killing, no matter what the reasons for." - John Prine

    by JoeEngineer on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 05:01:04 AM PDT

  •  Highly creative new theory. (13+ / 0-)

    My nice way of saying weird-ass fantasy.

    "I was a big supporter of waterboarding" - Dick Cheney 2/14/10

    by Bob Love on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 05:20:25 AM PDT

  •  I think supporters of the Martin family (5+ / 0-)

    (including the diarist) need to keep in mind that a lot of (in this case kind of far-fetched -- tasers?) speculation about what happened that night does not support the prosecution.  It's harmless on sites like this, but as a general matter, the prosecution does not want this to be a scenario where there can be a lot of speculation about what might have happened.  

    The prosecution must lay out a scenario for the jury of what happened -- including proving basic facts that demonstrate that Zimmerman did not act in self defense -- and must convince the jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the scenario is correct.  The prosecution does not have to have every detail, but the prosecution needs the jury to be comfortable that there is no realistic possibility that the basic facts did not happen the way the prosecution contends.  

    Speculation that maybe this happened or maybe that happened is exactly what benefits the defense.  If the jury concludes that it's possible it happened this way, and it's possible that it happened that way, that's reasonable doubt.

    •  Oh man that's bad (0+ / 0-)

      If I didn't think "retarded" is a term that we should be using as an insult, I could easily see that becoming a meme. Or perhaps it already has, I don't know.

      For my own reasons, I can't rec this, but I have to admit I almost spit out my coffee out when I read this picturing Jentel saying that about this diary. Pretty damn funny.

      Black Holes Suck.

      by Pi Li on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 08:13:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  originaloldpro - this diary is an embarrassment (8+ / 0-)

    and you should delete it.

    As others have noted no one who intends to sexually assault someone calls the police first.

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 06:11:59 AM PDT

  •  do you have any idea what pedophilia is? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    thestructureguy

    it's sexual attraction to small children

    Trayvon Martin was 17 yrs old, significantly taller than Zimmerman, and going by his most recent photos rather mature and anything but a child in appearance

    the problem was that Zimmerman was out armed and prowling, looking for an opportunity to find someone who would "make his day"

    We're shocked by a naked nipple, but not by naked aggression.

    by Lepanto on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 06:33:52 AM PDT

    •  You need to use a better dictionary. Merriam- (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Progressif

      Webster defines pedophilia as a "sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object."  Note the absence of the adjective "small" before children in the M-W definition.  Thus, Trayvon did not have to a "small" child, as you claimed, and most will agree that Trayvon, whose 17th birthday occurred just 3 short weeks prior to his murder, was still legally a child at the time of his murder.

      •  Merriam-Webster is wrong then. (0+ / 0-)

        Pedophilia specifically refers to pre-pubescent children.

        •  Then specifically cite your quotation from M-W, (0+ / 0-)

          and place quotation marks around the quotation so that we can distinguish your opinion from the M-W definition.

          •  I don't NEED to cite my quotation from Merriam- (0+ / 0-)

            Webster.  YOU cited Merriam-Webster.  I simply pointed out that the general clinical definition of pedophilia is narrower than that.

            And it's not my opinion.  The DSM-IV, the diagnostic manual used by mental health professionals, defines it as such.

            Unfortunately I can't quote the DSM-IV, since the site I found for it is behind a paywall.

            However, the ICD-10, which is used by the World Health Organization, defines it in the same way:

            " A persistent or a predominant preference for sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children."

            It seems there's more than one person in this thread who needs to use a better dictionary for this topic.

  •  Pulling the taser angle out of thin air. One of (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VClib, Neuroptimalian, Lepanto

    the more ridiculous spin diaries I've read.  

    Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

    by thestructureguy on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 06:49:54 AM PDT

  •  armchair lawyers all but (0+ / 0-)

    I want to say I don't mind this diary, Zimmerman seems like a creepy-ass whip-cracker to me (see baldwin blog link above 209), the underlying psychology of which I can't fathom, well I can but it's not going to help anyone here that doesn't already get it, yeah perverted, I mean sicko freaky weird, and having a gun probably fueled the fire, shall we say (no hijack)

  •  We have reached the conspiracy theory phase. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    UbuRoi

    This seems to actually be a pretty consistent pattern in the development of conspiracy theories.  First one has a firm belief in what happened or will happen.  the country will never elect an AA president.  Then the facts put lie to the belief.  The person has a choice, abandon or update his belief or develop new beliefs that keep the old one intact.  The election was stolen, Obama is not a citizen so he is not president, he is a Manchurian candidate or he is the anti-Christ put in office by Satan.

    Here the form is that GZ is a racist monster who was only interested in murdering as many black people as possible and killed Trayvon in cold blood.  The evidence doesn't support that so he was predator who was seeking to rape Trayvon. The evidence doesn't support that either.

    The evidence is that the injuries were to GZ so he was probably the one screaming for help, so a taser appears, leaving minimal marks so that was how GZ was being a predatory monster and tasing TM.  

    Look the case is not going well for the prosecution.  The underlying facts are that this case was a tragedy of errors.  GZ mistaked TM for a burglar or potential burglar, which he wasn't.  TM may have mistaken GZ for a creepy ass pervert, which he wasn't.  Here there is a gap in the evidence but GZ was being beaten and thought his life was in danger and shot TM.  That's what happened here.

    The real fault is the gun laws in Florida.  If everyone and his brother has a concealed carry permit, people are going to die.

    •  The known facts in this case are the following; (0+ / 0-)

      1.  Trayvon was shot dead by a person he had never met.
      2.  The only evidence which supports the view that the shooter murdered Trayvon in self-defense are uncorroborated claims by the shooter who pointed to bleeding from injuries which could just as easily have been self-inflicted as could have been caused by Trayvon.  But even assuming that the wounds were caused by Trayvon, didn't Trayvon have the same right to self-defense as that being claimed by the shooter?
      3.  The shooter lied to the court during bail proceedings.
      4.  The shooter has a history of violence, including an assault on a police officer, while Trayvon does not have a history of being arrested by law enforcement.

           Finally, as long as a viewpoint is supported by facts, how can it be called a theory?  Facts establish truth, while theories are just possibilities.  You might want to investigate the dichotomy between facts, truth, and theories.

      •  As to number 2 (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Neuroptimalian, DrFaustus

        Mr. Good's testimony supports GZ.
        The injuries and medical exam supports GZ.
        the photos from the arrest and scene support that GZ was beaten.
        Testimony of the witness who went out to talk to GZ supports his testimony.
        the first officer supports that GZ was screaming for help, or at least said that to the first officer immediately after the first officer arrived.
        The witness who talked to him got out there seconds after the shooting, no time to self inflict the wounds.
        A photo was taken by a police officer because the female neighbor didn't want to see the shooter or have him see her.  That photo shows the injuries.  That was before time had passed for GZ to self-inflict wounds.  

        your response makes my point about conspiracy theories. There are three processes we as humans us to maintain beliefs in the face of contrary evidence.  Deletion, distortion and generalization.  To maintain your belief, you deleted all the above points that support GZ's version of the story.  You distorted by saying to only evidence and that the wounds could have been self inflicted.  

        Finally all conspiracy theories are supported by facts.  It's just that some facts are selected others are deletion.  The conspiracy theories about Obama all had facts, they were either selected facts or made up.  Take the truthers for example,  There was no plane in the pentagon photo after the crash.  That was true, but it was explained by other evidence, it burned or was crushed, I don't remember the details now. If you select your facts and ignore the others, you can support almost anything.

        •  Let's go point by point. You say that Mr. Good's (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Progressif

          testimony supports the shooter.  Be specific and identify the exact portion of Good's supportive testimony.
          2. You say that "The injuries and medical exam supports the shooter".  But that is just a circular argument whose premise is the assumption that the injuries were absolutely inflicted by Trayvon.  Where is that proof, other than the lying mouth of the shooter?
          3.  You claim that a witness and some officers support the shooter.  Be specific, name the witness, the officers, and the portion of their statements which support the shooter.
          4.  You claim that not enough time elapsed for the shooter to have inflicted his own injuries.  Give me your time-line on this issue and be specific.

          I notice that you did not take issue with any of the facts that I listed.  Instead, you launched into a diatribe about Obama and 9-11.  Again, I  request that you list facts, not political theories about Obama and 9-11, both of which have nothing to do with the murder of Trayvon.

          •  Reply (0+ / 0-)

            Good said the darker skinned man was on top. the lighter on the bottom.  He said that he saw the man on top moving  his arms in up and down in a motion consistent with punching down but he could not see the blows landing so he could only say what he saw.  He said the man on top was facing away from him toward the buildings on the far side.  The sound of the screams for help seemed to come directly to him not bounced off the far wall.  

            2. The injuries were clinically diagnosed by the EMT and the physician's assistant he saw to be a broken nose. The injuries to the back of his head the PA said were consistent with head hitting concrete.  In fact there was considerable testimony of "punctillate wounds" check the spelling.  These are an area of small wounds that can be created by impact on an uneven surface like concrete.  These support GZ's version.  You can disbelieve GZ's story, but what do you base your disbelief on?  An assumption, which in your mind is unassailable, that GZ inflicted his own wounds.

            3. "The first officer" is a term of art in law and it means the first officer on the scene.  I don't remember that officer's name but he testified on Friday.  He described Martin's injuries and took a picture of him which was in evidence and showed his injuries.  He also testified that the back of GZ's jacked and pants were wet with grass on them.  The front was not as wet and didn't have grass on it.  He also testified that GZ said twice, I yelled for help but no one came.

            There was another witness who was a neighbor who came out immediately after the shooting. He said that he talked to GZ right after the shooting and stayed with him until the police came.  Either this witness or another witness, I believe it was Good said that GZ walked around for a few minutes before the police arrived.  There was no time for him to self inflict wounds.

            As to your facts, I didn't notice you list any.  You are demanding a completely standard from me than you impose on yourself.  All that I said is there, and if you wish to opine on the case you should listen to the testimony.  

            But this makes my point.  The fixed point in your mind is that GZ is an awful cold blooded murderer.  This will not change as the evidence comes in.  So in order to keep that belief in the face of evidence that contradicts it, you must invent wider and wider conspiracy theories.  All the witnesses are lying, the cops are in on it, GZ was a sexual predator.  There is no evidence of any of this.  And the taser, come on.  Consider the possibility, just the possiblity, that you may have been wrong about GZ.

            •  My understanding, (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              rubyr

              though I may be wrong, since I haven't seen Good's testimony, is that he didn't say darker and lighter skinned when referring who was on top and who was on bottom, but that he was referring to their clothes as darker or lighter.

              •  I may be wrong too, but I thought that I heard a (0+ / 0-)

                reference to skin color, and then a clarification which omitted the skin color and cited the color of the clothes.  Maybe someone else can help us resolve this.

              •  In direct initially he said darker and lighter (0+ / 0-)

                skinned.  Later in cross he elaborated and said darker clothes.  But initially he definitely said darker and lighter skinned.

              •  He said both. It caught my attention for (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                The Dude 415

                a number of reasons. He also said how dark it was out there and I wondered how he could distinguish skin color. He stated a lighter skinned man was on the bottom.

                Also, GZ's jacket was black on the arms and I wondered how Good could see the red portion if GZ was on his back, on the ground with his body straight out in front of Good's line of sight (which he referred to as "perpendicular") and with TM allegedly on top of GZ. It seems to me that TM's body would have blocked the upper half of GZs body.  He said his total time viewing the scene was 5-10 seconds and that seems like a lot to see in the dark and rain in that amount of time.  

                "Southern nights have you ever felt a southern night?" Allen Toussaint ~~Remember the Gulf of Mexico~~

                by rubyr on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 12:51:58 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Some questions that occured to me (0+ / 0-)

              Lets assume that the neighbors who witnessed Zimmerman on the ground( on the bottom) on his back being hit or attacked by Martin (( on top) are factual.

              Martin was apparently shot from the front from a distance of several feet. There was no blood spatter noted on Zimmerman's clothes. So, if in fact Zimmerman was trying to protect himself by shooting Martin he could not have done it WHILE he was being "pummeled" by Martin.

              In addition, the photos I saw of Martin's hands didn't seem to show any bruises or abrasions.

              So those who questioned the prosecution for allowing the supposedly damaging testimony of the neighbors who saw the "fight" may be premature in their assessment.

              They may have seen a fight, they may have seen Martin attacking Zimmerman whom had followed him and could have been seen as a threat to him, but they did not witness the shooting.

              It is the shooting that is at issue. If Zimmerman after having had his head pounded by Martin ( who would have been reasonably acting in self defense after being followed), got to his feet and pulled his gun and cold bloodily shot Martin to death, then he is guilty of murder.

              •  This is not true. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Pi Li
                Martin was apparently shot from the front from a distance of several feet.
                If you listened to the defense opening statement, apparently they are going to call a forensics expert, who is going to testify the the forensics showed that the gun was in contact with Martin's jacket and shirt, but not his skin.  This expert (the defense said his name in opening) is going to testify that this means that the shirt and jacket were hanging away from Martin's body in the front, consistent with Martin leaning forward over Zimmerman while straddling him.  

                Again, that was the defense's summary of what the witness will say in opening statement.  For them to say that in opening statement, the witness has to be on their witness list, and the prosecution knows about him.  Whether his testimony plays out as promised, we'll see.  

            •  Wait just a minute. If Good stated that the (0+ / 0-)

              person on top was facing away from Good as the person on top straddled the person on the bottom, then it is sure as sunset that Good could not see either person's face, and that Good could not tell which person was yelling for help.
              2.  The alleged injuries were "diagnosed" by the same local officials who decided that not enough proof existed to arrest the shooter.  Note also the absence of x-rays, to verify the broken nose, because the local officials claimed that they did not have the "right" kind of x-ray machine.
              3.  That an officer took pictures of what the lying shooter claimed were injuries inflicted by Trayvon is absolutely no independent proof that Trayvon actually inflicted those alleged injuries.  
              4.  Your claim, that another witness saw the shooting and was with the shooter until the police arrived, is contradicted by the witness whose recorded telephone call to the police contained the screams for help.  That woman said that a person got up from straddling a body which was lying face down, that the person who got up walked directly toward her, AND THAT THE PERSON WAS TOUCHING HIS HEAD AND FACE AREA</  strong>.  That person was later identified as the shooter.

                   All of my writings are replete with facts which, unlike yours, are not invented.  Your problem is that experienced by the Supreme Court.  If you don't like the facts, you just make them up to fit your pre-conceived idea of the proper result.  That's why the shooter's lawyers struck two African-American women from the jury.  African-Americans, who can discern truth from fiction, are not wanted on any American jury and are not heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.

              •  Your facts are not exactly what the (0+ / 0-)

                testimony was.

                1.  Good identified who was who in two ways: (1) skin color (he said the one on top was darker skin; and (2) clothing color (he said the one on top had a darker jacket color, and the one on bottom was "white or red."  (when he talked with the police right after the shooting, he said "red."  He identified the person he believed was screaming for help in two ways: (1) he said the sound was coming directly toward him, consistent with the man on the bottom who was facint him, rather than more indirect as if the man was facing away; and (2) he assumed that the man on bottom, who was clearly in a more difficult situation, was the one screaming for help.

                2.  It is true that the state's witnesses said only that the nose could have been broken, and that the look of the nose was consistent with being broken, and that they didn't take x-rays.  But, I'm not sure why that matters.  Remember, the self-defense statute does not require any injuries.  It allows you to use deadly force if you reasonably believe that it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.  The State's witness testified Friday that Zimmerman's head injuries were the kind that could result in subdural hematoma.  That testimony by the state's witness would, in and of itself, satisfy the reasonable belief that there could be death or great bodily injury if nothing were done to stop whatever caused Zimmerman's head injuries.  
                3. Remember, the burden is on the prosecution to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman did not act  in self defense.  The defense only has to show that it's possible that Martin was inflicting those head injuries when Zimmerman shot him.  The prosecution must now show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Martin was NOT inflicting those head injuries when Zimmerman shot him.  The problem the prosecution has is that it has not yet provided an alternative scenario for how those injuries happened -- and alternative that the jury believes, beyond a reasonable doubt, is the way that Zimmerman got those injuries.  
                4.  That's true.  The woman said that the after the shooting, the man on top got up and walked away.  The defense team claims (and Zimmerman said in the video right after the shooting) that n the seconds after the shot he was not aware that he had killed Martin and so got out from under him and got on top of him, and yelled to someone to help him restrain Martin.  If that's what happened, this witness' testimony is not problematic.  Again, remember the burden is on the prosecution to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defense's self-defense scenario did not happen.  If the defense's scenario is possible -- even if it's not necessarily likely -- that's reasonable doubt.  

                I understand the alternative explanations for the testimony this week that was helpful to the defense.  And those alternative explanations may be what happened.  The question is whether the prosecution can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defense scenario could not have happened.  

                As you raise theories about what might have happened, remember the parameters the parties are operating under.  The defense has no obligation to present a believable story as to what happened.  The defense only has to raise reasonable doubt - reasonable questions - about the prosecution's story.  The prosecution is the one who must persuade the jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that x,y,z happened.  

                I think that one of the prosecution's biggest "holes" thus far is that they have provided the jury with no explanation as to how Zimmerman sustained those head injuries that their own witnesses acknowledged.  Perhaps before the end of the trial, they will.  

                •  Good's problem is that, from his admitted vantage (0+ / 0-)

                  point, he could not see anyone's face, he could only see one person's jacket, and as noted elsewhere, his testimony was that he only saw them about 5-10 seconds on a dark night.
                  2.  You assume that the self-defense statute is applicable to an unsafe situation which is intentionally created by the person claiming self-defense.  And that is the reason why the shooter's attorneys did not raise the self-defense statute in a pre-trial motion.  They were terrified of the court's response.
                  3.  You need to recall that the prosecution does not have to prove anything regarding self-defense until the shooter's attorneys affirmatively raise that defense by motion or by testimony.  And, it seems to me that the defense attorneys are attempting to supply the self-defense testimony, that can only come from the shooter, by prefacing their "questions" with self-defense claims which have not been admitted into evidence.  So far, most of that crap from the defense attorneys has been turned back by objections and by the trial judge.
                  4.  If the shooter testifies that the reason, as to why he was on top of a face-down Trayvon after he shot Trayvon, was that the shooter felt the urge to restrain Trayvon, isn't the next question going to be "why didn't you try to physically restrain him before you killed him", a fact which would undercut the shooter's claim that the killing was a reasonable use of deadly force.

                  As you can see form the above, the evidence adduced this week has been objectively helpful to the defense ONLY in the minds of the shooter's supporters and from their talking head toadies in the media.  

                  •  Wow, all sorts of wrong as to the law. (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Pi Li, taffers, Dr Swig Mcjigger

                    I hope you are not a lawyer.

                    1.  This is the one point where you are not wrong on the law.  I agree that this is what the prosecution will argue as to why Good's testimony is not reliable.  We will see what the jury concludes.

                    2.  All sorts of wrong.  First, the attorneys do not have to raise self-defense "in a pretrial motion."  You are remembering the optional, so-called Stand Your Ground hearing.  This is an optional hearing where, if the judge determines that self-defense is applicable, there is no trial at all -  the defendant gets immunity from prosecution in a trial. see State v. Yaqubie, 51 So.3d 474, 476 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010); Peterson v. State, 983 So.2d 27, 29 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008).  It is optional, and the down side for a defendant is that the burden of proof is on the defendant in such a hearing.  This defendant elected to skip the optional pre-trial hearing.  Nothing unusual about that.  It's a tactical move by the defense -- if they agree to a full trial, the burden of proof is on the prosecution.  Lots of defense counsel do this.  

                    As for your claim that the shooter can't claim self-defense if he "intentionally created an unsafe situation," that's not the law.  Here's the first statute on self-defense:

                    However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
                    (1) 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; or
                    (2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
                    History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.
                    The second statute is here. It says nothing -- nada -- about "intentionally creating a dangerous situation."

                    3.  All sorts of wrong.  What you are thinking about is the principle that if the defense makes a prima facie case of self defense, the prosecution has the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it was NOT self defense.  All that "prima facie case" thing means is that the judge believes that there is a basis for giving the jury the instructions on self-defense and telling the jury that they can consider whether it's self-defense.  THERE IS NO DISPUTE IN THIS CASE THAT THE JURY WILL CONSIDER WHETHER ZIMMERMAN ACTED IN SELF-DEFENSE.  The standard for prima facie case is so low, the simple fact that Zimmerman had some injuries raises the possibility that there may be self-defense -- that's enough for the judge to let that issue go to the jury for them to decide.  And in ALL cases whether the jury even considers self defense, the judge reads this jury instruction to the jury:  

                    Read in all cases.
                    If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty.
                    In other words, the judge has two choices.  (1) the case doesn't raise self-defense, the judge doesn't give any instructions on the law on self-defense, and the jury doesn't consider it; or (2) the jury considers self-defense and the judge reads the self-defense instructions (including that one above) instruction to the jury.  I will bet you a zillion dollars that this case is option 2.  I can't say what the jury ultimately will decide, but I will bet you a zillion dollars that the judge gives the jury the instructions on the law of self-defense in Florida.  And part of that is the instruction that the burden is on the prosecution to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it is NOT self-defense.

                    4.  This only makes sense if the jury decides, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Good was not accurate in his testimony, as Good testified that Martin was on top of Zimmerman throwing down punches in the seconds before the shot happened. And that's the whole point.   Because Good does not have other facts (like previous instances of lying under oath) that would independently call his credibility into question, the prosecution is going to have to argue that the other evidence, like the forensic evidence (we haven't heard that yet) disproves Good's account beyond a reasonable doubt.  

                    I definitely think it is worth your while to read the Florida law on self-defense (linked above) and the jury instructions on self-defense (section 3.6(f) in that link above).  

                    •  I am beginning to suspect that you are a shill (0+ / 0-)

                      for the shooter's defense team.  You spout gratuitous insults when I clobber your facts, and you cite those legal elements, of the Florida self-defense jury instruction, which buttresses the shooter's case.  But if you were truly interested in edification of both sides in this debate, you would cite the applicable case law on self-defense which is the following;
                      1.  MONTIJO v. Florida, 61 So.3d 424 (Fla. 5th Dist. 2011), a case from the appellate court district which includes Sanford, Florida.  In the Montijo case, the appellate court wrote the following;
                      (a) "The testimony, viewed in the light most favorable to him, established that Rosier was a large individual who followed Montijo's car into the Steak n' Shake parking lot and was aggressive during the confrontation. This was sufficient evidence to merit giving the justifiable use of deadly force instruction."  I ask you to note that in order to be entitled to the self-defense instruction, the defendant showed that the other person followed him and was aggressive, and that is the complete opposite of the facts in Trayvon's case.  Trayvon was followed, and Trayvon did not follow the shooter.

                      And, just so we understand each other, I am not quite sure if you are an attorney or not, but if you are, you are not a very good one.  And, here is something you can run and tell the shooter's legal defense team; the applicable case law in the appellate court district which includes Sanford, does not envision a self-defense claim where the person claiming self-defense is the person who actually followed the other person and confronted him.  So, the shooter of Trayvon is not entitled to a jury instruction on self-defense, and he is therefore going to be convicted on the basis of the above case law.  Have a good night!

                      •  You do realise... (4+ / 0-)

                        ...that the case you're citing doesn't say anything close to what you think it does, don't you?

                        Black Holes Suck.

                        by Pi Li on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 07:06:15 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Why don't you slowly explain to me what the facts (0+ / 0-)

                          of the case say, as expressly found by the court and partially quoted by me?

                          •  Sorry (4+ / 0-)

                            I don't have as much patience as coffeetalk.

                            Black Holes Suck.

                            by Pi Li on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 07:16:11 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Fair enough. I just assumed that you were a (0+ / 0-)

                            person with a good faith argument to present about the Montijo case.  I now understand that you are simply a bag of wind who, like most of your ilk, support murderous acts on even teenagers rather than compete on a level playing field with others who are not of your race and tribe.  If you have time, read about the slaughter of Emmett Till and see if there are any similarities to Trayvon.  African-Americans are not quite ready to return to the era and badges of slavery, including being subjected to murder and violence without legal recourse, as some seem to imagine.  Have a good night!  

                          •  I think I understand the confusion (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Pi Li

                            The part that you quoted was not the holding of the case. This is the actual holding:

                            When a defendant claims self-defense, the State maintains the burden of proving the defendant committed the crime and did not act in self-defense. See id.; Mosansky v. State, 33 So.3d 756, 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). The burden never shifts to the defendant to prove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Rather, he must simply present enough evidence to support giving the instruction. Montijo v. State, 61 So.3d 424, 427 (FL Ct. App. 2011)
                            The whole point that the Montijo court was making, in other words, was simply that a defendant does not bear the a beyond reasonable doubt standard to make an effective self-defense claim. The jury instruction at the trial level said that Montijo did; the appellate court here ruled that to do so was a fundamental error (i.e., one so grievous that it didn't matter that the defense didn't make a timely objection during the trial).

                            The appellate court was in no way, shape, or form saying that the facts behind the self-defense claim in Montijo's example were to now be regarded as the standard against which self-defense claims must be compared. The only point they made was what I wrote above: a defendant only needs to present reasonable evidence that he or she acted in self-defense, not nigh incontrovertible evidence.

                  •  Wow...so many things incorrect in this post (0+ / 0-)
              •  So, it is more likely that (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                coffeetalk

                "touching his face" referred to hitting himself in the face hard enough to cause the injuries you saw in the photo including what was diagnosed as a broken nose by two medical professionals, than that "touching his face"  because it hurt.  

                •  My unassailable point was that a witness saw the (0+ / 0-)

                  shooter touching his head and face area AFTER the shooter killed Trayvon.  That might support a jury finding that the shooter inflicted his own injuries.  Where is your proof, aside from the claims of the shooter who has been found by the trial court to be an inveterate liar, that Trayvon inflicted the alleged injuries?

                  •  That's far-fetched, for two reasons. (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    brooklyn137, taffers, VClib

                    1.  Good remained adamant that he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman MMA style, "throwing down" punches that appeared to be "ground and pound" (Good described it all that way that night when the police interviewed him, as the lawyers had that when they questioned him at trial) supports an inference that those punches actually made contact with Zimmerman's head, even if Good testified that because of the angle and the darkness he couldn't see Martin's hand make contact with Zimmerman's head.  Either that, or what Good saw was Martin on top of Zimmerman MMA style throwing down punches that were hitting the air around Zimmerman's head.  

                    2. This is the more important point.  The prosecution has the burden of providing a scenario of basic facts as to what happened, a scenario that the jury will believe beyond a reasonable doubt.  If the jury doesn't know what happened, that's an acquittal.  The prosecution hasn't even SUGGESTED to the jury that Zimmerman inflicted his own injuries when a witness saw Zimmerman touch his head and face.  If the prosecution wanted to suggest to the jury that this is when Zimmerman inflicted the injuries on himself, I guarantee that the prosecution would have made that clear in the questioning of that witness.  You would have heard questions like, ""you didn't see every time he touched his head?" "How hard was he touching his head"  "Did he touch his nose -- how hard?" "Did he touch the back of his head?" "Did he have anything in his hand [that could inflict injury] when he touched his head"

                    Believe me, if the prosecution wanted to suggest to the jury in its closing that when Zimmerman "touched his head and face" he was inflicting on himself those injuries , injuries that the prosecution's own witnesses said were significant enough that they could have caused a subdural hematoma, the prosecution would have done A LOT more questioning about that point.  

                    You may have a theory that Zimmerman injured himself when the witness saw him touch his face and head, but the prosecution, at trial, hasn't adopted that, as far as I can tell from watching the trial.  The prosecution knows the evidence in this case far better than you do or than I do - they've been living with it probably 60 - 80 hours a week for months.   And it's the prosecution's theory of the case that matters.  

      •  and then you leap to rape? (0+ / 0-)
  •  If your sexual predator angle... (0+ / 0-)

    doesn't work, try the suicide by neighborhood watchman angle; a derivative of suicide by cop. You see, TM was acting in an intentionally threatening way to provoke a lethal response; young black male, wearing a hoodie, hands in his pockets, walking at night, looking around...all very threatening.

    Glottal fricative and breathy-voiced mid-low central unrounded vowel, repeated, diphthong ending with a high front vowel.

    by glb3 on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 08:17:32 AM PDT

  •  Semen? This is ridiculous. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Neuroptimalian
    •  Since the Sanforn Police Department failed to (0+ / 0-)

      obtain toxicology reports from the shooter, is it a major problem for every speck of other physical evidence to be exhaustively examined?  Or would actual evidence interfere with the current media narrative that the shooter is going to be found not guilty of murdering a teenager who was merely walking home?

      •  Well, that's what is called a "disputed fact" (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Neuroptimalian, FG, Pi Li, taffers
        a teenager who was merely walking home
        Mr. Good's testimony, if the jury believes it to be credible, indicates that he did more than just walk home.  So the statement that he "was merely walking home" is disputed.

        And, if the jury believes Mr. Good to be credible,  then what prompted the situation  that Mr. Good witnessed is also disputed.

        This is in contrast to undisputed facts, where both sides agree that the fact is true.  The fact that the video shows Martin in the 7-11 buying Skittles, for example, is undisputed.  The fact that it is Zimmerman's voice on the recording talking to the non-emergency operator is undisputed.  The fact that Zimmerman shot Martin is undisputed.  

        But whether Martin was "merely" walking home, or whether he did something more than merely walk home, is disputed, which means that it is a question for the jury to decide.  

        •  Trayvon was murdered just 45 seconds away from the (0+ / 0-)

          home where he was staying with his father.  What you claim are facts-in-dispute are simply alternative versions of reality being manufactured by the shooter and his well-paid defense attorneys who are spoon-feeding that drivel to their sycophants in the media who are certainly accustomed to believing, and broadcasting, the worst about African-American males.

          •  This is exactly what a disputed fact is (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Pi Li, taffers
            alternative versions of reality
            It is an alternative version of what happened.  As long as there is some evidence (someone's testimony, one piece of evidence) that would possibly support another version of that fact, that fact is disputed.  

            Mr. Good's testimony is evidence.  If the prosecution introduces Zimmerman's statements (which it appears they will, from their opening statement), that is evidence.  That means a disputed fact as far as the legal system, and the trial, is concerned.  What the jury believes is a completely separate question.  

            •  Re-read my statement about alternative versions of (0+ / 0-)

              reality.  I wrote the following; "What you claim are facts-in-dispute are simply alternative versions of reality being manufactured by the shooter and his well-paid defense attorneys...."  I don't believe that "manufactured" versions of reality can be termed "disputed" facts.  In short, a "manufactured" version of reality is not based on objective facts.

              •  In a court of law, "manufactured" would mean (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Pi Li, taffers

                "totally without any evidence whatsoever in support."  (Manufactured does NOT mean "not believable."  It typically is the case that someone's version of a disputed fact is not believed by the jury.)

                There is evidence that at some point, Martin was on top of Zimmerman throwing down punches in and MMA "ground and pound" style.  That, in and of itself, makes the notion that Martin was shot when he was "merely" walking home (i.e., he did not do anything else before being shot) disputed.    If you belief Good, something happened between Martin going home and Martin being shot.  What that is, and what actions provoked it, is disputed.

                You can choose not to believe Good. That does not make the fact "undisputed."  

                •  I heard a defense attorney make that "MMA" claim (0+ / 0-)

                  initially in the cross-examination of Mr. Good.  And Mr. Good stated, at the outset, that he thought that the light-skinned person was on the bottom.  But later, Mr. Good clarified his testimony by stating that he could not actually see that well, and that all he could determine was that someone wearing a light, white, or red clothing was on the bottom, and that someone wearing a different color was on the top.  If you have evidence that a witness used the term "MMA ground and pound" without first being prompted by a defense attorney, then provide it.  And, by the way, wasn't it the shooter who had MMA training, not Trayvon?  If anyone was using MMA tactics, shouldn't it have been the person, i.e., the shooter, who was trained in MMA?
                       And, even assuming that Trayvon was fighting back after being accosted by a stranger at night who was following him, does that prove that Trayvon was the aggressor or disprove that Trayvon was walking home from the store?  Where is the proof that Trayvon was engaged in criminal conduct, or conduct which justified his murder?  And, don't give me this argument the above being jury questions when not one of the jurors is African-American.  You gloss over the lack of a representative jury by apparently making the incredible assumption that all African-American males must willingly submit to being following and physically accosted by total strangers or must shoulder the blame if they are murdered after refusing to bow down to their would-be masters.

                  •  You are making arguments as to why (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Pi Li, taffers

                    you think the testimony of Mr. Good is not credible.  That's fine.  I'm sure the prosecution will make those same arguments.  

                    My point remains -- the facts are disputed.  What you are saying are the arguments the prosecution will make. The defense will make contrary arguments.  I am not here to say which side the jury will believe.  My only point, from the beginning, is that the facts are disputed -- which means the each side has a different version of the facts, and each side will rely on the evidence that supports their side to make the arguments.  That is how trials work.  

                    I nowhere assert that all African American males must willing submit to being followed and physically accosted by total strangers. I said that there is nothing illegal about someone following another person in a public place.  Of course, no one is allowed to physically accost another, and if one person physically accosts another, he can defend himself.  The big dispute in this case is who physically accosted whom first.  If the jury is convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman physically accosted Martin first, they should find Zimmerman guilty.  

                    •  You are in error when you claim that following (0+ / 0-)

                      a person is not a crime, a crime that most called stalking.  Following a criminal is legal, although not wise, but on this night Trayvon was an innocent.  Note that the shooter's defense team did not assert their self-defense strategies prior to trial because there is no legal system anywhere which would not have dismissed the shooter's claim of a right to pursue a person, murder that person, and then claim self-defense.  It is not a legal question of who struck who first; it is a question of who had a legal right to be in the place in which Trayvon and the shooter were present.  As noted elsewhere, Trayvon was 45 seconds away from his home and had a constitutional right to be traveling as he was doing.  On the other hand, the defense cannot cite any legally cognizant basis for the shooter's presence and murder of Trayvon.  It also appears that self-defense is an affirmative defense in Florida, meaning that the prosecution does not have to disprove self-defense until it is raised by the shooter's attorneys.  And since the trial judge is unlikely to grant a motion for a directed verdict of not guilty, the defense is going to be put into a crucible when attempting to raise the self-defense issue.  Thus, if the self-defense claim is dismissed as a matter of law, the jury's only consideration will be the "depraved heart" element, and that will determine how much time the shooter will spend in jail.  I, for one, think that the proof, and the shooter's lack of a viable self-defense claim, means that the shooter should have been charged with first-degree murder.

                      •  Wrong. We've been through this before. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Pi Li
                        You are in error when you claim that following (0+ / 0-)
                        a person is not a crime, a crime that most called stalking.  
                        That is legally wrong.  We've been through this before.  Florida's stalking law is found here.  You will notice that even the crime of misdemeanor stalking requires that the following be maliciously AND "repeatedly."  The Florida Courts have said that the word "repeatedly" means what you normally think it means -- different instances, separated by the passage of time.  In other words, you follow, you stop following, there is the passage of time where you are not following or attempting to follow, then you start following again . . . repeat.  

                        See the 2008 case of T.B. v. State, 908 So. 2d 651:  

                        Thus, engaging in a "series" of acts or acting "repeatedly" in the context of the statute means what the commonly approved usage of these words suggest -- acting more than once. Here, T.B. acted three times, each incident separated from the others by the passage of time; fifteen to twenty minutes between the first and second incidents, and the third, by another hour.
                        No state in the country makes ONE instance of following someone in a public area illegal.  There would be a serious constitutional problem with that.  Zimmerman, just like Martin, had a complete right to walk along the public sidewalk wherever he felt like walking, even if it's walking behind Martin and following him.  You can't pass a law preventing person 1 from walking behind person 2, and watching him, him in a public place.  Stalking laws are only constitutional because they depend on repeated instances, and it is the repetition - not the following - that is harassing.  

                        If Zimmerman had maliciously followed Martin on several different nights, with each instance separated by a period of time where he was not trying to follow Martin, you could argue misdemeanor stalking.  But one instance of following someone, even if you start the following in a car and end on foot, is NOT stalking under that law.  Following someone in a public place may not be smart, it may not be a good thing to do , but it's perfectly legal.

                        You'll notice that the prosecution has NEVER used the word "stalking" in this trial.  They can't, because they are bound by the legal meaning, and this conduct is not stalking.  If the prosecution said Zimmerman was "stalking" Martin, that would likely prompt a mistrial.  

                        •  By the definition of stalking you posted, Trayvon (0+ / 0-)

                          was being stalked.  Rachel Jeantel testified that Trayvon stated that he had lost the shooter on one occasion, but that later, the shooter started following Trayvon again.  Thus, the shooter was following Trayvon on two, separate instances which were separated by time, and that is the definition ot stalking that you posted.  And you failed to address the Montijo v. Florida case I cited earlier which plainly establishes that a person requesting a jury instruction on self-defense cannot be the one who followed another person and acted aggressively.  Trayvon did not follow the shooter.
                              One more thing, You seem to believe that "the law" is some great compendium of rules and guidance which are uniformly applied to all, and that only white attorneys have the ability to discover, and comprehend, that great, pre-existing storehouse of law.  In fact, most white, legal commentators have recognized for decades that "the law" is a crapshoot of discretionary actions which are applied unevenly and more severely on non-whites than on whites.  Thus, the shooter's basic defense is that no white-skinned person should be convicted of shooting a disobedient, uppity-looking African-American male.

                      •  It is not stalking under Florida law. (0+ / 0-)
      •  Well then they should have tested for presence (0+ / 0-)

        of aliens from Area 51 according to this logic. Sure, they should examine physical evidence. But your theory is way out there.

        •  Well, now we come to the heart of the matter. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FG

          The local police botched the initial investigation of the murder of a teenage African-American by an adult non-African-American, and refused to even arrest the shooter of the child.  That arrest of the shooter occurred only when concerned citizens around the country raised an en masse protest against the shoddy police work in this slaying of an innocent.  And now, you actually make the claim that efforts to obtain complete testing of all physical evidence are on a par with investigating aliens from other planets.
          No amount of medication can cure the disease from which people like you suffer.

  •  Look, I think Zimmerman is guilty as shit. (0+ / 0-)

    And I hope he's convicted.

    But I see no evidence for thinking he tried to rape or molest Martin.

    Jeantel said that Martin thought Zimmerman was creepy because he was following him.  Do you know what the first thing that comes to kids' minds in that scenario is?  "Maybe this guy wants to molest me."

    When she mentioned the pervert thing in her testimony, she wasn't alleging that Zimmerman's motives were of a sexual nature.  Nor was she alleging that Martin seriously thought they were.  She was describing the fact that Martin was creeped out.

    This kind of speculation seems counter-productive to me.

  •  It seems to me people are trying too hard to (0+ / 0-)

    ignore any of the testimony that doesn't fit their predetermined opinion.  Now that this case is at trial, it is all about if the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was not in fear of serious injury or death when he shot Trayvon.  Remember:  If the jurors were honest, they come into this believing Zimmerman is innocent.  Completely innocent.  That seems to be a difficult concept for many here.  The defense is going to attempt to show it is not unreasonable to think Zimmerman was in fear of injury or death when he acted.  The burden is on the prosecution to show that it is unreasonable to think that Zimmerman shot for any other reason other than to want to kill Trayvon.  Thus far, in my opinion, the prosecution has failed to make their case.  I personally hate this case.  Trayvon did nothing wrong that night.  He was walking home and suddenly felt threatened by a wanna be cowboy, in Zimmerman.  He probably did what I would have and called him out.  He probably felt threatened enough to act (either in self defense or as the initial aggressor).  Regardless, it looks like Trayvon started winning, and Zimmerman shot him.  The problem for me is I actually think Zimmerman was in fear of his life, but that it was because of his own jackass actions.  Trayvon never deserved to die, but I (at this point) don't see how the prosecution wins this case, based on the laws of Florida.  I hope Zimmerman ends up in jail.  His actions caused the death of a innocent young man.  But I believe in fair trials and the rule of law.  I see no good outcome here.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site