<p>I do agree with one thing: we are transforming our judicial system in reality TV. All has become a media show done for entertainment and money. Do people want justice? I do not know, sometimes I think people want blood.</p>
<p>“So where’s your proof of this theory?” </p>
<p>The only proof of GZ’s contradictory tale of events is the ASSUMPTION that there’s some truth in it. “I shot him over here by the sidewalk. No wait, the body is over there so I must have shot him away from the sidewalk. No wait, that undermines my claim of self defense. I know, I shot him by the sidewalk and a tractor beam from the Enterprise picked him up and dropped him over there. Then Dr. McCoy came down, repaired the wounds to the kid’s hands and carefully removed my DNA. That’s it. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it (unless you guys find something else that makes me look guilty).”</p>
<p>Yes, I’m reduced to using sarcasm … because it’s only fair to use ASSUMPTION when defending GZ.</p>
<p>riporin - I’m not happy with media coverage either. I like to think we keep the media around for the same reason we tolerate Congress … because once in a while they provide an essential service.</p>
<p>riprorin, I still do not understand your logic. Using my bar fight analogy from a few pages back, does this mean I can pick a fight with you, and then after you try to defend yourself I can decide I “fear for my life” and kill you in “self-defense”? </p>
<p>And I’m sorry, but anyone with martial arts training can take a hit from a 17-year-old kid and stay in control of the situation.</p>
<p>This article (ignore the ridiculous title) offers some connection to what NYMomof2 described and raises questions about how qualified Zimmerman was to be patrolling the neighborhood (or wielding a gun) in the first place.</p>
<p>Apparently when he was in community college he got a D in Introduction to Criminal Justice and Juvenile Delinquency, and a C in a course called Evil Minds -Violent Predators. However…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not surprisingly (since his father is a magistrate), he did do well in his litigation course. The article also pointed out that</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[George</a> Zimmerman v.s. Trayvon Martin: Can College Grades Prove You’re a Murderer ?](<a href=“http://www.chicagodefender.com/index.php/voices/19942-george-zimmerman-v-s-trayvon-martin-can-college-grades-prove-you-re-a-murderer]George”>http://www.chicagodefender.com/index.php/voices/19942-george-zimmerman-v-s-trayvon-martin-can-college-grades-prove-you-re-a-murderer)</p>
<p>When a man with history of violence meets a boy with no history of violence, one can safely assume that it’s the boy who starts the fight. (Moreso if the boy ends up dead, and is unable to contest the above.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First, the caveat that I have no idea what happened. And until things are introduced in court and vetted by cross exam I won’t make any conclusion. And of course that I think they should clarify these laws so nothing like this happens ever again. And if all this stuff people are writing about GZ is true, I certainly don’t think he should have had a permit to carry.</p>
<p>But
What do you mean by “pick a fight with you”? If I follow you in a public area, but do not touch you or contact you physically in any way, are you then allowed to strike me and beat me to death?<br>
In that case, I guess any politician or actor would be justified in beating a reporter to death for following them and harassing them.</p>
<p>I don’t know about you, but if I felt someone were following me, my inclination would be to call the police, not begin beating on the person.</p>
<p>To me, the person that started the fight was the person who first resorted to physical violence. Of course, I have no idea who that was.</p>
<p>If TM had beaten GZ to death, would that have been legally justified? OTOH, what if the circumstances had been that Zimmerman wasn’t armed but won the fight and ended up killing TM but without the gun. Would that have been different?</p>
<p>Sally305, I don’t see how the bar fight analogy applies to this case. </p>
<p>I don’t believe that just because someone “picks a fight” they forfeit the right to defend themself.</p>
<p>Sally305, as far as I know, Zimmrman was carrying the gun legally, and there are no educational requirements for neighborhood watch.</p>
<p>Just because you don’t like Zimmerman or Florida’s gun laws that doesn’t make him guilty.</p>
<p>bov - You raise valid points. Only GZ can answer with regard to that Sunday night … and he ain’t talking. (He did make statements to the police … but they don’t explain the physical evidence very well.)</p>
<p>I don’t know how the trial will end. I’m not sure it matters. TM is dead, GZ will spend the rest of his life in social purgatory. And it’s likely handgun violence in FL will continue pretty much as before.</p>
<p>riprorin, again–so I can start a fight and then KILL my opponent if he turns out to be stronger than I am? Is there really no middle ground here?</p>
<p>I know there are no educational requirements for neighborhood watch. But we should all be scared that armed vigilantes who “know best” who can walk down the street and who can’t are roaming our streets.</p>
<p>rip - If GZ is found guilty would that be sufficient to convince you that he wasn’t “just defending himself?” (You don’t have to respond. It’s a rhetorical question.)</p>
<p>That brings up other question. In which cases is a person allowed to assume they are being followed and threatened? It seems pretty clear GZ was following TM, but assume GZ had given up and was heading back to his car. If he somehow just happened to stumble across TM on that route, and TM still thought he was being followed and felt threatened (which would be reasonable under the circumstances), would things have been different? </p>
<p>Once I was headed someplace in my car and just happened to take every turn that a van in front of me did. I wasn’t following them, just coincidence. After about 15 minutes of this, they just stopped the van right in front of me so I couldn’t move, and three kids jumped out and looked like they were none too happy with me. Fortunately I was able to defuse the situation, but I still don’t think it should be legal to batter someone because you assume they are following you. Of course in this case I guess the assumption would have been correct.</p>
<p>
I know this isn’t directed at me, but I would accept the jury verdict and generally assume they see more of the evidence than I do. Certainly in this case. I haven’t been following it that closely.</p>
<p>I don’t think this is an easy case. I’m sure it could go either way. It is just darn sad, and they need to think about what they can do to make sure it doesn’t happen again.</p>
<p>Was the press conference Thursday with Trayvon Martin’s family attorney saying the family didn’t want the trial being race related an indication that the state has already eased up on going for 2nd degree murder conviction with depraved state of mind requirement and instead concentrating on trying to get a lesser manslaughter conviction on GZ?</p>
<p>If the defense establishes that GZ acted in self defense, and the state can’t prove otherwise, doesn’t GZ walk and avoid both 2nd degree murder and manslaughter conviction? Are there any other offenses GZ could still be convicted for with this trial?</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.local10.com/news/trayvon-martin-family-attorney-this-isnt-about-race/-/1717324/20755122/-/1568a37/-/index.html[/url]”>http://www.local10.com/news/trayvon-martin-family-attorney-this-isnt-about-race/-/1717324/20755122/-/1568a37/-/index.html</a></p>
<p>Lizard,</p>
<p>I seems to me that you are onto something. I’ve had the same thought, since it appears the same defense is available to both charges. In that case, Zimmerman is either convicted of second degree or he goes free, as I am reading the law.</p>
<p>A neighbor testified that he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman and it appeared Martin was raining down blows on Zimmerman while Zimmerman was yelling for help.</p>
<p>That’s what he said at first.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Witness:</a> Martin Rained Blows While Zimmerman Cried for Help | WUSF News](<a href=“http://wusfnews.wusf.usf.edu/post/witness-martin-rained-blows-while-zimmerman-cried-help]Witness:”>Witness: Martin Rained Blows While Zimmerman Cried for Help | WUSF)</p>
<p>“I don’t think this is an easy case. I’m sure it could go either way. It is just darn sad, and they need to think about what they can do to make sure it doesn’t happen again.”</p>
<p>Agreed.</p>
<p>“I couldn’t see that” doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. He was being honest in that he visually couldn’t see the impact from his viewpoint. This witness was very careful in only stating exactly what he was able to see rather than fill in the blanks with embellishments, imagination, guesses, etc. This is why he was a very good witness.</p>
<p>This is the same reason why he didn’t state he saw punches. He saw downward movements (duh–which are what one makes when punching), but had to limit his answer to this because he visually could not see the fist to face contact from his vantage point. Again, it doesn’t mean the downward motion weren’t punches. He was limiting his answer to what his eyes could see from his vantage point (in the dark on a rainy night).</p>
<p>I wouldn’t interpret the slight change in his version of the events as lying. I think the change is do to being counseled by an attorney to limit his answers to what he saw (downward movement of arm) rather than what he thought he saw (punches). He may not have visually been able to see the fist-to-face/head contact, but he was able to see the downward motion (which is used when punching someone).</p>