Florida v. Zimmerman

Parent Cafe
641

<p><a href=“1”>quote</a> GZ “wrong” to elevate TM from “suspicious” to “suspect”; (2) GZ “wrong” to leave his vehicle; (3) GZ “wrong” to ignore police instruction; (4) GZ “wrong” to not abort surveillance when seen; (5) GZ “wrong” to let “the suspect” get within arms’ length; (6) GZ “wrong” to use lethal force as his sole line of defense; … And yet (7) GZ “right” to kill TM. Where is GZ’s responsibility?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>1 through 5 are clearly true, but none are crimes (based on the law I have seen so far). </p>

<p>6 is not true. Zimmerman fought Martin and yelled for help but no one assisted him. (I sure would not have gone outside if I saw two men fighting). </p>

<p>As to 7, if someone is smashing your head against concrete such that you think your head will explode and pass out as Zimmerman claims, I think you can argue you fear for your life. Zimmerman does not have to prove this. The prosecutor has to prove Zimmerman didn’t fear for his life. That’s going to be tough to do based on the evidence so far. </p>

<p>Juries are juries and if the court lets the case go the jury, the jury could still convict Zimmerman. If he is acquitted, maybe Zimmerman’s responsibility will be established in civil court where he has to testify and the burden of proof is lower.</p>

642

<p>I imagine they will change the law after this. You can’t have gun toting vigilantes shooting people they were harrassing and then getting off on self defense. It defies the meaning of justice</p>

643

<p>^ razor - I was referring to Proportional Response in (6). “TM bloodied my nose so I shot him in the heart” was a disproportional response, to say the least. </p>

<p>I agree with you on your other two points. IF you believe you are about to die, you’re obligated to try to save your life … even if you KNOW you’re going to prison for that. Unfortunately for GZ, his injuries may not rise to the level of life-threatening, but whatever. We’ll have to wait that issue out.</p>

<p>Also, as your point out (and OJ found out), beating the criminal charge doesn’t mean GZ’s legal problems are over.</p>

644

<p>poetgirl, you speak as though you were there witnessing the entire thing. The truth is, none of us were there and none of us saw the entire thing play out. </p>

<p>There is a huge difference between analyzing the facts first hand as they are presented to you in a courtroom and embellishing/guessing/assuming/filling in the blanks with imagination on an anonymous forum. Remember, different news sources report with various bias slants and like to take blips out of information to suit their bias. Be careful when using a few news sources rather than an a wide variety of news sources when using the info to support/create an opinion.</p>

<p>Discussions are fine. Opinions are fine. To make assumptions/opinions and believe them as facts is not. </p>

<p>I don’t know what happened. I wasn’t there. However, I’m trusting the jury to listen and analyze the info as presented to them and come to a conclusion. Sequestering them was a good idea. This way, they’re less likely to be persuaded by media opinions/assumptions and more likely to base their decision on the info presented to them within the courtroom.</p>

645

<p>

</p>

<p>I don’t see it that way at all. I think Zimmerman had a clear motive to try to physically apprehend Martin to hold him until the police arrived. I think that Zimmerman grabbed Martin (at the T) , Martin tried to pull lose and run away, Zimmerman pursued Martin and grabbed him again, and then there was a struggle where both men fell to the ground, with Martin ending up on top at some point (at the point 40 feet away from the initial encounter, where the shooting took place).</p>

<p>I think that Martin did hit Zimmerman in the face, in the course of his struggle to get away. I don’t know whether that took place at the T (causing Zimmerman to become enraged in his pursuit of Martin) – or whether it happened when they were on the ground. </p>

<p>I also don’t know whether Zimmerman drew his gun at the T (and was running after Martin with a loaded gun, which certainly would have provided motive to Martin to fight back hard) – or whether he drew his gun after Martin hit him on the ground and was starting to get up. </p>

<p>I do think that if the gun was holstered, then Martin would have had to be getting up and moving away from Zimmerman in order for him to reach his gun and aim at the chest. </p>

<p>I think the last voice on the tape was Martin’s, and I believe that because of the fact that the scream stopped as soon as the shot was fired. I think that if Zimmerman had been shouting for help while holding his own gun, he would have kept on shouting, perhaps even more frantically after firing – especially as he claims he didn’t know Martin was dead. </p>

<p>Zimmerman claims that Martin sat up and said something like “you got me” after the shot was fired. I think that is physically impossible and I am guessing that the prosecution will be able to show that with forensic or medical testimony. But I think that statement of Zimmerman is based on something that happened – I just think it happened before the shot was fired not after. I think the prosecutor is going to argue something along those lines, and that is the basis of the 2nd degree murder charge. </p>

<p>Obviously what I think and/or what you think is not dispositive – it is what the jury thinks – but I’m posting this to show you that there is a very different point of view as to logical “motive” of the parties. I can see Martin getting into a shoving match with Zimmerman, particularly in a response to something being said - but I don’t see any motivation for him to be punching him, and the location where the two were on the ground is consistent with Zimmerman chasing Martin, but not with Martin attacking Zimmerman. </p>

<p>The most damaging witness against Zimmerman is Zimmerman. I anticipate that the prosecution is going to put on whatever neighbors remain to be called next week, then shift to more police / forensic / medical testimony – and then move to introduce Zimmerman’s statements and the filmed walkthrough into evidence as party admissions. </p>

<p>If Zimmerman testifies, then I expect a very rough cross-examination – followed by prosecution expert rebuttal evidence to establish that Zimmerman’s account of the shooting is impossible. </p>

<p>My guess is that Zimmerman won’t testify, leaving the prosecution to raise these issues in argument. I don’t see any way that the defense can risk having Zimmerman testify. He can’t “clean up” the gaps & problems with what he has already said without it being pointed out that he is changing his story. I think that if the defense thought that Zimmerman could withstand cross, they would have followed through with the stand your ground hearing.</p>

646

<p>

</p>

<p>It wouldn’t be surprising if they tried but neither would it be a surprise that the new version didn’t have loopholes for idiots on both ends, too.</p>

<p>My verdict would be manslaughter for Zimmerman, purely for instigating events while carrying a gun. That the law may not even allow that since the public pushed the prosecution to go for a racially tinged verdict isn’t much concern to me since I’m thinking morally instead of legally. The really sad fact is that if the law allows you to feel you can accost someone in regards to what they’re doing in your neighborhood, you could still do them in with that lead-weighted bat, knife, brick, etc… you’re carrying if they proceed to go all physical on you.</p>

647

<p>I’d just add that it’s important to keep in mind that the jury will almost certainly be given the option to convict on the lesser charge of manslaughter. Under Florida law, with enhancements for using a gun and for the death of a minor, the penalties for manslaughter are quite severe, but the jury won’t be told what the penalties are. </p>

<p>So it is very plausible that a jury that feels that Zimmerman brought the circumstances on himself, but aren’t convinced about the malicious intent needed for 2nd degree murder, will resolve whatever differences they have in the jury room and come back with the manslaughter verdict. That’s a tactical advantage that the prosecution has in bringing the higher level charge – it make the manslaughter conviction seem to the jury like they are cutting the defendant a break.</p>

648

<p>Didn’t want to research and hated to ask so I appreciate the free info, calmom.</p>

649

<p>I think that’s a good analysis Catahoula and Calmom. I really don’t see this as a racial issue, personally. </p>

<p>NYsmile. The things I am talking about are not in dispute. Z called 911 and was told “you do not need to follow”. He did follow. He did kill Trayvon Martin. I recognize that the law currently allows him to say self defense. I don’t agree with the law. I believe in castle laws, but not following unarmed people around your neighborhood laws.</p>

<p>JMO</p>

650

<p>Poetgirl, it’s fine to have an opinion, but an opinion should not be confused with fact.
Yes, you mention things that are fact–he followed someone he believed did not live within the community (because of previous community robberies) and he shot/killed the person.
What happened in between is to be determined by the jury based solely on the facts presented directly to them without bias/interpretations/embellishments/opinions/etc. from the public and media. </p>

<p>Is Zimmerman a jerk? I think we can agree on that, but you can’t convict someone for being a jerk.</p>

<p>Did he follow Martin? Evidence points to yes, but this is not a crime.</p>

<p>Do you honestly believe he brought his gun along to outright kill someone? Reported info doesn’t seem to support this notion. Rather, it’s assumed he brought it for personal protection. Many people who own a gun and have a carry license bring their guns around with them (it’s not a crime).</p>

<p>Here’s where it gets complicated. After being asked what he was doing in the community, what happened? Did Martin physically ambush Zimmerman? Did Martin begin the physical confrontation? Did Martin pound the crap out of Zimmerman while maintaining the superior physical position of being on top of Zimmerman? Did Martin notice Zimmerman’s gun when his clothes got pushed around during the scuffle? Did Martin threaten to kill Zimmerman with Zimmerman’s gun? At that point, did it become a life and death struggle for the gun? Or, was the scenario something totally different. We don’t know. We weren’t there. We can’t assume and then pass off our assumptions as fact.</p>

<p>We don’t know what happened. We can assume. We can imagine. We can create a scenario based on personal life experiences. Other than for discussion, it’s meaningless.
Let the facts be presented to the sequestered jury and trust the jury to make a decision.</p>

651

<p>"Do you honestly believe he brought his gun along to outright kill someone? "</p>

<p>nysmile - Perhaps you missed this. GZ wasn’t patrolling his neighborhood that Sunday night. He was headed out to do some shopping at Target. With a loaded gun. With a round in the chamber. We don’t know what GZ was thinking that night. But we do know he felt it appropriate to have a gun in “back alley mode” while shopping at Target. Not illegal … but pretty out there. So forgive us for wondering how much of his OTHER behavior that night was “pretty out there.” Elevating TM from “suspicious” to suspect? Exiting his vehicle to follow TM? Ignoring police instructions? Giving contradictory explanations to police after the shootings? Trying to hide assets from the Court? These are just the things we know about.</p>

652

<p>Being “out there” is not against the law.<br>
Carrying the gun was not against the law.</p>

<p>Assumptions are not fact. Was he a jerk? Sure sounds like it, but it’s not against the law to be a jerk.</p>

<p>I’m not out to defend him. I don’t know what really happened between point A and point B.
I do think that it’s important to distinguish between assumptions/opinions and facts as they are presented directly to the jury (and not as reported via media).</p>

653

<p>Watching clips of the female (Rachel) witness. I’m falling out of my chair. I’m sorry.</p>

654

<p>So let’s say I provoke a bar fight with the guy sitting next to me, because he is getting on my nerves or cheering for the other team on the TV or otherwise annoying me (for this, I’ll be a guy too). We go out back or wherever guys go when they decide to have a fight. As the fight gets going, I realize maybe this wasn’t such a good idea and that I have underestimated my opponent. It is not going to be us just tussling till someone has a black eye or our friends split us up. All of a sudden I am scared. Can I kill the other bar patron and call it self defense?</p>

<p>Because if I can, it’s pretty much open season on everybody.</p>

655

<p>Can someone explain me the rational to drug test just the victim? That is so stupid. It means in my opinion that from the beginning the police believed in GZ story.</p>

656

<p>

</p>

<p>And this from someone who is going to Georgetown and likely majoring in international relations…if you want to relate to people of different backgrounds you might want to consider trying to understand them rather than instantly passing judgment.</p>

657

<p>

</p>

<p>It also fits with my theory that the police might have been the ones to rough up GZ as another precaution against possible criminal action against him. I have thought this since I saw the video of the police walking him into the station after the incident. His face looks fine, he has a minor bump on the back of his head, and everybody looks completely calm.</p>

658

<p>sally, Add to the scenario—someone is on top, bashed your nose in, is smashing your head onto the concrete, and notices you have a gun on your possession. Now, what if the guy on top says to you something like–I’m going to kill you with that gun. What if the guy on top now starts going for your gun? Is it now a self defense situation?</p>

<p>This is all speculation. Thus, only the jury can make any sort of real determination as to what happened based on the first hand facts (stripped of embellishments, emotions, opinions, bias, etc.).</p>

659

<p>Of course, all we are doing is speculating.</p>

<p>But you gave me another thought. If someone tries to bash someone’s skull on the sidewalk, they have to be holding onto the person…where? By the side of the head? By the shoulders? I don’t know. But seemingly if TM had been doing this there would be DNA evidence on his hands. And probably bruised or bleeding knuckles. But there wasn’t.</p>

660

<p>We don’t know how it happened. We weren’t there. The jury will hear the evidence first hand. They will make the a determination based on what they are presented with during the trial—without speculation, bias, emotion, media reports, public opinion. </p>

<p>The guy is a jerk. I have no qualms casting that label onto him. However, I’ll wait and let the jury determine his guilt or lack of rather than make that determination myself.</p>