<p>Is anyone aware whether the Florida penal code got amended or repealed on these issues? I read that there was a “movement,” a commission to study the issue, but did anything ever come of it?</p>
<p>zoosermom has hit the right point. This (positions on concealed carry, stand your ground, self defense) is a Florida matter whether we like it or approve of it or not. Just like Texas executing lots of people.</p>
<p>Based on the 911 call transcript and the walk-through, TM actions can be seen as consistent with being scared. He ran away from the car and then went into the alley behind the houses to get off the main road where the car was. But somehow, at some point later, he changed and not only ready to fight but decided that he was to kill whoever was following him.</p>
<p>PS: my remarks about the juries being like the Voice was just a bad joke, a coy statement that should not be taken seriously.</p>
<p>From “Zimmerman Case Update: Rachel Jeantel is Not on Trial”:</p>
<p>The courtroom’s white administrators keep making references to her black vernacular as she tries to explain one of the most tragic experiences in her life: the loss of Trayvon Martin, whom she first met while in second grade. Zimmerman defense attorney Don West has been especially, and perhaps unethically, harsh on Jeantel - repeatedly leaving the podium, approaching Jeantel, and berating her with scheduling and procedural questions that are legally outside of his purview. He’s been reprimanded on several occasions by the judge, often for incessantly asking the same question over and over again, despite Jeantel already providing a clear answer, and also for speaking over her."</p>
<p>I see Mr. West’s (older white male authority figure) treatment of a young, unpolished African American girl as a reflection of how Zimmerman viewed his own authority to follow and confront a young, black person walking through a neighborhood.</p>
<p>ttparent–I agree that the jurors may be able to reach that opinion, although the issue of self defense isn’t TM’s intent to kill but the reasonableness of GZ’s perception of the threat he posed. Closed head injuries. And if they believe TM went for the holstered gun, being shot at close range.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You think the jurors will see it the way you do?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yup, himself and still ambulatory enough to drag the same back on out, too. Good to see you’re still around and none the worse for wear, zoose.</p>
<p>A good day to you too, kluge. Hear the Pacific Northwest is gonna just fry for the next few days. Not part of a trend, I think, but for people not used to it it’s easy to forget to stay hydrated, so stock-up on the fluids and stay healthy.</p>
<p>@ Eastcoast - those who know better, do better ( one hopes).</p>
<p>I think that’s why we still have a race problem - inspite of this being a multicultural nation some people can’t seem to put themselves in the shoes of a young African American, ever!</p>
<p>@ younghoss - I understood her perfectly even though I don’t use her vernacular.</p>
<p>" … reasonably believed that his life was in danger."</p>
<p>If the jury declines to vote its bias’ I think the verdict depends on this. More’s the pity, since GZ’s judgments that night are highly suspect.</p>
<p>“Closed head injuries. And if they believe TM went for the holstered gun, being shot at close range.”</p>
<p>I would call that and raise you with zero DNA remnant of GZ on TM, very minimal (one) mark on one of the fingers below the knuckle and the forensic seems to be saying that the shot was fired from intermediate range instead of very reachable close range.</p>
<p>
But do you know that that’s really what the evidence will say or is that just what the press is saying that the evidence would say?</p>
<p>I believe those information mostly come from the autopsy report. It is there to be read if anyone care to search, but I am not an expert, so I guess stay tune…</p>
<p>A previous post indicates “intermediate range” could be 6" between the end of the barrel and chest. The EMS turned TM over and worked on his dead body from the front.</p>
<p>All this is for the jury.</p>
<p>We keep looking for a “reasonable” explanation for how that Sunday night turned out. There isn’t one IMHO. The only two things I see unanimous agreement on are: (1) Having the trial is a good thing; and (2) Thank God we don’t have GZ trolling our neighborhoods.</p>
<p>I read somewhere that there is no gun powder residue on any of TM clothing, and for that the conventional wisdom is more than 3 feet away. Maybe the rain might come into play so again, this is chatter that will be ironed out in court.</p>
<p>07DAD, I can’t begin to imagine how the jurors will see it. I know that I was thankful that I could turn off the TV today. It was painful to watch. Ms. Jeantel was clearly confused by the language and the pacing of the questioning. </p>
<p>I get it that she told some lies. I also get it that this young girl didn’t ask to be a part of this trial. She was a reluctant witness. And I also get it that she is not going to be heading off to her dream college anytime soon, which (in my opinion) makes Mr. West’s treatment of her sort of despicable. </p>
<p>I am a white, suburban mother of three, and what I felt today was anger that any young girl who was not on trial herself would be treated that way on a witness stand.</p>
<p>Despite Mr. West’s attempts to draw attention to the importance of whether or not she was doing her hair the night Trayvon Martin was killed, she did not waver on the important facts of what she heard that night.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And therein lies some of the problem as well.</p>
<p>Why would you feel anger? Mr. West is charged with doing his very best to represent his client. That matters. Would you prefer that he rolled over and let his client be found guilty just because some people would find some witnesses sympathetic? She did, in fact, tell some lies and that is important information for the jury to have. Mr. Zimmerman has the absolute right to a competent defense.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I haven’t watched any of the footage. I’ve tried to follow along as best as I can… But we have to remember what his job is. His job is to convince the jury that his client is not guilty. We can like him or hate him for that, but that is his job. His job is not to play nice to a witness on the stand.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I was trapped in the waiting room of a doctor this morning and they had FOX on with the testimony. I sat where I did not have to watch, but could not avoid listening. Seriously, the cross examination was not “brutal” in the situation of criminal trials. </p>
<p>Mark Furhman said some pretty ridiculous things like the jury had to ignore all her testimony and could not believe some and not other parts. WRONG.</p>
<p>I was relieved to go in and have the cancer removed. They really ought to reconsider whether to have cameras in the courtroom.</p>
<p>Agree w/ zooser post 396. The girl is sympathetic. A life-long resident of Miami yet has such difficulty w/ English. Says she can’t read or write cursive. Not flattering to her, or her parents, or to her school system. But Zoose is right it is the prosecutors job to defend his client, and if exposing her lies and her confusion is part of that defense, then he must do it.</p>
<p>I think the defense could have accomplished the same thing in a much better way. He could have been much more efficient in painting her as a liar. Jurors don’t typically like condescension or bullying. Attorneys have to be very careful not to come across that way and it is really a very easy thing to avoid. He doesn’t seem to not be able to come across that way just as the prosecutor doesn’t seem to know how not to ask a leading question.</p>