<p>So there’s a neighbor who says he saw the two tussling, and that the person on the bottom being pummeled was wearing a “white or a red shirt.” (Zimmerman was wearing red.) This makes no sense. It was dark out. Red looks black or very dark at night. Red does not look white in the dark, at all. When I’m looking for my red car in a parking lot at night, it appears black, never white. This witness , IMO , has no idea who was on top, or, he’s color blind. Unless I’ve missed something in regards to how much lighting was present in that particular location–my point is that it would be very unlikely to mistake the color red for the color white. I think he has no idea who was wearing what.</p>
<p>It is kinda interesting that witness Selma Mora gave her testimony in Spanish through an interpreter. Mora speaks fluent English…prosecuters maybe had her use Spanish in court saying GZ was on top of TM because it would show a Hispanic person would infer GZ was aggressor and not defending himself…GZ describes himself as Hispanic. Stronger for state in court having Spanish speaking Hispanic going after a Hispanic peer?</p>
<p>^ YH - It was a general question not aimed at anyone. Several pages of speculation about the role of epithets in this alleged crime have made me grumpy. Just as “f-----g punks” did not make GZ guilty of murder (and IMHO it’s ridiculous to even suggest that it did), then “c-a-cracker” doesn’t make TM a guy looking to rub-out his pursuer. TM’s (alleged) attempt to “rub out” GZ is the basis for the self-defense claim, isn’t it?</p>
<p>^ OK, that was an unfair tease.</p>
<p>Can we agree that it was GZ’s perception that TM was trying to kill him that form’s the basis for the self-defense claim? If so, then GZ couldn’t have been influenced by TM’s comments to the girlfriend … because GZ didn’t hear them.</p>
<p>eastcoastcrazy: “Or, Zimmerman could have been gripping Martin’s shirt as Martin attempted to get away when Zimmerman fired the gun. The shirt would have been pulled away from the body in that scenario.”</p>
<p>Absolutely. The gunshots to the hoodies (TM was wearing two) were “contact”, while the gunshot wound to the skin was from a few inches away. Moreover, there was a misalignment. The holes in the shirt were substantially lower than the hole in the chest. AND the gunshot went straight into TM’s body, it did not angle up or down or left or right. One scenario that fits is GZ holding the bottom of the hoodies. He describes and re-enacts being careful to go past his left hand, not to hit it, as he fires with his right. </p>
<p>There is also the question of how GZ managed to extract his gun from a holster that was BEHIND his right hip, over his buttock, while he was on his back, supposedly, pinned down by TM, supposedly, who was straddling him, supposedly.</p>
<p>Those who throw their hands in the air and say that the truth can’t be known have not watched GZ’s multiple interviews/walkthough and have not looked at the forensics evidence. All of this has been available for months.</p>
<p>I do not think GZ was influenced by any comments of TM. I think (as someone mention about) that this is a fist fight that would not have had serious consequences (maybe a few bruises) if GZ had not a gun on him. I wonder though how people would have reacted if TM had grabbed GZ gun and shot him that night. Not changing any other aspect of the story, would people and police had treated TM differently?</p>
<p>wegotin–great question.</p>
<p>Well, if TM was claiming self-defense in the prosecution for killing GZ, the prosecution would have introduced that TM had THC in his system if they had drawn blood. </p>
<p>They would brutally attack the young woman as making up essentially alibi testimony and would point out that she had not come forward at the time, lied in her deposition, etc. They would argue that TM’s running/hiding indicates consciousness of wrong doing. </p>
<p>"Why didn’t TM simply call 911? Isn’t that what an “inncocent” person would do? But if TM was prowling around at night with his face shrouded by a hoodie because he was high and up to no good, that accounts for why he did not. TM had already beaten GZ in the nose and bloodied the back of his head. At nearly 6 feet tall TM was able to get GZ’s weapon from him even though it was holstered with merely a scratch on one finger. So, why didn’t he just hold the gun on GZ once he had it in his hand? TM has a single scratch on his finger but claims he was in mortal fear even when holding a gun on GZ?</p>
<p>TM beat and shot GZ to cover up what he was up to and now that he has been caught he wants you to believe a homeowner in the gated community was such a threat to him that he feared for his life. TM’s girlfriend is nothing but a liar."</p>
<p>See–reasonable doubt!</p>
<p>“I wonder though how people would have reacted if TM had grabbed GZ gun and shot him that night.”</p>
<p>1st degree murder … homicide during commission of a felony (aggravated assault)</p>
<p>“Why didn’t TM simply call 911? Isn’t that what an “inncocent” person would do?”</p>
<p>Guys don’t call 911 when being followed by “creepy” types. They turn and ask “Is there a problem?” Or they cross the street in a way that makes it awkward for the pursuer to follow. That said, I don’t know what’s standard for teen males in Florida.</p>
<p>When you’re 6 feet tall and your observer is 5’7", you feel that you can handle a little punk like that. And in this case, you were right, except for one factor. That was the final spark to this regrettable tragedy.</p>
<p>Zimmerman violated a basic rule of carrying a handgun. You never allow anyone to get close enough to you where they could access your weapon.</p>
<p>Why is Good a prosecution witness? He seems to be helping the defense more than the prosecution.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Read more: [George</a> Zimmerman trial: Neighbor Jonathan Good testifies about fight](<a href=“http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/national/george-zimmerman-trial--video-security-expert-takes-stand-on-5th-day#ixzz2XWtSd1ty]George”>http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/national/george-zimmerman-trial--video-security-expert-takes-stand-on-5th-day#ixzz2XWtSd1ty)</p>
<p>The girl who testified didn’t help much either. She established that Martin was resentful (the cracker comment) about being observed/followed, and appeared to confirm that there was some sort of scuffle/altercation, as reported by others.</p>
<p>The altercation is the key to Zimmerman’s defense. No altercation means guilty. Altercation means possible not guilty, depending on a jury’s assessment of whether Zimmerman reasonably believed there was a threat of great bodily harm.</p>
<p>I think Zimmerman should be convicted of something serious, but I’m not sure that second degree murder is the correct charge. Because of that, I think there is a reasonable chance he’ll be acquitted. Maybe 50/50.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The prosecution only can use what they have. Remember, the higher ups did not think that the case should be brought. We are now seeing why. I think they put their most successful prosecutor on the case to be able to say “see we went all in, but–” if there is no conviction.</p>
<p>We had a district attorney in Dallas (Henry Wade of Roe v. Wade fame) who had an unbelievable conviction rate for his people. It was well known that he did not take a case to trial unless he really was sure he would win.</p>
<p>Public outcry does not necessarily equal a winning case.</p>
<p>Agree with BCEagle, Jonathan Good seems like the “ideal” defense witness to counter Mora’s assertion, the day before, that person with red jacket was on top. Good was unwavering in his opinion that red jacketed GZ was on the bottom when the tussle was in the lawn area and then when it moved onto the pathway. This could be the tipping point in favor of the defense. I think the prosecution wanted him initially because they liked the fact that he couldn’t state with certainty that he saw TM pounding GZ’s head against the pathway but Good’s testimony seemed to help the defense more than the prosecution.</p>
<p>I disagree. IMHO he lost his self defense claim the moment he followed TM.He had a gun. I am from Florida and I have taken the course to carry a concealed weapon (but never actually got my license or ever purchased a gun); the rules are very clear: you cannot engage anyone. I still think that GZ thought that TM was a tug and at some point he got off TM’s grip, reached for his gun and shoot him.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Was winning more important than justice?</p>
<p>I have seen the attitude that getting a conviction can be more important than find whether or not someone is innocent or guilty.</p>
<p>“Public outcry does not necessarily equal a winning case.”</p>
<p>The public outcry was because there was no arrest … and no investigation.</p>
<p>Witness testifying that when he approached Zimmerman, it looked like he had just gotten his butt beat. </p>
<p>Witness says Zimmerman said guy beating me up and I had to defend myself and I shot him.</p>
<p>I know in Florida politics drives so many things in courtroom agendas from the head Attorney General right down into district offices. If a state attorney district head is out to get someone or has an agenda…look out. Being in a Florida state courtroom being on trial and facing jail time in Florida’s prisons is not fun by any, any stretch of the imagination.</p>
<p>BCEagle91–</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is the ying to the yang of district attorneys who are in elected positions taking almost every case to trial to avoid possible citizen/voter criticism.</p>
<p>IMO a person is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If criminal prosecution was about finding out who was innocent, every crime would have to go to trial against someone until the prosecution was able to get someone convicted.</p>
<p>Look at what happens when the defendant who is prosecuted is not convicted. Do you think those defendants have not had their lives changed for the worse? That is why there is (or used to be) the concept of prosecutorial discretion.</p>