<p>So far, I think GZ’s real defense is that the prosecution has not dis-proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, the defense’s claim of self-defense.</p>
<p>So far, I don’t see that Zimmerman was defending himself against much of anything.</p>
<p>Martin hadn’t even used the can of tea as a weapon. Other than Zimmerman’s nose and the back of his head, neither man had signs (that we are aware of at this time) of having been in a fight. No marks on their hands, no torn clothing,</p>
<p>I don’t buy self defense if you follow and confront someone in the dark, and then get the bad end of (what appears to me to be) one single punch to the nose. I assume Zimmerman hit his head as a result of the punch.</p>
<p>Do you get to claim self defense when you follow a person, confront them, and then get the bad end of a short scuffle as the person tries to get away? All of it happening in a very dark place?</p>
<p>What would our reactions be if Martin had been a woman in that same situation?</p>
<p>Seriously, an athletic teenaged girl, dressed in jeans and tennies, with a hoodie covering her face walking alone through a dark neighborhood? Zimmerman could have been assumed to be a rapist, and Martin would have had every right to do whatever she could to get away. Why is this so different?</p>
<p>Everything that I have heard says that Zimmerman did not see Marin’s face when he decided to follow him, so Martin could have been a tall, slim girl as far as Zimmerman knew. I wonder If that will come out in the trial.</p>
<p>Can’t get convicted for ‘could have been’ offenses in Florida.</p>
<p>I’m not saying “coulda been” . I’m saying Zimmerman didn’t know who he was following in the beginning. Whoever was being followed had the right to get away and to defend him/herself. </p>
<p>Martin, being followed and confronted by a man, alone and in a dark area, defended himself, in a fairly nonagressive way (at least as far as we have been shown). Zimmerman, the grown man in the situation, first got out of a car, then followed, then confronted, then got a punch and apparently got sat upon, and then shot Martin.</p>
<p>The whole ground and pound issue, while it could have resulted in a beating, clearly didn’t. Not even close. More like Martin was attempting to hold Zimmerman down on the ground. And I really think at the end, with neighbors starting to come outside, Martin let go, with the intention of standing up. That would have ended it except that by backing away that gave Zimmerman the opportunity to reach his gun. And we know hiw that ended.</p>
<p>A few seconds later, that scuffle would have ended anyway, with the arrival of neighbors.</p>
<p>You are only certain about one thing. The ending. All of the rest is unclear.</p>
<p>This guy expresses my views on this. It fits a lot of posts on this site. </p>
<p>[Zimmerman</a> trial has all the ingredients for a miscarriage of justice - chicagotribune.com](<a href=“http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-oped-0630-zorn-20130630,0,5247290.column]Zimmerman”>http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-oped-0630-zorn-20130630,0,5247290.column)</p>
<p>I disagree. I think that GZ is guilty but I see that the case plays more in GZ favor. Remember OJ? Casey Anthony? Many believed they were guilty it but the were not convicted. Why? Doubt. I do believe most jurors convict based on evidence than bias.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly why I guessed upthread that this case will end with a hung jury. Just look at the comments on this thread. There are people on both sides of this tragedy that “clearly” see the evidence “proving” their version of what happened, and aren’t going to change their minds. Do you honestly think there won’t be the same gaps among the members of the jury? </p>
<p>Regardless of which version of events people lean towards, the evidence in this case is not clear cut. Individual posters on this thread (and by extension individual members of the jury) will be swayed by differing sets of “experts”, personal experiences, personal beliefs, etc. If people here are so convinced of how things went down and refuse to see alternative possibilities, do you really think the jury will be any different?</p>
<p>Wolverine 86 you have a point</p>
<p>For the past few days it has been the prosecution’s turn to have their witnesses testify. They should be gaining “a sizeable lead” at this point in the trial but they have not (imo). Three prosecution witnesses in a row have all helped the defense-- clearly Jon Good helped the defense more than the prosecution and, to a lesser degree, Officer Tim Smith and PA Lindzee Folgate helped GZ as well. </p>
<p>If GZ were being tried for racial profiling and/or stupidity I think he would clearly be found guilty but, so far, I don’t believe the prosecution has built a strong enough case to convict him on murder 2.</p>
<p>dadx - Really? Zorn’s article is … well I don’t have a term to describe how misplaced the man’s interpretations are:</p>
<p>“Sympathetic victim. Unsympathetic defendant.” That would be backwards. Victim was gang-banging thug-in-training … defendant is one of the Good Guys, a volunteer defending the neighborhood. </p>
<p>“Investigators and prosecutors put on the blinders early, before all the facts come in. They fill the gaps and inconsistencies in the case with suppositions inspired by sympathy for the victim, (and) rage at the defendant …” Backwards again. Investigators and prosecutors did put the blinders on early: They decided not to investigate and not to prosecute. They were completely biased FOR George, not against him.</p>
<p>“I don’t presume to know exactly what happened …” But in Zorn’s opinion a miscarriage of justice is near certain. Wow, just wow.</p>
<p>I’m all for letting the trial play out. That’s important for both the people who think GZ’s guilty and those who think he’s not, to hear the facts our Justice system lays out. What’s known is that GZ followed an unarmed youth and shot him dead in the kid’s own neighborhood. IMO it would have been a miscarriage of justice had there been no trial.</p>
<p>“Regardless of which version of events people lean towards, the evidence in this case is not clear cut.”</p>
<p>True. That shouldn’t be the case, given that there was a survivor. It does give one pause when the available evidence doesn’t uniformly support the survivor’s explanation of events.</p>
<p>Eric Zorn has never been one of the stars of the Tribune’s editorial desk. He frequently wades into the water of racially charged subjects such as the closing of Chicago public schools and “Where was Sonia Sotomayor really born? Is she a socialist radical?”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As of 7:10:21 p.m. Zimmerman said “Now he’s just staring at me.” At that point if not sooner, Zimmerman knew Martin was a male of a certain size who knew Zimmerman was following him.</p>
<p>Any guesses as to whether GZ will take the stand? I don’t think he will.</p>
<p>^ I’m thinking “No way!”</p>
<p>Unless the prosecution’s case starts getting MUCH more compelling, I think GZ’s defense team would be idiots to put him on the stand and be subject to cross-examination. The holes/changes/inconsistencies in his version of events would become as glaring as the holes/changes/inconsistencies in the versions presented by the prosecution’s witnesses so far. The defense’s strategy in this case is to muddy the waters as much as possible to create reasonable doubt, and so far the prosecution is doing their job for them.</p>
<p>jshain: “So far, I think GZ’s real defense is that the prosecution has not dis-proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, the defense’s claim of self-defense.”</p>
<p>Really? Zimmerman’s claim is that he had to shoot Trayvon because his head was being repeatedly bashed into cement. Here is what the medical report said about the injuries on his head:</p>
<p>“The report detailed two open wounds on the back of Zimmerman’s head, one two centimeters and one half a centimeter, which did not require stitches. She described his head as “normocephalic and atraumatic’’ — normal and without injuries.”</p>
<p>[Medical</a> records: George Zimmerman had black eyes, painful broken nose but no head trauma - Trayvon Martin - MiamiHerald.com](<a href=“http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/03/2880246_doctor-george-zimmerman-had-black.html]Medical”>http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/03/2880246_doctor-george-zimmerman-had-black.html)</p>
<p>Two scratches, one less than an inch long, one much less than an inch long (0.2"), neither needing stitches. No bruises. </p>
<p>I think it’s likely that Zimmerman got these scratches by running into one of the small trees in the area, or by falling into one of the metal sprinkler heads.</p>
<p>There are many other problems with his story(ies), some of which I’ve mentioned in this thread.</p>
<p>Here’s one person’s debunking of the “head bashing” claim, with photos of the injuries and of the trees:</p>
<p><a href=“http://friendsofharvey.■■■■■■■■■■■■■/2013/06/26/ould-this-be-the-real-cause-of-zimmerman-s-head-injuries-zimmermantrial-j4tm/[/url]”>http://friendsofharvey.■■■■■■■■■■■■■/2013/06/26/ould-this-be-the-real-cause-of-zimmerman-s-head-injuries-zimmermantrial-j4tm/</a></p>
<p>So let me just throw this out for thoughts here…</p>
<p>If Zimmerman is acquitted, do the police officers and administration from the Sanford PD get their jobs back? Or at least backpay? They were forced out for “not charging him.” But if he’s acquitted, could the argument be made that they were right?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>What matters is what the jury sees, doesn’t see and believes. The pictures of those four to five inch lines on the back of his head after he was cleaned up say a lot more than the words read from the medical report (I don’t know whether or not they were read out load - I’m assuming that they are).</p>
<p>BCEagle91: “What matters is what the jury sees, doesn’t see and believes. The pictures of those four to five inch lines on the back of his head after he was cleaned up say a lot more than the words read from the medical report (I don’t know whether or not they were read out load - I’m assuming that they are).”</p>
<p>I believe that the police photos of Zimmerman’s head, after the blood was cleaned up, have already been introduced into evidence. They do NOT show four to five inch lines. They show exactly what the medical report states. Small, insignificant injuries.</p>