Skip to main content

Cross posted at Working Man Radio.  Please recommend this diary.

Watching the Zimmerman trial, the images coming out of the courtroom seem to be convincing some media observers that Zimmerman's self-defense claim is colorable.

Zimmerman's case is that Martin jumped out some bushes, said "what's your problem," and then punched Zimmerman.  According to Zimmerman, Martin then jumped on top of Zimmerman and began slamming his head into the sidewalk ... leaving no blood, and causing no concussion.  

This is becoming the media's narrative, making the case whether Zimmerman was in sufficient danger to warrant using deadly force.

There is just one problem with Zimmerman's defense.  He's lying about who was the aggressor in starting the fight.  He's lying, and the proof is right in front of everybody.

Let me just lay out the relevant facts and evidence.  It's very simple.

Trayvon Martin was on the phone when the fight started.  He was talking to Rachel Jeantel.

You don't have to believe Rachel Jeantel, there are phone records that show the call.  Furthermore, her description of the call are entirely consistent with the known facts.  Here is what she said about the call -- the only thing you need to know.

“Trayvon said, ‘What, are you following me for,’ and the man said, ‘What are you doing here?’ Next thing I hear is somebody pushing, and somebody pushed Trayvon because the head set just fell. I called him again, and he didn’t answer the phone.
We know that Zimmerman was following Trayvon Martin.  

So it is entirely believable that Martin would ask "why are you following me."  

We know that Zimmerman suspected Martin of being a burglar or something.  We know that Zimmerman complained about "these assholes always get[ting] away."

So it is entirely believable that Zimmerman said "what are your doing around here?"

And we know that Zimmerman and Martin fought each other .... making it entirely believable that Rachel Jeantel heard them scuffling.

That's all you need to know to make George Zimmerman a liar.  Phone records show Martin on the phone with Rachel Jeantel, and Jeantel testifies to facts that are entirely consistent with undisputed facts.

Trayvon was on the phone with Rachel Jeantel.  Which makes Zimmermans story about Martin jumping out of bushes so much hogwash.  It also disproves Zimmerman's claim that Martin threw the first punch.  Martin was talking on the phone.  Talking on the phone and starting fights are mutually exclusive activities.

And that's it.  Zimmerman's a liar. Whatever he says about any alleged attack, whatever he says about being punched in the nose, whatever he says about the "danger" he was in, whatever he says to make out his self-defense claim, George Zimmerman is a liar.  Beyond a reasonable doubt.  

Do not underestimate the value of proving that George Zimmerman is a liar.  In order to acquit him, the jury must first believe him.  

The video below summarizes the facts above . . . so I have omitted the transcript.  I do recommend it, because frankly, the video presentation is much more powerful than this cold written description.  And make sure you like it, subscribe to it, and share it.

And if you like a good, hard hitting audio podcast, check out Working Man Radio.  Available on iTunes.

http://www.youtube.com/...

10:26 AM PT: It is always an honor to make the rec list.  In this case, I am a little surprised.  The diary didn't seem to be doing that well.

I also appreciate the spirited, but mostly civilized discussion, in the comments.

Originally posted to Conceptual Guerilla on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 09:22 PM PDT.

Also republished by Trial Watch.

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

  •  Tip Jar (236+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tegrat, hardart, howabout, emsprater, Youffraita, sceptical observer, jamess, tgypsy, Dogs are fuzzy, Cassandra Waites, JayRaye, greengemini, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, greycat, wasatch, Siri, second gen, bruh1, kyril, page394, DerAmi, 88kathy, worldlotus, stevie avebury, ceebee7, Denise Oliver Velez, indubitably, millwood, titotitotito, WheninRome, devis1, marina, libnewsie, blueoregon, HeartlandLiberal, Josiah Bartlett, rlb, nuclear winter solstice, tobendaro, pfiore8, camlbacker, CwV, stevenwag, VTCC73, MartyM, Desert Rose, DuzT, eagleray, Bridge Master, hopeful, marleycat, mkor7, renzo capetti, salmo, TFinSF, FrY10cK, Dave925, Jackson L Haveck, hwmnbn, mdmslle, onionjim, SaintC, tash123, emal, Powered Grace, psnyder, emeraldmaiden, dlemex, Brooke In Seattle, Debby, Lilyvt, Matt Z, RhodaA, JamieG from Md, Alice Olson, rapala, kayfromsouth, ajr111240, Horace Boothroyd III, missLotus, MadGeorgiaDem, FindingMyVoice, JDWolverton, JBL55, anodnhajo, AnnieR, freeport beach PA, CenPhx, blukat, MKinTN, RichterScale, No one gets out alive, Quasimodal, shanikka, fallina7, TracieLynn, Keninoakland, MA Liberal, zerelda, hubcap, Damnit Janet, Rogneid, OIL GUY, LaughingPlanet, caul, EdinStPaul, Crabby Abbey, dle2GA, Gurnt, NJpeach, BluejayRN, CA Nana, amsterdam, miracle11, bookwoman, HappyinNM, Keone Michaels, Lying eyes, middleagedhousewife, Mentatmark, Loudoun County Dem, frisco, verdeo, kevinpdx, mconvente, GrannyOPhilly, mikejay611, Amber6541, Little Lulu, Its a New Day, harlinchi, Newzie, PrahaPartizan, howarddream, chira2, Mac in Maine, Lost Left Coaster, Nespolo, tin woodswoman, trumpeter, pat bunny, stlsophos, kharma, artmartin, Turbonerd, collardgreens, Imhotepsings, Dodgerdog1, susakinovember, dotsright, acuppajo, prettygirlxoxoxo, eru, one of 8, timewarp, bibble, chicklet, thomask, mookins, cybersaur, also mom of 5, rb608, Lily O Lady, Quantumlogic, JoanMar, livingthedream, Stwriley, YucatanMan, roses, legendmn, Rusty SpikeFist 2, whaddaya, Hill Jill, rukidingme, Dretutz, AnnetteK, peacestpete, Chaddiwicker, orangecurtainlib, splashy, cececville, FloridaSNMOM, HippyWitch, FreeWoman19, Zacapoet, Jazzenterprises, K S LaVida, wdrath, Eric Twocents, Nulwee, Zek J Evets, OldDragon, profundo, BarackStarObama, Front Toward Enemy, leonard145b, runfastandwin, Mary Mike, ladybug53, OleHippieChick, diffrntdrummr, edsbrooklyn, UnionMade, catwho, rasbobbo, Kombema, LarisaW, NYWheeler, prgsvmama26, SaraBeth, cassidy3, Smoh, suzq, IreGyre, GeorgeXVIII, yawnimawke, FarWestGirl, citizen dan, Involuntary Exile, tbutt, tb92, expatjourno, Sun Tzu, Bluesee, ipaman, Nica24, martini, noblindeye, thankgodforairamerica, WFBMM, dewley notid, third Party please, sawgrass727, a2nite, pixxer, Avila
    •  And that is the problem. The prosecution... (132+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib, emsprater, Youffraita, sceptical observer, wilderness voice, peregrine kate, Cassandra Waites, JayRaye, sponson, greengemini, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, Conceptual Guerilla, allergywoman, wasatch, Siri, WakeUpNeo, kyril, Empower Ink, worldlotus, Greenfinches, Denise Oliver Velez, indubitably, Actbriniel, earicicle, marina, buoren, FishOutofWater, blueoregon, tobendaro, a2nite, Naniboujou, Habitat Vic, camlbacker, aravir, VTCC73, DuzT, eagleray, Bridge Master, sillycilla, LilithGardener, mkor7, salmo, Nova Land, Dave925, onionjim, Ellid, Powered Grace, rabel, rigcath, emeraldmaiden, Brooke In Seattle, Debby, Lilyvt, Matt Z, JamieG from Md, kathny, AlyoshaKaramazov, MadGeorgiaDem, FindingMyVoice, wmtriallawyer, Mother Mags, True North, CenPhx, Heart of the Rockies, MKinTN, freeport beach PA, gramofsam1, TracieLynn, zerelda, Rogneid, OIL GUY, Torta, Joe Bob, EdinStPaul, Crabby Abbey, sfbob, Lying eyes, middleagedhousewife, frisco, ColoTim, verdeo, GrannyOPhilly, Randomfactor, mikejay611, Amber6541, fumie, PrahaPartizan, howarddream, bleeding blue, Nespolo, pat bunny, MNGlasnant, JohnnySacks, protectspice, artmartin, Imhotepsings, susakinovember, acuppajo, timewarp, chicklet, thomask, mookins, rb608, Lily O Lady, Dr Erich Bloodaxe RN, retLT, livingthedream, YucatanMan, Calamity Jean, peacestpete, FreeWoman19, Jazzenterprises, OldDragon, side pocket, leonard145b, radv005, Mary Mike, ladybug53, OleHippieChick, edsbrooklyn, SadieSue, sidnora, NYWheeler, IreGyre, FarWestGirl, zmom, justiceputnam, SuetheRedWA, CaliSista, martini, janemas, dewley notid

      ...has an inherently strong case. But it has failed to pursue aspects of testimony from its own witnesses. Some observers say that the case will be made in the closing statement. And that will powerfully sway the jury.

      Okay. But I've covered enough trials to know that this is often wishful thinking.

       

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 09:31:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I hate to ask a technical question ... (5+ / 0-)

        but can you see the video?  I see the code, I don't see the video.

        Speaking of "closing arguments," my video has a good one.

      •  Zimmerman's gonna walk. (21+ / 0-)

        I think. Not because he's innocent -- anything but! -- but b/c the judge has already decided to let him go.

        I want to say that the jury is stacked, but I don't actually know that.

        If Zimmerman gets anything I will be delighted to eat these words.

        But I really don't trust our system of justice in general, and in this case, not at all.

        Irony takes a worse beating from Republicans than Wile E. Coyote does from Acme. --Tara the Antisocial Social Worker

        by Youffraita on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 09:51:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  What questioning would you like them to ask (3+ / 0-)

        and doesn't those avenues depend on what cases they are building as their strategy for the trial? their centrial thesis to be quite frank seems to be "he's a liar" and from there to leave it to the jury to decide whether they choose to beleive his statements. Do you think there is a different way they could be doing that?

        •  Different? Yes. Harder. I'm not a lawyer, but... (53+ / 0-)

          ...after covering as a reporter about 50 felony violence trials, I think jurors need to be led every step of the way. That means more questions about specific clashing statements that George Zimmerman has gifted the prosecution with. I'm not asking for drama. I just want less timidity.

          Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

          by Meteor Blades on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 01:34:00 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  YES (12+ / 0-)

            The prosecution has to anticipate every question the jury may have for the case and answer them.  The prosecution's job is to connect the dots; it's not enough to present evidence out of context, it's their job to say "A -> B, and B -> C, so A -> C" from small detail to small detail.

            The discrepancies in GZ's testimony need to be pointed out, the inconsistencies in some of the witness testimony need to be explained.

            •  Opening argument = what the state expects ... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              rb608, IreGyre, HappyinNM

              to prove.  Body of trial = what the evidence is; i.e., witness testimony.  Closing argument = translation of what the evidence shows.

              Neither side can connect many of the dots until the stage of closing arguments is reached.

              "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

              by Neuroptimalian on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 11:08:09 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  I believe you to be correct in that waiting until (6+ / 0-)

            the closing argument to make your points is too late.  Most juror research shows that closing arguments do not sway jurors toward a verdict.  Sadly, most are leaning toward a verdict after jury selection.  The prosecution seems to have bungled this case at many different turns.  I have my own ideas about why prosecutors tend to do so badly in high profile cases and this seems to be one where they are making plenty of mistakes.

            "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

            by stellaluna on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 02:41:24 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I disagree that the prosecution (9+ / 0-)

              has bungled the case.

              This case is about an event that took place in less than 10 minutes, in a relatively small area. What has become general accepted truths about this case, are for the most part myths and propaganda.

              The more you learn about the evidence, the clearer it becomes how many lies were told by GZ.

              I believe that if the jury went in with an open mind, they will return a guilty verdict.

              •  Ah, the "if" is the rub. n/t (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                protectspice, Calamity Jean

                "Anyone who thinks Obama is like Nixon is a moron. More than that, a F###ING moron". Kos, 5-24-13

                by Lying eyes on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 08:17:47 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  But if they follow the instruction that they are (0+ / 0-)

                not to convict the defendant IF they have a reasonable doubt as to one or more elements I think they could easily acquit him.  They don't have to believe for certain that Zimmerman started the fight or that he was beaten so badly he feared for his life.  They just have to be unsure as to what happened during that 10 minutes.  They can be pretty sure they know that Zimmerman is guilty and still be bound to acquit him.  Only when they are entirely sure and completely convinced are they able to find him guilty.  So, just in my opinion, by failing to attack his credibility the prosecution is allowing just enough doubt to creep in to acquit him.  But again, if the jury is following the law.

                "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

                by stellaluna on Thu Jul 04, 2013 at 04:53:53 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  We will have to wait and see (0+ / 0-)

                  My impression is that the prosecution has been carefull about not creating a situation where the jury may feel sympathetic towards GZ, and they've been working hard to gain the jurors trust. I can see a strategy, but I may be wrong.

            •  Could you share those ideas? (0+ / 0-)

              I'm trying so hard to understand why the good guys are playing nice with the bad guys.  Seriously.

              "Anyone who thinks Obama is like Nixon is a moron. More than that, a F###ING moron". Kos, 5-24-13

              by Lying eyes on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 08:16:48 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  On the whole I think career prosecutors are not (0+ / 0-)

                as talented as their defense counterparts.  They obviously don't stay in the job for the money or the social prestige (an elected DA may have some prestige because of his status as an elected official but career assistants don't).  I think they stay because they enjoy the power of the position.  Because the power of being on the side of law enforcement and the prosecution makes it easier for them.  In a non-high profile case this works fine for them.  Judges constantly help the prosecution by making arguments for them, stretching credulity for them and by demanding respect for them that they haven't earned.  In a high-profile case where all eyes are on the judge's decisions and demeanor the judge can't help the prosecution so much.  So they end up being a lot worse at trying their case than the other side who is used to trying the case against the judge and the prosecution.  So that is one reason they are inept.

                The other reason, which is more unique to this case is that prosecutors rely on law enforcement to help them understand the case, their witnesses and the facts.  They shouldn't in my opinion but they usually do.  I don't think law enforcement is too excited about the prosecution of Zimmerman and their attitude shows in the lack of aggression by the DA's.

                All of this is of course just my speculation.  But it is based on 25 years of trying criminal cases, many of them murders, against prosecutors and law enforcement (and the occasional judge).

                "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

                by stellaluna on Thu Jul 04, 2013 at 04:47:23 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  I did get frustrated (19+ / 0-)

            with the prosecution at times, but as the trial is progressing I am beginning to recognize their strategy.

            In the first place they've very carefully worked on buliding trust for the prosecution with the jurors. Some of the jurors have been reported as showing signs of diasapproval towards the defense's treatment of the female witnesses and in particular Rachel.
            The prosecution has taken the defense's star witnesses, and put them on the stand as their own. There are no "shocking" revelations left for the defense's case.

            I thought it was very powerful to just have all of GZ statements shown, one after the other. They followed it up with Mark Osterman's rediculous recounting of Zimmerman's story. Osterman uses details that can very easily be disproven with forensic evidence. Zimmerman himself beat around the bush, when he had to deal with some of the details. Like how he got the gun out of the holster, that Trayvon actually grabbed the gun, how Trayvon was positioned on top of Zimmerman when he attempted to get the gun, how Trayvon ended up un the ground and Zimmerman got out from under him.
            If Zimmerman wants to refute Osterman's claims, he has to get on the stand.

            Another prong to the prosecution's case, is the timeline of what happened during that one minute the actual altercation took place.
            John Guy made that point during the opening statement by mentioning the fact that witnesses saw different things from different angles at different times.

            I've spend a lot of time, piecing the timeline together. If you take all the 911 calls and all the witness statements together, some of the statements that were made and that seemed not make sense or seemed just plain wrong, suddenly make sense.
            The way and the order the prosecution has been presenting the eyewitnesses, make a lot of sense if you take the timeline into account.
            The prosecution neglected to sollicit certain information from certain witnesses. There are witnesses, that don't even realize they have very damning information. I was kind of surprised that BdlR didn't draw it out of his witnesses. I know the prosecution is aware of it. I also know the defense has not put the same effort into that timeline, and judging by certain statements made by the defense, appear to have missed the significance of some of the witness statements.

            I think the prosecution will finish their case with a bang, with forensic evidence, but I expect the big knock out punch in the State's rebuttal. The closing will put everything together.

            •  I so hope you're right. (0+ / 0-)

              But I fear it may be too late.

              "Anyone who thinks Obama is like Nixon is a moron. More than that, a F###ING moron". Kos, 5-24-13

              by Lying eyes on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 08:20:00 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  What is your pessimism based on? (9+ / 0-)

                I only watch the NBC live stream, because it has no commentators, no banners, no tweets, no breaking signs.

                I watched some of the other live streams, but the stupidity or ratings boosting chatter made me want to tear my hair out.

                What I liked about the prosecution's presentation, is that I feel as if I am revisiting my own discovery process into the evidence on this case. I think the defense made a major mistake in cross examining Rachel for more than 6 hours. West gave her the opportunity to repeat what she heard those 6 minutes over and over again.

                The jury will know, unlike the talking heads, that she had every known detail right. She said that the phone disconnected when Trayvon started to run. The phone records show the phone hung up seconds after GZ said "he is running" on the nen call.
                There are more such details, and the prosecution is feeding them to the jury one by one, just like they are feeding them the lies GZ has told in his statements.

                West was so fixated on her destruction, that in the process he conceded that GZ, while on the phone with the police, was following Trayvon in his car before Trayvon started to run.

                I think for anyone who has taken am interest in this case, it is hard to understand that there are people who are not emotional invested in this case, but for now I am going to assume the jurors belong to that group.

                •  My critique of the prosecution (0+ / 0-)

                  After opening statements concluded, the defense started repeatedly referring to Martin attacking Zimmerman, breaking his nose, and slamming his head on the concrete over and over, but the defense did this before anybody testified to that, and the prosecution didn't object on the grounds that those were facts not in evidence.

                  When the EMT testified, the prosecution didn't point out that EMT training doesn't qualify someone to diagnose broken noses. When the physician's assistant testified, the prosecution didn't point out that she didn't actually diagnose a broken nose either but simply wrote down what Zimmerman said the EMTs told him (which was actually not true). The prosecution also allowed without objection the defense to use the PA as an impromptu expert witness.

                  When the forensic pathologist testified and pointed out a multitude of small abrasions, the prosecution let stand her testimony that Zimmerman's head injuries, the two cuts and the many small abrasions, were "consistent with" a head repeatedly hitting concrete. Given the number of people who die from simple falls in which their heads hit a concrete floor, the prosecution should have asked the forensic pathologist to explain the lack of brain damage, skull fracture, and even concussion. The prosecution should have asked if Zimmerman's superficial head injuries weren't more consistent with rolling around on rough concrete while wrestling.

                  After all, the point to score is not that the injuries are not life threatening (because self-defense doesn't require life threatening injuries), but that the insignificance of the injuries show that Zimmerman is lying about how he got them. If he got them because Martin pounded, however gently, his head against the concrete, he's justified in using deadly force. If the got them rolling around on the concrete while trying to wrestle Martin into submission, he's not justified in using deadly force.

                  I realize the prosecution may have been allowing the local cops to save face, but when Officer Serino testified that he believed Zimmerman's story, the prosecution should have asked why Serino wrote a report recommending Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter.

                  When the defense was arguing that the absence of blood was explained by Zimmerman being on his back, and all the blood from his "broken nose " going down his throat, the prosecution didn't point out that, had Zimmerman been on his back, the rivulets of blood from his two small scalp lacerations would not have trickled down his head and towars his ears because the blood would have been flowing upward in that position.

                  Well, those are just the things I remember. I didn't take notes of anything, but I did expect a more aggressive prosecution.

                  •  I do agree with some of your points (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    RobertSF

                    and I am frustrated that the prosecution is clearly protecting the SPD, while the SPD in turn is not returning the favor, but BdlR has a stellar record and his apologetic style seemed to have served him well.

                    What I see, is an effort to appear fair and honest. My sense is that people who make it through a jury selection, especially a high profile one, tend to like to stay in the middle. I think the defense has made some big errors, by being caught in lies or sophistry.
                    I know from own experience watching a couple of trials where I was unbiased or had an opinion but was not emotionally invested, the team I caught using those tactics, completely lost me. The defense's case depends completely on trust. If they lose that, it is going to be more difficult for jurors to make the enormous leaps of faith necessary to acquit Zimmerman.

                    Another thing that may be an unexpected advantage to the prosecution is juror 5(e6). That was the juror the prosecution attempted to strike, because she'd made a remark about innocent people going to jail. That juror appears to be the most engaged juror, taking extensive notes. Everytime you here this female voice asking to repeat something, or make a remark about the sound quality of the audio tapes, that is juror 5.

                    Juror 5 is also the person who appeared most put off by West's cross on Rachel, especially when she caught him changing Rachel's words and making it sound as if she'd conceded to something when she clearly did not.
                    So, I am happy that she made it on the jury. She is not going to miss any detail and seems assertive enough to take that with her in jury deliberation.

            •  I believe that to be the strategy as well (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Meteor Blades, rb608, amsterdam

              but it is indeed a question whether it will worik. I can't say. to me when I keep hearing contradictory statements by someone over and over again I think "this person is lying"

              But if someone is not so attentive, its possible they may not get it.

              •  Even if he is lying, so what? (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                rb608, whaddaya

                The prosecution has the burden to prove what happened.  And to disprove self-defense.  So, if GZ is lying that only leaves you with no evidence.  And no evidence isn't beyond a reasonable doubt.  

                BTW I thought the witness this morning, Mr. Carter, the professor who is now in the army, was helpful to both.  He was helpful to the prosecution in that he established that he took a course, got an A and SYG and self-defense was discussed.  But he was also helpful to the defense in that they got in the a discussion of the law of imperfect self-defense, that is that if someone escalates to a new level of violence then the fact that the first person started it does not deprive the first person of his self defense claim.  So even if GZ pushed TM to start it, and the jury finds that TM raised to a new level of violence then GZ still has his self defense claim.  The fact that TM had no injuries before the gunshot works against the prosecution here.  

                I have also found some jurors are desperate for guidance on the law before the final charge because they feel lost without an idea of how to interpret the testimony.  That discussion of law may have undo influence on those jurors.  I was surprised the judge let them get into it, but the prosecution opened the door by introducing the course work which allowed the defense to explore exactly what that course work was.
                 

                •  "Even if he is lying, so what?" (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  rb608, amsterdam, dewley notid

                  simply put, this would explain why his atty. didn't pursue an SYG hearing, to avoid trial completely. had he done so, and those lies militated against a preliminary finding in his favor, that would become part of the public record, and practically guarantee a guilty verdict at trial. this way, the defense hopes to confuse the jury enough, that they might not notice the discrepancies in his various statements. I have a feeling this strategy is going to come back to haunt mr. Zimmerman's attorneys.

                •  i'm not a lawyer so I need to understand something (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  rb608

                  there is no dispute that zimmerman shot and killed trayvon martin. he's claiming that it was justified by self defense. is the prosecution burden to disprove self defense "reasonable doubt" or some other standard? i don't understand how the simple assertion of self defense would require the state to disprove the assertion by the same standard as it must prove the fact of the crime itself.

                  •  In florida, my understanding is reasonable doubt (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Seeds, whaddaya

                    That's why this case is so tough for the prosecution.  There needs to be evidence in the case to raise the issue of self-defense or the charge will not be given by the judge.  In this case the issue has clearly been raised.  The injuries, the witness statements, and GZ's statements all raise the issue.  The problem with saying GZ is lying is it doesn't remove the issue.  Let's suppose he did embellish his story and the jury chooses to disbelieve everything GZ says.  Good says there was a fight outside, the other witnesses say there was a fight, GZ actually had injuries, witnesses had him under observation from the time of the shooting until the police arrived so any claim of self-inflicted wounds is discounted.  Good said GZ was yelling for help, the first officer said the first thing GZ said was he yelled for help and no one came.  If you believe that GZ is lying and dismiss everything he said, you still have the injuries, Good's testimony, the testimony of the other witnesses about the argument and fight.  The jury would have to dismiss all this evidence somehow but even then, what happened?  

                    The best the prosecution can hope for at this point, IMHO, is that the jury believes that GZ's fear of imminent serious bodily injury was not reasonable.  That would get them to manslaughter, but I don't think they can get Murder 2 under and circumstances.

                    •  thanks (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      whaddaya, emsprater

                      what confuses me is how somebody can claim self defense for a situation he himself initiated.

                      •  If he provoked or is found to have provoked (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Seeds, whaddaya, amsterdam

                        then he can't assert it unless he can prove escalation (eg TM was using deadly force)

                        Even under the burdens, however, you must understand that people here who keep saying this is an easy cae for the defense are wrong

                        The doubts must be reasonable

                      •  The witness this morning explained this (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        whaddaya

                        Carter, the professor who taught a course GZ took talked about imperfect self-defense.  Essentially, if GZ pushed TM or even grabbed him, if TM escalated the violence to life threatening then GZ still still has his right of self defense.  To convict the jury would have to believe that GZ's fears of imminent serious bodily injury were not reasonable.  That's why it's so hard for the prosecution.  

                        •  still confusing (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          dfe, OleHippieChick, emsprater

                          and maybe its just purposely crappy law in FLA intended for guys like GZ.

                          what I find confusing is when do TMs self-defense rights kick in? he's been confronted by an armed man. under your scenario GZ can grab him or push him, and if TM responds with anything more than a grab or push its escalation and GZ has a right to use lethal force. isn't the fact that GZ is armed and initating the contact enough for TM to believe he was in imminent danger of serious bodily injury with full rights to defend himself?

                          •  Not exactly (0+ / 0-)

                            If TM responds with proportionate force then the self defense does not kick in.  If GZ pushed TM and TM pushed back, no self defense rights for GZ.  But if GZ pushed and TM hit him, knocked him down and banged his head on the concrete in such a manner as GZ reasonably believed his life was in danger, then self defense does kick in.

                            If GZ pulled his gun and threatened TM with it, then TM's self defense kicks rights kick in.  The question is now, as it has been from the beginning, was GZ's fear of imminent serious bodily injury reasonable.  

                          •  do you think (0+ / 0-)

                            GZ's fear of imminent death or great bodily harm, is reasonable if you apply an objective not subjective standard?
                            Part of the jury instruction for justifiable lethal force, concerns physical abillity. The jury can weigh the age difference, the difference in weight and physical training such as MMA.

                          •  Under all the factors (0+ / 0-)

                            would a reasonable person have felt in fear of imminent grievous bodily harm. That's to objective part of the standard.  Objective in the sense of not did GZ feel fear, but would a reasonable person in those circumstances have felt that fear. I wouldn't put too much faith in the MMA testimony about GZ. The MMA didn't do GZ much good.

                            I think the jury will go into the room and say what do we know for sure?  GZ shot TM.  GZ was injured.  TM had no injuries prior to the gunshot other than two abrasions on his hand consistent with punching someone.  Based on that uncontested testimony, what do we know happened?  TM hit GZ, knocked him down, GZ hit his head on concrete either because TM hit him again or just because he fell, (punctillate wounds)  Then they will go to the next layer of evidence, not certain but pretty certain, Good said TM was on top, consistent with injuries.  They will ignore all the stuff we are agonizing over and ask themselves the question... "Under those circumstances do we believe beyond a reasonable doubt that a reasonable person would not have been in fear of grievous  bodily harm or death.?"

                            And for all the high priced lawyers and all the TV coverage and all discussion and pontificating we do, that's what they will do.  They will ask the same question that we all thought they would ask at the beginning. All JMO.

                          •  Why do you choose (0+ / 0-)

                            not to believe GZ's MMA capabilities? That is irrational. Why do you believe Good who made material changes to his statements, who only watched for 10 seconds, is a reliable witness, and you do not take into account the two witnesses who saw GZ on top when the shot was fired, and Rachel Jeantel who told GZ was behind Trayvon again?

                            You are cherry picking the evidence that suits your bias. I hope the jury won't do the same.

                          •  Then the law is stupid (0+ / 0-)

                            Because it created an environment where an innocent kid is put in position of making a life and death decision by somebody else with the burden of the law entirely on him to make the right choice. No wonder an asshole wannabe like GZ killed somebody when he finally created the chance for it.

                    •  But Who Started the Altercation? (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      IreGyre

                      If the Jury thinks Zimmerman lied and he was the one that attacked Martin then he has entirely lost his right to self-defense which means he committed murder. It is already proven that Zimmerman followed Martin. If on top of that the Jury concludes that he actually laid hands on Martin first or pulled his gun on him which then lead to Martin defending himself, Zimmerman will be found guilt. The law after all is Stand Your Ground not Last Man Standing.

                •  What "no evidence" are you talking about? (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  rb608, amsterdam, emsprater

                  George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin with a 9 mm handgun.  By George Zimmerman's own admission.

                  Trayvon Martin was unarmed.

                  The jury is permitted to infer the natural consequences of Zimmerman's actions.  If Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin, they jury is permitted to infer that he intende to shoot and kill Trayvon Martin.

                  They are also permitted to infer malice aforethought from the use of a deadly weapon.

                  If we required affirmative proof rebutting self-defense, no murder case of anyone killed by gunshot and discovered days or weeks later would ever stand.  

                  Without Zimmerman's evidence -- such as it is -- this case is open and shut.  He shot an unarmed black kid with a 9mm handgun and killed him.  That's murder.  Period.

                •  So Why Would Zimmerman Lie? (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  IreGyre, amsterdam

                  If the Jury decides that he is lying they will conclude that all of his lies are self-serving because he is trying to avoid being convicted of murder. If you are on trial and you are actual innocent of the charges. you have to do your best to get everything right and if you can't remember something, just say you can't remember. Because if you are proven to be lying, even if you are actual innocent, chances are you will be convicted.

                  Keep in mind that Zimmerman didn't just get one little detail wrong. Virtually everything he has said about what happened is disprovable thanks to the recorded 911 calls made by him and others.

                  •  if he was legitimately defending himself why lie? (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    dfe

                    the fact of the lies means he is covering up something... the truth that he instigated the whole thing, escalated it and used deadly force without justification....

                    why lie otherwise? because you think nobody will believe an honest account? Or is it because an honest account is the same as pleading guilty....?

                    Pogo & Murphy's Law, every time. Also "Trust but verify" - St. Ronnie (hah...)

                    by IreGyre on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 03:20:49 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  Thank you for this... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              rb608, amsterdam

              very well written response. I haven't been able to follow the case as much I would like and was starting to get very nervous after reading the daily trial summaries.

              I hope that the Prosecution is following this strategy.

          •  Okay so more hand holding (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            amsterdam

            That may be true.

            What is evident to me may not be evident to them

          •  You are absolutely correct (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            protectspice, rb608, amsterdam

            There is a whole arsenal of techniques lawyers use to drill things into jurors so they don't forget.  Repitition is a big one.  You want to make sure that no juror misses anything because he was looking out the window wondering when we break for lunch.

      •  Ever since the Dan White case, a classic... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        whaddaya, emsprater, IreGyre

        ...of prosecutorial bungling, I've looked askance at prosecutorial competence and integrity.
        There's miles to go, yet, and ample opportunity for the prosecution to screw up, or "pull its' punches."

      •  I don't understand this (0+ / 0-)

        If Martin jumped ut of a Bush, attacked Zimmerman and then Zimmerman shot him in self-defense, when did Zimmerman have time to make that 911 call where they told him "We don't need you to follow him"? There doesn't seem to be a space in this narrative for him to do that.

        Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it. http://www.edfitzgeraldforohio.com/

        by anastasia p on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 09:40:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  the 911 call was before (10+ / 0-)

          he told the 911 dispatch that was going to follow Martin on foot, and the 911 guy said "we don't need you to do that". then he got out of his car and confronted Martin, leading to the shooting.

          if I was on that jury, that's all I would need to know. the kid had no way of knowing that Zimmerman had determined he was an intruder. Zimmeran was just a guy that popped up out of nowhere while Martin was talking on the phone. in a split second the kid found himself in the wrong place/wrong time and it was entirely Zimmerman's doing.

          •  Exactly. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sukeyna

            At what point did Zimmerman act as if he was afraid for his life? Never. At every step he acted like a predator. He stalked and killed an unarmed kid. Florida is debating whether is acceptable to hunt a human being.

            "The Democrats are the lesser evil and that has to count for something. Good and evil aren't binary states. All of us are both good and evil. Being less evil is the trajectory of morality." --SC

            by tb92 on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 04:15:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  No.. what you've just said is _wrong_ (0+ / 0-)

            Zimmerman never told them dispatch he was going to follow him.. and he was already out of his car when dispatch told him "We don't need you to do that."  Zimmerman then responded "okay"

            To you, I'm an atheist. To God, I'm the loyal opposition.” ― Woody Allen

            by soros on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 04:31:42 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  My take. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rb608, IreGyre, amsterdam

        Realistically, what case can Zimmerman's defense team present? There are no witnesses to testify that he was on the other side of town at the time of the shooting. There is no witness that saw the actual shooting. There is no witness that can claim Zimmerman had no other option but to use deadly force.

        My take is the prosecution was presenting Zimmerman's case. They presented witnesses, some of whom were favorable to Zimmerman's case, and allowed the defense to score some points in Zimmerman's favor. Now the prosecution is busily working to destroy Zimmerman's case. They are poking holes in his story and building momentum against him.

        I think it is a brilliant strategy. I hope it works.

        A waist is a terrible thing to mind.

        by edg on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 10:44:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I agree. the opening statement practically (0+ / 0-)

        won people who were undecided.  The closing argument will be even grander.  Everything else in between about assumptions are simply that.  In the end, GZ stalked the boy, both fought, one couldn't handle the fight he initiated and got scared so he pulled out a gun and killed him.

    •  when did Zimmerman release the safety? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      salmo, rb608

      or did he usually carry a gun with the safety off.

      "Tax cuts for the 1% create jobs." -- Republicans, HAHAHA - in China

      by MartyM on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 04:51:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It is a double action pistol (11+ / 0-)

        That particular pistol has no safety.  It is in a class of semi-automatic weapons (combat weapons) where the relatively high trigger pressure (about 5 pounds) theoretically works to limit firing to only those situations where someone wants to shoot it.  

        •  ok - thanks (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          signals, whaddaya

          "Tax cuts for the 1% create jobs." -- Republicans, HAHAHA - in China

          by MartyM on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 06:43:11 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  yes and the fact that there is no round in the (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          salmo

          firing chamber unless the gun is manually cocked to allow the first round in the magazine to load... then to have a full magazine plus the chambered round the magazine would be removed, an additional bullet inserted into the magazine and the magazine reinserted... a way to be ready to go with no manual cocking and have an extra bullet...  which is what Zimmerman apparently did since we know there was still a full magazine's worth of bullets in the gun with the top bullet of the magazine advanced into the firing chamber...  AFTER GZ had fired the single shot

          Pogo & Murphy's Law, every time. Also "Trust but verify" - St. Ronnie (hah...)

          by IreGyre on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 03:27:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I carried my glock with a chambered round (0+ / 0-)

            Back in the bad old days, when such things were necessary, I carried my Glock (also a combat weapon - i.e. no safety) that way.  I was often carrying a lot of uncounted, unmarked small bills in an area with frequent, although relatively minor crimes for the most part, and all that was not a well kept secret.  I never bothered with the business of refilling the magazine, figuring that if a total of 10 rounds was not enough, there was something seriously wrong with my aim or with the situation.  The fact that GZ did that before wandering around his residential neighborhood on the lookout for bad guys makes me wonder just what scary stories he was telling himself.

      •  actually we learned today (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        whaddaya, emsprater, IreGyre

        that he had to have had his gun ready to fire

        thats bad for him

    •  something else that has never been raised, (5+ / 0-)

      by anyone, during this whole event: the "SYG" laws work both ways. mr. martin was every bit within his legal rights to attack mr. Zimmerman, with whatever weapon he chose, if he felt threatened by him. the fact that mr. Zimmerman was following mr. martin, in the dark, in the rain, makes him the aggressor. even if mr. martin had struck the first blow, per FL law, he was completely legally entitled to do so. he could have picked up a brick, and bashed mr. Zimmerman's skull in, killing him, and, by FL law, walked away a free man. again, that law works both ways.

  •  What the jury thinks is what counts. n/t (6+ / 0-)

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

    by thestructureguy on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 09:32:36 PM PDT

  •  Conceptual G - if that were only true (17+ / 0-)

    "In order to acquit him, the jury must first believe him"

    If the jury did believe George Zimmerman it makes it easy to acquit him, but that is not the standard the jury will use. It's the prosecution's burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Many observers think the prosecution needs something dramatic in the physical evidence to save this case. I hope they have kept their best cards to play last.

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 09:41:00 PM PDT

    •  I'm certainly familiar with the standard of proof (13+ / 0-)

      And I also know that juries don't always follow it.  They pay lip service to it, except for when they affirmatively want to acquit somebody.  

      If they decide that Zimmerman is lying, they will no longer want to acquit him.  In fact, they may get angry at him.

      We're talking about a 17 year old boy, who was unarmed, staying with his father, minding his own business, talking to a girl on the phone.  OH, and Zimmerman threw the first punch.

      They've got manslaughter all day long, if they make sure the jury understand those facts.

      They probably don't have second degree murder, and probably never did.  [If they could prove that Trayvon was "begging" Martin, they would have a good case for 1st degree murder, but that evidence appears to be sketchy at best.]

      •  How do we know Z threw the first punch? (9+ / 0-)

        Is there direct evidence of that?

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 10:08:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Because he was talking on the phone ... (15+ / 0-)

          ... when the fight started.  Rachel Jeantel heard the fight start while he was talking to her.  Talking on the phone and throwing a punch are inconsistent.  

          That's why Zimmerman's story falls apart.  He says Martin "jumped out of some bushes" and accosted him . . . while talking on the phone to Rachel.  Bullshit.

        •  here's the reality (9+ / 0-)

          I won't get into the legal side because everytime i do a few people show up to claim I'm wrong, but the case is not dependent on us knowing for certain who threw the first punch

          the case is dependent on whether we believe the defendant's statements because but-for those statements the homicide would be murder 2.

          Let me suggest a practical test for you:

          Go through your arguments about why there's reasonable doubt. Point out which ones, beyond the end fight, which confirms Zimmerman's arguments that do not rely on us trusting him.

          The position that one has to prove who threw the first punch relies on a view of cases that absolutely does not exist.

          I will bet you this without looking it up because i remember enough of crim law to say it: Most cases are decided on circumstantial evidence where the picture is imcomplete without a smoking gun. Its based on who you believe. This standard reasonable doubt people keep referring to doesn't sound  like the reasonable doubt used in o ur court system in general.

          Although the instructions are vague, the courts in Floriday make it clear that the doubt must be reasonable, and not just any doubts.

          While, for examle they couldn't tell you all the moments that happened that night,t he jury is allowed to use logical inference from the fact that Zimmerman was pursuing the victim and other elements of the case to see convicted.

          •  There's a reason those people are claiming you're (7+ / 0-)

            wrong. You are. Following someone does not justify assault.

            If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

            by HairyTrueMan on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 10:25:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Those people who keep telling me (19+ / 0-)

              I am wrong refuse to cite in case law to rebut the case that I mentioned so I don't take their comments seriously.

              One of those people showed in a diary unrelated to case law trying to explain away why the police didn't try to identify the body sooner given they had the cell phone

              Every step of the way, those same people have variously claimed that escalation isn't necessary if provocation is found, that provocation requires an illegal act first, when I corrected them that it can also be imminent threat they said that threat just meant verbal statements, when I linked to a case that included pursuit as the main causal link for finding a threat, they said the other facts in that case were dispositive not the reason stated by the court.

              So, no, I am not going to take their word for it especially because (1) we have a case involving more than what you just wrote (that's your reduction of what we know) because (2) we have testimony that the defendant in fact didn't identiy himself, was in pursuit because he thought the victim was a criminal, didn't wait for the cops and got into an argument (I believe 2 witnesses testified to this) and therefore, one can reasonablhy conclude from all of the circumstantial evidence that in fact the defendant attacked the victim. this is true because in part the defendant has lied about key elements of the attack including the fact he was ambushed (which turns out is unlikely to be the case because of people hearing an argument first), the wounds not being consistent with life threatning trauma etc

              You will be back here saying the same things again, but let's be clear: I am find with being wrong. I am not okay being told I am wrong because people have an agenda related to the defendant

              By the way, the idea that imminent threat requires waiting for someone to throw the first punch rather than a reasonalb person standard where you look at the circumstances may or may not win the case for the defendant, but its an absurdity.

              From a practical stand, people can threaten someone in many different ways. For example, one of the claims was that a threat needs to be verbal (the threat of imminent illegal act) but that's false. the law says actually that a verbal threat whereyou know the person isn't really going to carry it out isn't imminent.

              But frankly, I think I am wasting my time. Every time I ask for case law, I get a posting of the statue, which tells me nothing about how the statute has been used in practice. Well, that as appeals to authority about I don't know hwat I am talking about because well because they say so.

              •  IANAL (4+ / 0-)

                But it seems strange that I can legally punch someone who I think is following me.

                If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

                by HairyTrueMan on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 10:47:00 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  But what you are doing there (15+ / 0-)

                  is packing a lot of other elements of what may be considered threatening int

                  1. It was  the rain and around night time
                  2 Defendant said they always get away
                  3. The kid and he was a kid had already seen the guy once who had confronted him with statements
                  4. The guy was following him
                  5. He got into an argument with hijm
                  6 He didn't identity who he was
                  7. we know a fight broke o ut soon after
                  8. Iam not sure about this but the diary says: we know the kid was on the phone

                  That's 8 points about which we can infer what happened even without going into other more questionable elements like what Rachel actually heard

                  I think that's enough along with the defendants tendency to lie to infer from the circumstantial evidence that the defendant in fact did threaten or act in an illegal way with the kid

                  if i had to guess how- I would think that the defendant probably tried to detain the victim because as he said "they always get away" The prosecution is making a point about that because that's again something we can use to infer what happened. Can I prove this absolutely? No, but I don't think that's necessary. All I need to know is what i described in points of evidence 1-8.

                  I also don't thinkt hat's what meeting the reasonable doubt standard requires. That I must prove that I knew exactly every element through a smoking gun.

                  Most cases are decided through circumstantial evidence. I can see a way for not guilty, but I don't understand how you get there if you don't believe the defendant.

                  •  Add to this (14+ / 0-)

                    the likelihood that TM tried to extract himself from the fight and get to safety.

                    There is a reason none of GZ's statements explain the 47 feet between where he claimed the fight started and where TM's body fell.

                    •  The direction of the movements (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      mikejay611

                      are also  circumstantial evidence of that fact

                      So there are probably like 10 points of evidence about what was occuring and who was the aggressor including physical evidence such as you describe

                      If one chooses no to believe  the witnesses who heard an argument, there needs to be areason why they don't believe the physical direction o where the body ended up as far as going on to elieve the defendant about who started teh fight

                      I don't know if the prosecutionw ill bring any of this out,b ut I think once you start to break it down, the dooubts seem unreasonable to me

                  •  You know, I think you've got it (17+ / 0-)
                    if i had to guess how- I would think that the defendant probably tried to detain the victim because as he said "they always get away"
                    This has always been the missing piece for me: What was Zimmerman's intention when he approached Martin?  I never believed that he followed Martin with the intention of shooting him.  However, the hypothesis that he was intending to detain him until the police arrived makes a lot of sense.  It clicks with his obsessive love of law enforcement and his role as self-appointed neighborhood watch.  It also meshes well with the picture of a man who fantasizes about catching criminals (indicated by his 50 calls to 911), and takes his cue from TV and movies.  In his imagination he would confront the kid and hold him there until the cops arrived, thus gaining backslaps of approval from his heroes.  Obviously the whole business backfired when Martin resisted his attempts to detain him, leading to a physical altercation followed by Zimmerman shooting Martin.

                    What I'd love to know (but probably never will) is if Martin could see Zimmerman's gun, or if Zimmerman brandished it when he confronted Martin.

                    "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -Gandhi

                    by Triscula on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 05:51:57 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Precisely. (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      True North, Lying eyes, Amber6541

                      That is the most likely interpretation of what we know.

                      I've always pictured him either approaching TM with his hand on his gun, or his hand flying to it once his ego was bruised/once TM resisted his "rightful" authority to detain a suspect.

                    •  I think that we will never know (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      emsprater

                      if my theory is right. What's relevant however is there's a lot of evidence - including physical evidence (location of the body) described above- that it was Zimmerman and that at the very least the victim was probably defending himself from someone acting hostile towards him

                    •  ITA (0+ / 0-)

                      George isn't a real cop, but not for any 'character' reason. George is the mindset of the shallow authoritarian. It can't be denied that these types gravitate towards security and law enforcement positions. "Wanna-be" or "Real"; just as deadly, as the record seems to be showing. Our fealty to brutal, armed authoritarians will be our downfall.

                      And another creeping thought, here we are seeing the explicated actions of one man in a crisis situation of his own fabrication. Seemingly  resulting from an authoritarian fantasy-world upbringing combined with some sort of undiagnosed personality disorder. We're seeing it played out because the subject is a civilian, he's not in law enforcement. Have any high profile police misconduct/brutality cases been this hotly debated by the populace? Have any of the accused "real" police officers been as villified(rightly)?

                •  Even if Martin threw the first punch (7+ / 0-)

                  the penalty for that is not death.

                •  according to FL's "SYG", (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Calamity Jean, whaddaya

                  "But it seems strange that I can legally punch someone who I think is following me."

                  you may well be legally entitled to shoot them. by comparison, only punching them seems rather quaint.

                •  Try This (5+ / 0-)

                  Someone follows you in a car while you are walking. You alter you path and move rapidly away from them. You think you lost them. You continue on your way but they have ditched their car and come running up behind you. You turn around. They are now close enough to grab you. Obviously they are really determined to get to you. What do you do? Do you stay and talk and hope it all a misunderstanding and they have a perfectly good reason for following you by car and foot? Do you take off and hope you can outrun them? Do you maybe try and knock them off balance by pushing them or hitting them to give yourself more of a head start?

                  I know I would probably take the last option and use the element of surprise, then again I'm a petite female trained in self-defense and I know I can't outrun most men and I can't allow anyone to get their hands on me or I may be able do break-free.

                  Now suppose when the person falls down you realize they have gun. Crap. You can't just run or  they'll shoot you. You have to somehow disable them or get the gun from them. So you attack them.

              •  Ignore HairyTrueMan (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                emsprater

                He's been a GZ apologist troll for quite some time now.

                Check his comment history for details.

                I think your take is spot-on.

                "When facts are reported, they deny the value of evidence; when the evidence is produced, they declare it inconclusive." -- Augustine, in The City of God.

                by Zek J Evets on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 01:08:37 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yep.. (0+ / 0-)

                  Ignore differing opinions because this case is all about race and politics.

                  To you, I'm an atheist. To God, I'm the loyal opposition.” ― Woody Allen

                  by soros on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 04:46:48 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I don't mind differing opinions. (0+ / 0-)

                    But I do mind ignorance, apologetics for racism, trolling, and the like. More importantly, having a different opinion doesn't mean it's an informed or valid opinion, nor does it prohibit that opinion from consequences... like... being called out as BS.

                    Also, keep in mind: Trayvon Martin's death was nearly not even noticed, let alone questioned, because of attitudes like that expressed by GZ trolls such as HairyTrueMan. Did you actually check the comment history? If not, that would be necessary before having an intelligent conversation about this tangent.

                    Regardless, if your first reaction to someone calling out another person's racism is to defend that person's racism, then you have EXTREMELY skewed priorities and probably should not be part of an adult conversation.

                    "When facts are reported, they deny the value of evidence; when the evidence is produced, they declare it inconclusive." -- Augustine, in The City of God.

                    by Zek J Evets on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 05:10:13 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  siding with Zimmerman makes one a racist? (0+ / 0-)

                      To you, I'm an atheist. To God, I'm the loyal opposition.” ― Woody Allen

                      by soros on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 05:16:28 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Siding with zimmerman without being (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Zek J Evets

                        able to explain why he's not guilty without relying on his now impeached statements does bring into question wh you believe him

                      •  The action of apologizing for... (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        amsterdam

                        Zimmerman's racially-motivated 2nd degree murder of Trayvon Martin is a racist act, yes. Why? Because it privileges a White man's (Zimmerman's) presumption that they can infringe on the rights of a Black person, threaten them, follow them with a loaded weapon, and ultimately kill them while claiming self-defense...

                        WITHOUT ANY THOUGHT to the rights of the Black person who is supposedly as free and entitled to life, liberty, the right of self-defense, and the pursuit of justice as all Americans.

                        The prejudice, the discrimination, the bigotry, the ignorance, AND the clear systemic injustice mixed with violent oppression is so clear that the fact that you can't see it is so telling, you might as well be a child in this conversation.

                        As such, you are excused to the little kids table while grown folks discuss this case.

                        "When facts are reported, they deny the value of evidence; when the evidence is produced, they declare it inconclusive." -- Augustine, in The City of God.

                        by Zek J Evets on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 09:06:06 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Greetings and salutations Zek! (0+ / 0-)

                          Jolly good to see you've returned to delight us with your intellectual genius once again. So sad that you've chosen not to address me directly, as I quite enjoy our polite back and forth. Your "kids table" analogy is delicious, even after several servings.

                          If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

                          by HairyTrueMan on Mon Jul 08, 2013 at 07:42:49 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

            •  Wrong (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              tommymet, mikejay611

              "Following someone does not justify assault" Nice try though.

            •  And, an unarmed assault? (0+ / 0-)

              For the sake of argument, when does an unarmed assault justify use of deadly force?  How about if the assault was a punch in the nose, with little evidence of damage beyond the initial blow.  That is what the evidence shows.  

              •  You missed where the defense lawyer .... (9+ / 0-)

                actually got to state without being objected to that Martin had 'armed himself with the concrete sidewalk'.

                What a colossal ass that man is.

                Nothing changes without public pressure: public pressure doesn't happen without dissemination of knowledge and 'true' facts. Bit me FOX.

                by emsprater on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 06:21:41 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I try not to follow this too closely (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  emsprater, Amber6541, dfe

                  One could, I suppose, watch the trial continuously.  That's not for me.  I have things to do, and besides, it would make me crazy.  So, "Armed himself with the sidewalk"?  Really.  One can only hope that the jury knows they're supposed to be the ones with some grounding in reality here.

                  •  I'm not following it too closely either ... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    salmo

                    It was simply my day off from work and the teevee was on.  I usually have it on the DIY channel while I go about my household chores, but I had it on Brighthouse 13 to check weather, and 'whump', there it was.

                    Nothing changes without public pressure: public pressure doesn't happen without dissemination of knowledge and 'true' facts. Bit me FOX.

                    by emsprater on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 08:45:43 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Agreee. What an ass...... a defense lawyer (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  soros, StevenD56

                  doing whatever he can trying to defend his client.  What an ass!!

                  •  If one has to loose all human values ... (0+ / 0-)

                    to defend someone who actually DID  shoot an unarmed teenager ( a fact, not an alleged 'fact'), then yes, one would be an 'ass'.

                    Nothing changes without public pressure: public pressure doesn't happen without dissemination of knowledge and 'true' facts. Bit me FOX.

                    by emsprater on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 08:44:02 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Lose all human values... (0+ / 0-)

                      The fact that an individual is defending someone against the power of the state of Florida is, at least for me, evidence that they have not lost all human values.  

                      Even the most heinous criminals are entitled to a defense.  It helps reassure the rest of us that we will be treated fairly if, God forbid, we are wrongly accused.  

                      •  There is a stark difference between defending the (0+ / 0-)

                        accused and maligning the deceased victim.

                        That shows a depravity of human values IMHO.

                        Or perhaps those who think like you are fine with a defense lawyer pointing out how seductive and sexy dressed a rape victim was at the time of the rape.  I see this as no different.

                        Nothing changes without public pressure: public pressure doesn't happen without dissemination of knowledge and 'true' facts. Bit me FOX.

                        by emsprater on Thu Jul 04, 2013 at 04:48:14 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  So if someone is falsely accused of crime, (0+ / 0-)

                          the defense should not question the motives or reputation of who is making the false accusations?

                          •  Martin is making false accusations? (0+ / 0-)

                            Odd, I thought he was dead.

                            Nothing changes without public pressure: public pressure doesn't happen without dissemination of knowledge and 'true' facts. Bit me FOX.

                            by emsprater on Fri Jul 05, 2013 at 05:50:43 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You, doucebag, mentioned rape victims. (0+ / 0-)

                            My point, moron, is to consider if it is all possible that perhaps some charges of rape are false accusations.  And if someone is making false rape accusations, then perhaps his or her motives and background might be questioned by a defense attorney, particularly if the accuser is known to have made false accusations in the past or otherwise can be shown to be not believable.  How about that, genius?
                            And in the case of that angel Treyvon -- who could ever even think that he might be an attacker and anything but a sweet innoncent victim who was shot in cold blood without any provocation.  Impossible!!

                          •  You are hereby cordially invited ... (0+ / 0-)

                            to adorn yourself with your finest apparel and politely align your lips with the lower end of my alimentary canal.

                            Nothing changes without public pressure: public pressure doesn't happen without dissemination of knowledge and 'true' facts. Bit me FOX.

                            by emsprater on Sat Jul 06, 2013 at 11:05:51 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  But if I did, you would charge "rape", and (0+ / 0-)

                            according to you, in defending myself in court, my lawyer would be denied the opportunity to prove what a complete idiot you are.

                          •  I just told you politely ... (0+ / 0-)

                            to kiss my ass, and you jump to 'rape'.

                            You are the idiot.

                            Nothing changes without public pressure: public pressure doesn't happen without dissemination of knowledge and 'true' facts. Bit me FOX.

                            by emsprater on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 03:17:23 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  Tsk Tsk (0+ / 0-)

                    To you, I'm an atheist. To God, I'm the loyal opposition.” ― Woody Allen

                    by soros on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 04:47:44 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  I thought he stated that in the opening, at which (0+ / 0-)

                  point I don't think the prosecution can object to it.  IANAL, obviously.

          •  Look at what zim claims: (6+ / 0-)

            Tray jumped out of some bushes and attacked him.

            Remember he was on his hands free phone.

            If zim was knocked down immediately, then how did Tray have the time to say "Why are you following me?" because by that time his phone was knocked off.

            The zim story is not coherent with known facts.

            A true craftsman will meticulously construct the apparatus of his own demise.

            by onionjim on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 05:37:58 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Listen to Carter's testimony today on cross (0+ / 0-)

            He is the law professor who testified as to GZ being in his class.  They went through imperfect self-defense, that is if one party escalates the violence the self defense is still intact.  So, even though we don't know who started it, we do know that the GZ was on the major receiving end of the violence before the gunshot.  One could reasonably conclude that the violence was escalated by TM, except that the jury doesn't even have to conclude that.  The prosecution has to prove that TM didn't escalate the violence.  All the jury has to conclude is that the prosecution failed to disprove that escalation.  This is a steep hill for the prosecution to climb.  There may be some forensic evidence to come, but I don't see it yet.  

            •  Knowing there was a fight (0+ / 0-)

              isn't sufficient to demonstrate escalation if one determines that defendant started the fight

              This is why the evidence of injury, the victim's DNA evidence, Good's statement, the expert testimony, etc matters as far as that point.

              The imperfect self defense argues relies on actual escalation (as the professor said like the use of a gun) not mere claims to it.

              If you argument were taken seriously, from a practical stand point, a victim could never defend him or herself from an attacker because that would instantly become self defense for the defendant

              That cannot be what the law means. And from the case law I have read in FL on this just to understand that's not what it says

            •  Good's testimony, for example, even if (0+ / 0-)

              one chooses to be it in whole means indicates there was no head bashing on concrete involved in the fight as I remember

              That again reinforces it was a fight, not a fight for the defendant's life. the mere fact he was in a fight isn't sufficient evidence for reasonable doubt under the circumstances.

          •  I wanted to put myself (0+ / 0-)

            in a juror's shoes to better understand the process. I watched the Casey Anthony trial after the fact. My knowledge of that case was about at the level of the knowledge the jurors in this case had. I thought she would be found guilty, based on what I had heard in the media, especially her odd behaviour after Caylee disappeared. I had noticed that many of the people who are supportive of Trayvon, were outraged about the jury's decision, and I was curious if I would feel the same way after watching the trial .

            The prosecutor lost me during the opening statement. The prosecutor spend most of the opening statement with an endless list of what normal people would call, odd behavior by Casey Anthony. My opinion going into this trial that Casey's abnormal behavior was an indication of her guilt, was changed because the prosecutor convinced me that Casey's behavior was consistent with how she behaved in other circumstances.
            At the end of the trial, my mind was vacillating between guilty or not guilty. I don't necessarily believe that what Baez claimed was the truth, but I could think of other scenarios that would fit Casey's profile better than the one the prosecution had presented. I would've voted with that jury.

            A couple of months ago I watched the Jodi Arias trial. I didn't know anything about that case. At the end of that trial I had no doubts about her guilt. I tried scenarios in my mind to see if there could be any other reasonable explanations, but they all fell short to change the certainty I had about her guilt.

            Not to long ago, I heard a judge read the jury instructions as to what constitutes reasonable doubt. I think you posted those instructions too. They sounded absolutely clear to me, and if I really had been a juror on either one of those cases, it would've helped me enormously.

            What I am trying to say in this lengthy post is that reasonable doubt is a subjective matter, but I think it is a fair measurement as long as the process has been guarded to function as it should.

            •  I think people, including juries, can (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              amsterdam

              confuse doubt with reasonable doubt

              Although the term is vague, I think reasonable doubt at least makes it clear that a mere doubt is not enough. One has to work through the evidence to see what consistently is the case

              In zimmerman's case when you work through the evidence i don't see how its so easy as others claim to find reasonable doubts because the improbabilities quickly begin to build on each other

              A man who was clearly in pursuit of someone he thought was getting away as a criminal in his neighborhood suddenly isn't and on that of that is ambushed in bush's that are not there altho ugh people here an argument and on an on including th ephysical evidence that he didn't sustain life threatening injuries and the victim didn't show any evidence of the claims either

              To believe his story is to beleive improabilities on top o improbabilities with some of varying degrees of improbability but overall not favorable

              This is why I ignore the media on this. they are trying to sale ads and sennsationalism and they focuso n the emotional

              And that may be right because the jury may be doing the same, but from a reasonable doubt stand point its not a valid approach

        •  Is there direct evidence that Trayvon Martin (8+ / 0-)

          threw the first punch, either?  Seems to me if you are walking along, talking on the phone, holding a can of iced tea and a pack of candy in your hands, it might be pretty tough to throw a punch.  Now, if both hands were free, like Zimmerman claims his hands were, that probably would make a sucker punch to the other guy a whole lot easier and more likely.

      •  You lost me at "Zimmerman threw the first punch." (7+ / 0-)

        There is no evidence to support that conclusion. Zero. Zilch. Nada. In fact, even if you believe every bit of what Rachael says, you still cannot prove it. Even if you believe that she can hear the sound of grass through a cellular phone. She didn't SEE anything.

        And where are the injuries from that first punch you believe Zimmerman threw? Did he punch Trayvon in the knuckles with his nose?

        If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

        by HairyTrueMan on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 10:12:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Why Did Martin Scream for 40 Seconds? (5+ / 0-)

        Something made Martin terrified for his life. I'm guessing that the Prosecution will argue that during that point in time Zimmerman was in control of the situation and made the decision to shoot Martin, rather then being forced to do so in self-defense. Recall one witness testified that after the shot, the man on top stood up and the other man never moved again. If Zimmerman was straddling Martin when he shot him then that is further evidence it was a choice which means Second Degree Murder.

        I have no doubt that Martin is the person screaming. That is the kind of scream that tears your throat out. If Zimmerman had screamed like that he would have been horse and his throat would have been sore. I've screamed like that briefly for a couple of seconds and had trouble talking for hours afterwards. I can just imagine what happen after screaming like that 40 seconds straight. Also those kind of screams put you in an altered state where everything tunnels towards one specific threat. If Zimmerman was screaming like that he would likely have had little to no recollection of what happened, up to and including pulling the trigger. He would not be able to just calmly and clearly talk about it. There is no way he would have be able to hear what Martin was saying while he was busy screaming his lungs out, which his why his claims that he heard Martin saying specific things while maintaining he was the one screaming is utter non-sense.

        •  Screaming (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dfe

          and making a plan and executing that plan, in this case getting his gun and shooting Trayvon, are contradictory  actions. The brain doesn't work that way. The instincts tell us to either fight or flee. Screaming is what you do, when you are cut of from either one of those options.

    •  Your argument makes no sense (10+ / 0-)

      The entire case for Zimmerman comes down to believing his version of what happened that night. We don't have any other way to determine the entire narrative for his side beyond his statements.

      think about the witnesses thus far. They either heard an argument (which rebuts zimmerman's claim of bei ng jumped), confirm that he was following TM (which rebutt his statement) or say there was a fight but not slamming of his head against the payment (which rebutts that major part of his claims).

      I have no idea who will win this case but the idea that he can win reasonable doubt withithout people believing him is magical thinking as far as the case is concerned.

      •  Serino and the phony video of the incident. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Conceptual Guerilla, Victor Ward

        The jury heard what George said in the challenge interview. They also heard what Serino said about inconsistent statements. Expect MOM to highlight both in closing arguments.

        And don't forget that the bloody photos of Zimmerman's head has been shown to the jury over and over and over again.

        And the defense hasn't even started to present their case yet.

        If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

        by HairyTrueMan on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 10:22:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  they heard what he said in the (9+ / 0-)

          interviews, in the statements of his friends on the subject, in his  TV interview, etc. None of which matches up.

          They saw photos that were said to be grave by the defense that have had one witness state he didn't see his head being hit, another say he refused treatment and she didn't really know if it was that serious, and an expert say that the wounds were not serious.

          We have also heard testimony say that they heard arguments between the defendant and the victim despite the claim of the defendant in the statements, that he was pursuing the victim despite the claims of the defendant in the statements
          etc

          How else were they going to address the defendant's case other than demonstrate him to be a liar? Again, how else does the defense win if the jury doesnt believe the defendant? I don't get these arguments. I keep asking- give me something that suggests they can find not guilty and believe the defendant based on the evidence given was lying

          What new things do you think the defense can do in the case?

          •  The jury can choose not to believe Zimmerman... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            johnny wurster, Victor Ward

            based on his inconsistent statements. Albeit, Serino says there were no major differences. But okay... I won't argue the point further. It's possible that the jury could convict.

            What new things do you think the defense can do in the case?
            They are probably going to call an expert to testify about the ramifications of head injuries. And they are going to call back Rachael to answer more questions about the Crump interview. No need to call Zimmerman to testify since the prosecution keeps playing tapes of his testimony.

            I don't know... We'll have to wait and see.n

            If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

            by HairyTrueMan on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 10:41:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Serino gave opinion evidence (7+ / 0-)

              which isn't his job as far as the case. I find it interesting that people are citing what is striken, for a good reason, questions to argue their point.

              I know some people believe zimmerman, we know the police early on investigated like the victim was the criminal, so none of that really goes to the facts that a jury is supposed to use to decide the case.

              With those facts, these aren't just some inconsistencies, they go to major elements of the defendant's case

              he claims for example he was ambushed. That's a huge statement to make. Yet, witnesses say differently. As the diary states, the other problem is the time of the phone call doesn't fit with the ambush claim. A huge hole in the story Zimmerman is telling. Its like the scream story. He calims that he both was being smothered by the victim and screaming continously for help.

              if the jury chooses not to believe zimmerman, you think expert testimony claiming that its possible  that there may have been sound blows that inflicted no obvious wounds is going to change their mind?

              The prosecution keeps pointing out the lies through the tapes

              Its true the defense may not call zimmerman, but that's because he would be impeached. However, I think he has to rehabilitate himself and I am not clear he can do that as far as telling the truth without getting on the stand.

              look, the jury is likely seeing like you because I tend to focus on what the facts say. not many people do. They follow believes. but on the facts, his story isn't credible. frankly, as i have said, if he had kept his mouth shut, he would have a stronger case.

            •  you sound like you're a supporter of the killer (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Tonedevil
              •  Not me - I am just trying to follow the trial (7+ / 0-)

                and the evidence. I have been able to record and watch some of it along with listening to some of the talking heads on the cable shows. Who could possibly "support" Zimmerman, he killed an unarmed teenager. However, can the state prove Murder 2? I don't know. That will be up to the jury to decide, and given that they will hear all the evidence and the jury instructions from the judge, I will accept their verdict.  

                "let's talk about that"

                by VClib on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 11:52:51 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  If the jury doesn't believe him, (4+ / 0-)

            they could still conclude that just because someone's a liar doesn't mean they weren't in danger. Or the jury could pick one of GZ's stories and decide that it's true even though the others aren't.

            I would not find that just, but it addresses your question.

            Freedom isn't free. Patriots pay taxes.

            by Dogs are fuzzy on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 12:48:00 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  the basis of believing he was in danger (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              amsterdam

              is his account o what happened during the fight

              They wouldn't haven anything beyond what seems to be manner injuries to make a conclusion

              Again- how do you know he was "in serious threat of bodily harm or death" but for whaat the defendant tells you

              His injuries doesnt show it. and the one witnesses that saw it gives conflicting testimony about who was on top because he mentioned MMA style fighting that only the defendant knew, and only saw the fight for seconds. He also gives a statement that brings into question one of the central dangers- concrete head pounding.

              What's left other than a fight? Fights are not per se fear for life under a provocation situation. You need to show escalation IMO to demontrate that the victim was not just defending himself

              It doesn't matter that they fought under the law. So the jury could  not draw the conclusion of esclation on that mere fact. they need to believe the defendant to reach escalation

        •  Those injuries have been described several times (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          emsprater

          by state's witnesses as "minor" and "not life threatening."

          If I had one wish, Republican men would have uteruses.

          by Desert Rose on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 04:58:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Exactly...the jury must find him guilty beyond... (4+ / 0-)

      ...a reasonable doubt..something that I do not believe is possible at this point unless something catastrophic happens on the defense side...like they actually have him testify (won't happen).

      I'm afraid that the "Liar, liar, pants on fire" sentiments expressed in this diary do little more than preach to the choir that had already convicted Zimmerman before the trial even began.

      But a court of law isn't about sentiment...it's, again, about proving someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That we do not like the likely outcome doesn't change that inconvenient fact.

      Adequate health care should be a LEGAL RIGHT in the U.S without begging or bankruptcy. Until it is, we should not dare call our society civilized.

      by Love Me Slender on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 06:46:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  again what is the basis of your belief (0+ / 0-)

        these staqtements where everyone is just giving assertion on your side in response to specific false statements by the defendant about wht happened that night are not an argument for why you are right

        The only person I think to hae given a valid argument is Meteor blade thus far on that front. That the jury won't connect the dots. But I haven't seen any of the other arguments for reasonable doubt making sense

        •  ...again, this isn't about what you or I "believe" (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Victor Ward

          The just has to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was not acting in self defense when he shot Martin. The man had signs of being in a scrap...and if he believed his life was in danger, the law in FL permitted him to use deadly force.

          I understand that you don't like it, but we don't get to change or disregard laws in the middle of a murder case just because we don't like them.

          Adequate health care should be a LEGAL RIGHT in the U.S without begging or bankruptcy. Until it is, we should not dare call our society civilized.

          by Love Me Slender on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 08:39:00 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  read my comments along this thread (0+ / 0-)

            I lay out specific statements of reason

            What you and others tend to do is lay out abstract terms without doing any analysis and conclusions

            I believe its reasonable doubt isn't analysis

            His signs of being in a fight isn't sufficent LEGALLY because apparently i have cap things to get some of you to get of your high horse and read

            I have demonstrated why that's the case

            You are the one who keeps merely stating ignorantly that a fight is enough

            No, its only enough depending on what you believe as far as what the defendant says about it

            Context here matters.

            You aren't providing it. You are ignorantly saying it was a gith, case over.

            That's not how the law of self defense works.

            •  Temper temper, bruh1... (0+ / 0-)

              I have made my analysis, you have made yours. Time will tell who is correct on this one, but there is no need to insult just because someone dares to have different analyses than you do.

              Adequate health care should be a LEGAL RIGHT in the U.S without begging or bankruptcy. Until it is, we should not dare call our society civilized.

              by Love Me Slender on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 11:12:52 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  you clearly have no defense for what you are sayin (0+ / 0-)

                so you keep trying to make this about my beliefs and emotions rather than the substance

                •  Seriously...stop...you are taking this personally (0+ / 0-)

                  I see the facts of the case completely contrary to your interpretation. Time will tell who is proven correct, but your assessment is not "right" just because you believe it.

                  Adequate health care should be a LEGAL RIGHT in the U.S without begging or bankruptcy. Until it is, we should not dare call our society civilized.

                  by Love Me Slender on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 01:01:31 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

  •  Not sure about that. (8+ / 0-)

    Not sure it really matters to the final outcome if Zimmerman exaggerated or even manufactured the threat he felt or not. The fact is that GZ did sustain bloody injuries to the face and back of the head consistent with his claim of having his head impacted by a cement sidewalk.  That's going to make it difficult for the prosecution to prove that he is guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.  

  •  The prosecution (8+ / 0-)

    Has not yet and will not, IMO, present their case beyond reasonable doubt.  The incompetence litigating this case is astounding.  Pre trial, I was one of the few here that said they had an uphill climb.  Now, they'll have to summit Mt Everest.  John Good's testimony, in and of itself, will be enough for this all white and 1 Hispanic to aquit.

    •  I'm curious about Good's testimony (9+ / 0-)

      Zimmerman didn't know Good placed Trayvon on top in Good's witness statement when Zimmerman was giving his statements. In his recreation video, when he mentions the person coming out that said they were going to call the police, he places himself on top of Trayvon. Of course he claims the person didn't come out till after the shooting and he was trying to hold Trayvons hands down thinking he was still alive but we know that never happened because Trayvons hands were under his body. Good may not be lying but he may just be mistaken. Zimmerman himself says he was on top when the 1st guy came out. he also said he was still saying help help. we know the shouts for help ended with the gunshot. I think Zimmerman was lying about the guy coming out after he shot Trayvon because he was making an excuse for being on top of Trayvon. Good came out before the shot was fired. He had no idea Good would say Trayvon was on top.

      The other man that came out, the one that called his wife didn't see him till he was up & walking toward him saying the police had already been called. That's when the police came.

      The witness a few doors down that ran out to look after she heard the shot said he was on top then got up and started pacing. That was within seconds. It would have taken the guy with the flashlight that called his wife a few more seconds because he stopped for the flashlight and went around the front of his house then back to the T.

      "Compassion is the radicalism of our time." ~ Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama -7.88, -6.21

      by Siri on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 10:52:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Eye witness testimony can be the (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kyril, worldlotus, Dogs are fuzzy, Siri

        least reliable form of evidence

        So, the best I think we can expect is which side does a witness corraborates

        Since Good didn't see how the fight started, to me his real value is telling us where the fight was

        I believe he only saw them for a few seconds anyway

      •  If you watch my video below, it shows a slide (4+ / 0-)

        tackle.

        In a slide tackle the victim lands on top.

        And if you go to about the middle you will be startled to see the face of a soccer player titled 'slide tackle gone bad'. Looks just like Zimmerman's bleeding face.

        give the NRA the Royal Flush join Stop The NRA

        by 88kathy on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 11:49:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  this is exactly why the defense lawyer keeps (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tobendaro, Siri

        back-tracking and making the witnesses skip back to a different few seconds. A thorough attempt to muddle up the time line.

        In his recreation video, when he mentions the person coming out that said they were going to call the police, he places himself on top of Trayvon. Of course he claims the person didn't come out till after the shooting and he was trying to hold Trayvons hands down thinking he was still alive but we know that never happened because Trayvons hands were under his body.
        If the jury works really hard at it, they can untangle what happened when.
            Imho Zimmerman seems unsure in the walk through when describing where he thinks they were when Martin started banging his head.

        We are all pupils in the eyes of God.

        by nuclear winter solstice on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 04:29:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Selma was outside in seconds (0+ / 0-)

        We know exactly when Jon Manola arrived at the T, because 4 witnesses tell the 911 dispatcher that someone with a flashlight just arrived. Jane Surdyka saw him first, because her window had a view of RVC. The other 3 place Jon at the T between 7:18:16 and 7:18:19. Jane Surdyka tells the dispatcher when she sees GZ getting up. That was at 7:17:42, the exact same time w3, who had moved to the front of her house overlooking TTL, tells the dispatcher she can see a police officer arriving.
        The shot was fired at 7:16:56.

    •  their case was terrible. (5+ / 0-)

      they could've done a masterful job and there would still be reasonable doubt.

      •  Yep...exactly right. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Victor Ward

        Adequate health care should be a LEGAL RIGHT in the U.S without begging or bankruptcy. Until it is, we should not dare call our society civilized.

        by Love Me Slender on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 06:48:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Reasonable doubt only for... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        amsterdam

        Those who cannot sustain independent thought or perform a critical analysis of the evidence. Any reasonable person can see what happened was clearly Murder 2. The question is: will the White jurors accord equal protection under the law to Trayvon's right to self-defense, as well as life and liberty? Or will they accord greater weight to Zimmerman's apparent right to kill unarmed Black male teenagers when he confronts them after racial profiling.

        We'll see...

        "When facts are reported, they deny the value of evidence; when the evidence is produced, they declare it inconclusive." -- Augustine, in The City of God.

        by Zek J Evets on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 01:15:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  yes he is (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Conceptual Guerilla, Siri

    The coward Zimmerman killed a innocent kid.

    Juror B-51 will let let him go, I hope I'm wrong. It's Sanford,FL.

  •  The state didn't want to do anything (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite
  •  I commented in another diary (6+ / 0-)

    I looked up Muhammad Ali's punching speed.

    I've heard he could throw something like 33-35 punches in 11 seconds
    I think they are saying Trayvon Martin threw that many.

    Also an interesting video on the slide tackle. About half-way in is a picture of a man called 'slide tackle gone bad' -- It looks exactly like Zimmerman's injury.

    Furthermore, with a slide tackle the victim ends up on top.

    •  interesting perspective. (3+ / 0-)

      © grover


      So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

      by grover on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 11:48:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  My grandson ended up in the hospital with a (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        libnewsie, a2nite, LilithGardener

        shattered kidney from a slide tackle. I just got curious and looked it up. Wow. I just about fell off my chair when I saw that soccer player with the bleeding face.

        give the NRA the Royal Flush join Stop The NRA

        by 88kathy on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 11:51:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I know nothing about soccer. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          libnewsie, Dancing Frog

          I've never even heard the term "slide tackle" before tonight.  

          I'm a hockey fan. Ask me about injures resulting from "high sticking" and I can tell you all about them.  :)

          I guess the question is, does Zimmerman play soccer? I'm poked around a bit on the internet and can't seem to find any info on that either way.

          The only soccer link I could find was a soccer forum where they were just generally discussing the case. And frankly, for all those who disparage "average Americans" all the time, that forum (which I presume has a cross-section of citizens) sounds pretty much like we do. Concerned, angry, outraged and dissecting the heck out of the case.

          I haven't read all 120 pages. They may very likely discuss your slide tackle theory in there somewhere. They have diagrams, maps, etc. These folks are quite thorough...

          http://www.bigsoccer.com/...

          © grover


          So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

          by grover on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 12:43:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I never heard it before my grandson got slide (0+ / 0-)

            tackled. It was by a 6th grade boy.

            The only way this could help is if the coroners report showed injuries consistent with a slide tackle.

            give the NRA the Royal Flush join Stop The NRA

            by 88kathy on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 07:51:32 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  MMA uses sacrifice throws from judo (0+ / 0-)

            GZ wanted Law Enforcement training. He would've been interested in techniques to get people on the ground.
            Sacrifice throws require a lot of skill. What seems easy on the grappling mat is a lot more difficult in a real life scenario.
            It was always funny to see a novice using the technique without the proper follow through. They would end up on their backs with their opponents on top of him.

  •  all the testimony of others that were not (8+ / 0-)

    there are recounting what zimmerman has told them. was zimmerman lying to them? did his law enforcement friends and his ex-judge daddy have a hand in helping him craft how it went down?

    but the one witness who heard the whole thing as it was happening,  rachel jeantel, has testified to what she heard.  her testimony should be given much more credibility than any of these other people who were not there listening in on the phone call... they are only retelling what zimmerman has told them.

    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 Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 01:31:54 AM PDT

  •  when i see reference to zimmerman's (4+ / 0-)

    testimony i go ballistic. he has not testified to anything. there is videotape of him next day at the crime scene. that to me is not testimony, he has not been called as a witness.

    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 Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 01:43:55 AM PDT

  •  We have a cop wannabe in our neighborhood, (10+ / 0-)

    extremely dangerous powder keg waiting to explode.

    •  Yup.... (5+ / 0-)
      We have a cop wannabe in our neighborhood extremely dangerous powder keg waiting to explode.
      A cop wannabe who could have prevented this tragedy any number of times.
      - report to the police and wait for them
      - stay in the car as he was told
      - do not follow
      - do not interact
      - do NOT carry a loaded gun
      Since all of the above was not done....at the very least....
      - announce yourself as a member of the neighborhood watch (in an unthreatening manner) to the person you're following.  Diffuse the situation.
      But no, diffusing the situation wasn't in the plan.
      There is so much wrong with this case.  
      Something stinks about Zimmerman's story.
      And a young man is dead.

      I think, therefore I am........................... Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose....AKA Engine Nighthawk - don't even ask!

      by Lilyvt on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 06:25:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  asdf (9+ / 0-)

    yes...it seems doubtful he'd be hiding in bushes with RJ on the phone and it is proven at that time he was on the phone with her.

    Then he jumps out and says "why are you following me?" and punches him?

    See, Zimmerman also recounts that TM DID ask him that. So it is undisputed he asked him that.

    Asking him that is discordant with jumping out of bushes and attacking.

    Good points all. And I do hope the prosecution thinks of this because we cannot be sure the jury will be that rigorous.

    If they aren't too racist they will believe RJ. She had an unusual affect and presentation but the core was that she was truthful even to the extent she told things that made her and TM not look good.

  •  I think they are spending too much time on this (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Calamity Jean

    Fight which is upsetting me the most. Clearly there was a fight, that part is indisputable but the problem is how many criminals you know that only have a bottle of ice tea and skittles? Why on earth would this person want to random attack someone when it was made clear that he was watching a basketball game that night and only left the house to get his step brother some candy and a drink?

    Zimmerman was the one with the loaded gun an he would not have stepped out he vehicle without knowing he had it and I he really feared for his life he would have stayed in the car. In his mind trayvon was already a criminal for simply walking and I don't are what anyone says that is definitely racial. It's only 7pm in the evening it's not like he was walking in the middle of night. So in Zimmermans mind he wasn't going to let another punk get away.

    So tell me why Zimmerman gets to act like he was the only one in fear? He doesn't in my opinion but the prosecution is not doing a good job and explaining the inconsistencies so I think he will get off.

    "I'm not mad at them (tea party) for being loud, I'm mad at us for being silent for the last two years. Where have we been"? "it was never yes HE can, it was Yes WE can". - Van Jones

    by sillycilla on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 04:57:15 AM PDT

  •  Who quierries you, and THEN jumps from bushes? (5+ / 0-)

    That is all you need to know. It kills the element of surprise. Now if he just said he was jumped sans the cheesy cop drama dialogue, his story would be more credible, but it defies credulity to believe that someone would hide in wait in the bushes, announce themselves and start asking questions of the guy they were trying to avoid.

  •  All Zimmerman had to do was (8+ / 0-)

    1) stay in the truck.

    Failing that,
    2) Comply with police instructions not to pursue the 17 yr old.

    Failing that,
    3) Comply with police instructions to wait by his mailbox.

    What a travesty of justice.

    Reaganomics noun pl: belief that government is bad, that it can increase revenue by decreasing revenue, and unregulated capitalism can provide unlimited goods for unlimited people on a planet with finite resources.

    by FrY10cK on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 05:18:00 AM PDT

  •  In the Hannity video, Zimmerman states (6+ / 0-)

    that "they" (he and his wife?) go food shopping on Sunday nights and then cook for the week. I've got to call BS on that. George (they?) is headed for the supermarket after 7PM, and they start cooking for the week when he returns at about 8:30 at night? I doubt it.

    Bushes. In order to be behind bushes, Trayvon would have to be practically on someone's patio.

    No house numbers. Liar. Done well by the prosecution yesterday.

    To me George Zimmerman is the perfect reason why gun laws need to be strengthened. This cop wannabe was hoping to shoot someone, IMO. He has shown absolutely no remorse or sadness in any of the interviews, just brazen righteousness. My heart aches for his parents.

    If I had one wish, Republican men would have uteruses.

    by Desert Rose on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 05:21:36 AM PDT

    •  and if Martin "jumped out of the bushes" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Calamity Jean

      what did he do with the skittles & iced tea?

    •  I don't think he was hoping to shoot someone (3+ / 0-)

      I think he was hoping to dominate someone.  People who fantasize about becoming police officers and go on ad hoc neighborhood patrols enjoy feeling important and being in charge.  Maybe someone like that struggles with deep seated feelings of inferiority.  I think that, in Zimmerman's mind, he was going to engage in a citizen's arrest.  He would detain the kid (possibly using the authority that carrying a gun creates) and hand him over to the police. He would be the shining neighborhood hero, admired by the neighbors and the cops.

       The situation got completely out of his control so he panicked and shot Martin.  Or maybe he became enraged and shot Martin.  Fear? Anger? Both?  I imagine some mixture of both prompted Zimmerman to pull that trigger.  Hell, maybe he was feeling genuinely fearful for his life.  However, the situation was not life threatening and neither were his injuries.  Further, if it can be established that he either grabbed or attempted to grab Martin at the beginning of that struggle, it's over for Zimmerman.  That scenario has Zimmerman as making the first move in a physical altercation.

      "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -Gandhi

      by Triscula on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 07:06:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  in the video that zimmerman made there are no (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dancing Frog

    bushes...

    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 Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 05:24:59 AM PDT

  •  Uh .. all-white jury for white murder trial in FL? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    emsprater

    For murder of a BLACK man? Holy hell, there's no doubt  how this case will turn out. About the only suspense is will  the Sanford  police hire Zimmerman right away afterward, or wait a month for the media frenzy to die? Great Florida cop material, that guy!!!

    Ash-sha'b yurid isqat an-nizzam!

    by fourthcornerman on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 05:52:47 AM PDT

    •  But remember, they are all women (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Calamity Jean

      I think there are very few women who will be able to identify with Zimmerman's behavior.  Who actually follows someone they believe is dangerous?  It makes no sense generally, but it makes even less sense to a woman specifically.  In order for the jury to believe Zimmerman they need to be able to identify with his behavior.  They need to be able to say to themselves, "yeah, I can see how that might happen." or "Yeah, I understand why he did that."  I think that's a difficult hurdle for Zimmerman and his kooky story with an all female jury.

      "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -Gandhi

      by Triscula on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 07:09:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  thank goodness the media isn't deciding this trial (0+ / 0-)

    Let's just hope the jury is on their toes.

    At this point (and mark my words) I think we're looking at a hung jury.  I think it will divide mostly along racial lines.


    I'm not an athiest. How can you not believe in something that doesn't exist? That's way too convoluted for me. - A. Whitney Brown

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 06:13:31 AM PDT

  •  It's really this simple. Martin was one big boy. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mrblifil, Victor Ward, protectspice

    Zimmerman claimed he punched him in the face about 20 times while he was lying on the ground with a sidewalk behind his head.  If some young strong guy like Martin punches you in the face 20 times in a position like that, you would likely be in a coma with a feed tube up your nose and a fractured skull.

    Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!

    by bigtimecynic on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 06:28:27 AM PDT

    •  ...assuming he connected each time he punched... (3+ / 0-)

      George Foreman punched Muhammad Ali about 500 times...and Ali was barely scathed because he had his hands up nearly the entire time.

      It really is THIS simple:

      1. Zimmerman claims it was self-defense.

      2. Zimmerman displayed physical evidence of being in a scrap.

      3. Martin was on top of him.

      4. Zimmerman shot him dead.

      In nearly every court in America, that equals acquittal on the basis of self-defense. This was an unwinnable case from the start..regardless of Zimmerman's motives or behavior up to that point. People here can wish on a star to their little hearts' content, but you can't get around the evidence...which is insurmountable for the prosecution unless the defense team does something stupid.

      Adequate health care should be a LEGAL RIGHT in the U.S without begging or bankruptcy. Until it is, we should not dare call our society civilized.

      by Love Me Slender on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 06:53:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not so sure... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Calamity Jean

        Do you agree that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation? If so, it doesn’t seem to me that one should be able to start a fight and, as you find yourself on the losing side of it, escalate to deadly force and then claim you were just defending yourself.

        If that is in fact a legitimate legal defense it seems like a perfect way to stage an excuse to shoot someone: Pick a fight, take a couple of lumps to establish you were being ‘attacked’ and then draw your gun and shoot.  Then again, maybe the idiocy of Florida law makes that a legal scenario.

        Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. - Groucho Marx

        by Joe Bob on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 08:15:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's my point...doesn't matter what I "agree"... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Victor Ward, johnny wurster

          ...with....it only matters what the LAW allows for - and if Zimmerman was getting pounded, regardless of who started it, he has legal justification per FL law to shoot Martin dead.

          We here at DK are far too consumed by foibles in a case that enrages us personally and socially. The law in this case is very, very clear...in fact, I am surprised they even brought it to trial.

          I would be shocked if Zimmerman is convicted of anything when the dust settles.

          Adequate health care should be a LEGAL RIGHT in the U.S without begging or bankruptcy. Until it is, we should not dare call our society civilized.

          by Love Me Slender on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 08:19:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Then I Guess (At Least In Florida) Everyone Should (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Calamity Jean, IreGyre, Joe Bob

            just go out and pick a fight with people they don't like, claim to be getting "pummeled", pull a weapon, kill the person, and claim "self defense" under the "stand your ground" law. What a handy, dandy way to get rid of all those pesky neighbors, that irritating boss, and all the other people you don't like!!

            •  Then lobby to change the law...but what we don't.. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Victor Ward, johnny wurster

              ..get to do is say "To hell with the law" in the middle of a murder case just because we didn't like the outcome of the event. The law will allow Zimmerman to be acquitted in this case, because the law permitted his actions to be judged as legal.

              It's not "handy, dandy" as you put it...just FL law at the present time. Again, lobby to change it if you don't like it, but don't pretend than you can disregard it at will because it tragically took the life of a young man.

              Adequate health care should be a LEGAL RIGHT in the U.S without begging or bankruptcy. Until it is, we should not dare call our society civilized.

              by Love Me Slender on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 08:42:37 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  We don't get to ignore the law. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                sukeyna, a2nite, amsterdam

                You are absolutely right sir.

                Which is why when an unarmed teenager is found dead with his killer and the gun used still at the scene of the crime... people are gonna want to see the wheels of justice turn a little bit.

                But the problems with the law are one issue. Regardless of those problems, Zimmerman killed Martin. The evidence shows it was clearly not self-defense. The evidence further shows it was likely driven by racial animus. So, call the millions of people looking at this case crazy, but I think the fact that it may not have even gone to trial to be one of the worst parts of this injustice, aside from the actual murder of Trayvon Martin.

                But hey... you've only spent all of your comments here defending Zimmerman, so you're totally more objective about this. Clearly.

                "When facts are reported, they deny the value of evidence; when the evidence is produced, they declare it inconclusive." -- Augustine, in The City of God.

                by Zek J Evets on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 01:22:18 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  I do say to hell with the law; what did the law (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                amsterdam

                Do for me & mine.....slavery, Jim Crow & the war in us as the war on drugs.

                FUCk the law & the racist police.

                Not going to FL it's too dangerous.

                nosotros no somos estúpidos

                by a2nite on Thu Jul 04, 2013 at 10:20:18 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  Just wrong (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        howarddream, artmartin

        You can't approach someone and shove them around and then argue self-defense after you shoot them dead. Florida law prohibits doing so. Look it up. Someone arguing self-defense has to have standing to do so, and if a person starts a fight or attempts felonious assault they lose their get-out-of-jail-free card according to FL law.

        •  "Wrong" v. The law...the law wins...every time... (0+ / 0-)

          I don't remember seeing anywhere in the court transcript or other viable evidence that Zimmerman just approached Martin and shoved him, but feel free to "believe" whatever your value system dictates.

          FYI...if your version of the events of that night was the more viable, Zimmerman wouldn't be running away with this case. The case sucks...and Zimmerman has the law on his side...those are FACTS.

          Adequate health care should be a LEGAL RIGHT in the U.S without begging or bankruptcy. Until it is, we should not dare call our society civilized.

          by Love Me Slender on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 11:15:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  a person that "initially provokes" (0+ / 0-)

          force - eg, starts a fight - can still claim self-defense under FL law.  its the black letter of the statute.

  •  Can't watch the trial (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Triscula, Brooke In Seattle, a2nite

    Just can't stand to look at Zimmerman's face on TV and hear all those lies about Martin not to mention the endless coverage. Gives me a sick feeling in my stomach.

  •  This is just not true. (4+ / 0-)
    Do not underestimate the value of proving that George Zimmerman is a liar.  In order to acquit him, the jury must first believe him.  
    The jury can acquit even if they have reasonable doubt about Zimmerman's story.  The defense does not have to prove Zimmerman's story is true.  The prosecution has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman did not reasonably believe he had to shoot to prevent death or great bodily harm.

    As for Rachel Jeantel, while she may well be telling the truth, it will be difficult to argue that the jury should take everything she said as accurate beyond a reasonable doubt.  She admitted that, on April 2, 2012, she was placed under oath by law enforcement and in that interview, under oath, she lied because Martin's mother was sitting there.  That is the interview where, for the first time, she mentioned some of the more damaging details.   When a witness has a recent history of demonstrating a willingness to lie under oath, that almost certainly at least raises a question about whether the jury can believe that witness beyond a reasonable doubt if that witness' testimony is not corroborated by independent witnesses of facts.  Certainly the phone records demonstrate the times she was on the phone. But given her willingness to lie under oath because of her concerns about the victim's mother, there may be a question about whether the jury can believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they can believe her description of the content of the conversation.  Lying under oath almost always constitutes a "reasonable doubt" about a witness' veracity, unless the other evidence pretty clearly corroborates it.

    •  Your comments are increasingly absurd (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mrblifil, pat bunny, a2nite

      I am really not going to go backa nd for with you because they are long and essentially say nothing

      what would be the basis of reasonable doubt if they don't believe zimmerman

      And please don't say the injuries the context of those injuries matter, and pretending they don't doesn't make me think you know wha tyou are talking about

      Every time we talk, you try to disentangle the conversation from context and say 'reasonable doubt"

      your doubts don't seem to grow out of reasonableness

      Finally you are digging into the content of what she said

      the diary is about the physical evidence. when the phone call occurred, what that means the defendant was doing etc

      Instead of responding to that, you changed the subject

      that's called obfuscation

  •  Zimmerman Was Stalking Martin - He Was Definitely (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mrblifil, Little Lulu, IreGyre

    the aggressor. Martin is dead because he confronted Zimmerman for stalking him and fought back, not because Zimmerman was acting in "self defense." What a bunch a bullshit!! This is a good reason why "stand your ground" laws should be thrown out, and "neighborhood watch patrols" (aka vigilante groups) should be outlawed. If someone sees an individual they believe to be suspicious, they should have to call the police and let them handle it.

  •  I was a juror on a murder trial in Philly (5+ / 0-)

    This was last summer.

    Credibility of the defendant and witnesses indeed was a significant factor in the case.  It wasn't the only thing we considered - obviously we considered all the evidence as a whole.  But it did factor in.

    "Give me a lever long enough... and I shall move the world." - Archimedes

    by mconvente on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 08:39:12 AM PDT

  •  Could Martin Have Used Stand Your Ground? (4+ / 0-)

    Let's say he had a gun and killed Zimmerman because he felt his life was in danger. You would have the audio from Zimmerman's call to the police showing that he was following and pursuing Martin. Think Martin would have as good a stand your ground defense as Zimmerman.

  •  The large number of punches and pounding (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mikejay611, bruh1, Calamity Jean, IreGyre

    of his head on concrete in clearly a lie with the lack of blood and the minor nature of his injuries as testified to by the medical examiner prove his story is tailored to his self defense claim and does not fit reality.

    The only reason the kid died is Zimmerman's poor judgement and this needs to be punished.

    Never promote men who seek after a state-established religion; it is spiritual tyranny--the worst of despotism. It is turnpiking the way to heaven by human law, in order to establish ministerial gates to collect toll. John Leland

    by J Edward on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 09:50:02 AM PDT

  •  Just hoping this all (0+ / 0-)

    turns out right. If the man is guilty (which I certainly believe he is) his ass should rot in a cell. I don't see how he could be found innocent. Not without a huge miscarriage of justice...

    No star is lost once we have seen, We always may be what we might have been. Adelaide Proctor -7.25/-5.64

    by mikejay611 on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 09:53:10 AM PDT

  •  I find the most upsetting thing to hear over and (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    protectspice, IreGyre

    over again is the defense attorney co-opting Trayvon's cries for help as Zimmerman's.  I can't imagine how that must feel as a parent sitting there in the courtroom.

    My heart goes out to them.

    If the plutocrats begin the program, we will end it. -- Eugene Debs.

    by livjack on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 10:10:46 AM PDT

    •  Why do you say that? (0+ / 0-)

      It was Zimmerman that was yelling for help.  John Good backed that up in this testimony and it may be self serving Zimmerman did tell police he was screaming for help when they arrived at the scene.

      To you, I'm an atheist. To God, I'm the loyal opposition.” ― Woody Allen

      by soros on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 05:01:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  are you kidding me? You crazy fool...listen to (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        a2nite

        the tape.  Zimmerman was not screaming.  Trayvon Martin was screaming for help.  Anyone with half a brain can tell that.

        If the plutocrats begin the program, we will end it. -- Eugene Debs.

        by livjack on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 07:05:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I pray for justice for Trayvon Martin (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite

    and hope the jury will hear the truth (and the lies) and do the right thing.

  •  I've known he was lying from the.. (0+ / 0-)

    beginning. Of course there should be due process and a fair trial, but it's crystal clear what happened and that Zimmerman is a liar.

    Nothing should shock me anymore, I read the news several times a day...but I will still be shocked/disgusted if he gets away with murder.

    To be blunt, if you do not suffer from seriously diminished mental capacity or the personality disorder that is right wing extremism and still vote Republican...I'd double check on the two previously mentioned conditions.

    by jellin76 on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 10:49:23 AM PDT

  •  If I'm slamming someone's head into the (0+ / 0-)

    concrete and punching their face repeatedly trying to kill them, you better believe that their skull is going to get cracked open like an egg. Not just a slightly broken nose and a couple lacerations.

  •  Zimmerman hasn't testified. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mother Shipper, soros

    Except through the Fox News video the prosecution foolishly let come in.

    If you hate government, don't run for office in that government.

    by Bensdad on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 11:58:45 AM PDT

    •  Zimmerman has been only too glad to (0+ / 0-)

      testify -  He talked to the lady officer, he talked to the lead detective, he gave a taped walkthrough, he talked to his best friend. Not to mention the non-911 call .

      I don't disagree that it is a mistake.  There are critical inconsistencies in all of his testimonies.  

      In order to clear it all up, he will need to take the stand.  Although I bet his defense will think that he does not have to, because he has won the case.

      And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. Matthew 10:28 KJV

      by looking and listening on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 01:28:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The other 3 or 4 videos of Zimmerman (0+ / 0-)

      introduced by the state can be considered de facto testimony by Zimmerman.  Either way, the jury has heard what he would say if he were to ever take the stand.  

      Of course he won't have to now .

      To you, I'm an atheist. To God, I'm the loyal opposition.” ― Woody Allen

      by soros on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 05:03:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You miss the point. (0+ / 0-)

        The idea of waiving the Fifth Amendment is you get to testify, yes, but you also can be CROSS-EXAMINED. By letitng the video in, the prosecution allowed him to testify without cross-examination.

        If you hate government, don't run for office in that government.

        by Bensdad on Thu Jul 04, 2013 at 01:16:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  that's why I said defacto testimony.. (0+ / 0-)

          whether or not he's crossed doesn't really matter at anymore.. the jury has heard him tell his side of the story.

          To you, I'm an atheist. To God, I'm the loyal opposition.” ― Woody Allen

          by soros on Thu Jul 04, 2013 at 01:22:25 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  God, expert testimony is boring (0+ / 0-)

    I'm sorry, I know it's important, but does everyone have to speak in a monotone?

  •  Hard to believe that so much time is being spent (0+ / 0-)

    on guessing what may have happened between the two, when the things that led up to it are very clear.

    1) accused is a wannabe cop who sits around by himself with a gun looking for "them"
    2) accused is a racist who refered to "coons" on his 911 call.
    3) accused shot and killed an unarmed boy.

    murder.

  •  Watching the video of his walking the crime scene (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite

    yesterday.... I didn't see any bushes within 25 feet of where he said he was when Trayvon jumped him. Just thin little trees  and to the sides people's porches. Now I suppose he could have hidden behind one of those walls and jumped out at him, but that's not Zimmerman's claim. So how did he leap out of the bushes if there were no bushes for him to be hiding in??

    "Madness! Total and complete madness! This never would've happened if the humans hadn't started fighting one another!" Londo Mollari

    by FloridaSNMOM on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 12:57:03 PM PDT

  •  Certainly he is a liar, and there were... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite

    no bushes to jump out of!!

    "Really nice, but also very serious about his job." Jackie Evancho on President Obama 6/7/12

    by BarackStarObama on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 01:37:30 PM PDT

  •  Zimmerman three groups of people (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    IreGyre, sukeyna, a2nite

    I have found in life to have an exceptionally high ahole quotient.

    1. People that want to be cops.

    2.People that want to be president of a condo or homeowners association; and

    3. People who want a concealed carry permit without requirement by profession.

    Sorry for those I offended, and yes there are stunning exceptions, but when you combine all three of them with relation to a man chasing a boy thoughout a housing community.....This guy is grade AAA ahole.

  •  Everyone in America (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    IreGyre, sukeyna

    knows in their heart Trayvon is dead because a crazy deluded cop wannabe KKK type murdered him. The question at hand is will he get away with it.

  •  Also (0+ / 0-)

    I fail to see how a jury of all white women can in any way be an impartial jury.

  •  I am wondering why no one on the Prosecution (0+ / 0-)

    has not made the case that Zimmerman said that after he shot Travon, He got on top of him and spread out his hands. Well, if that is the case why was there not DNA
    on his clothes? I want to know!

  •  Republished to 'Trial Watch' (0+ / 0-)

    nosotros no somos estúpidos

    by a2nite on Thu Jul 04, 2013 at 05:21:27 AM PDT

SME in Seattle, PLS, RF, PrahaPartizan, Powered Grace, Avila, Emerson, donna in evanston, kpardue, genethefiend, HootieMcBoob, Walt starr, expatjourno, hubcap, JLFinch, missLotus, 88kathy, amsterdam, whenwego, HippyWitch, mrblifil, roses, Himself, retLT, ornerydad, splashy, hopeful, Lilyvt, kharma, pat bunny, MA Liberal, Damnit Janet, Dave925, JayBat, zerelda, Josiah Bartlett, Sybil Liberty, davidkc, libnewsie, Desert Rose, Bluesee, marina, caul, LarisaW, one of 8, Brooke In Seattle, YucatanMan, eru, SaraBeth, Sun Tzu, Kayakbiker, Little Lulu, RichterScale, rb608, Tunk, Thaddaeus Toad, Rogneid, bookwoman, Box of Rain, bently, Philpm, MadGeorgiaDem, martini, third Party please, noblindeye, K S LaVida, cybersaur, Mr Bojangles, tobendaro, emeraldmaiden, profundo, rhetoricus, blueoasis, need pr, middleagedhousewife, Turbonerd, onionjim, CA Nana, blueoregon, Nulwee, timewarp, pfiore8, Loudoun County Dem, tgypsy, devis1, edsbrooklyn, Mary Mike, Matt Z, Jimdotz, second gen, Newzie, Bridge Master, OIL GUY, cececville, leonard145b, fallina7, Zacapoet, JDWolverton, thankgodforairamerica, mconvente, also mom of 5, HappyinNM, OleHippieChick, Involuntary Exile, NewDealer, ajr111240, jamess, Dancing Frog, Cassandra Waites, RandomNonviolence, hwmnbn, dewley notid, bakenjuddy, TexanJane, Keninoakland, JamieG from Md, GrannyOPhilly, JBL55, legendmn, ceebee7, mkor7, CamillesDad1, shalca, prgsvmama26, lastman, Denise Oliver Velez, kevinpdx, stevenwag, jan0080, collardgreens, tash123, TFinSF, NJpeach, catwho, Crabby Abbey, mookins, freeport beach PA, renzo capetti, JoanMar, pixxer, dlemex, DiegoUK, NYWheeler, Jaimas, DrTerwilliker, ericlewis0, Mac in Maine, Quantumlogic, indubitably, Jasel, Front Toward Enemy, Hill Jill, Dretutz, Lost Left Coaster, bgblcklab1, Jazzenterprises, bootsykronos, FarWestGirl, mikejay611, page394, Alice Olson, tbutt, marleycat, PorridgeGun, thomask, dle2GA, BarackStarObama, KVoimakas, IB JOHN, worldlotus, chira2, whaddaya, Imhotepsings, VTCC73, diffrntdrummr, stevie avebury, stlsophos, jham710, Mentatmark, Auriandra, No one gets out alive, Rejoinder, YaNevaNo, AnnetteK, livingthedream, joelgp, RhodaA, OldDragon, anodnhajo, Siri, IndieGuy, ahumbleopinion, tb92, tallahasseedem, orangecurtainlib, AnnieR, a2nite, rukidingme, FloridaSNMOM, Horace Boothroyd III, dog in va, MartyM, doroma, cassandracarolina, bluebarnstormer, Fabala77, Quasimodal, nuclear winter solstice, Lily O Lady, Chaddiwicker, Eric Twocents, vlyons, aresea, howabout, Icicle68, Smoh, ET3117, Dogs are fuzzy, rigcath, chicklet, WFBMM, Kombema, nancyjones, Dodgerdog1, eagleray

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site