<p>He said that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, he saw Martin making downward arm movements that appeared like he was raining down blows, and Zimmerman was yelling for help.</p>
<p>He went back into his house and called 911, during which time he heard a gunshot.</p>
<p>Zimmerman’s face and the back of his head were injured, evident in photos.</p>
<p>Do you think Zimmerman should have let Martin continue to beat him in the face and pound his head into the ground?</p>
<p>I think that it reasonable to expect anyone in Zimmerman’s situation would do whatever was necessary to protect his life.</p>
<p>Maybe Zimmerman was fighting for his life, but if he had minded his own business he wouldn’t have been. I just can’t get past the fact that if he hadn’t had the gun with him he might not have felt emboldened to confront someone who was larger, tougher and a better fighter.</p>
<p>I always tell my kids that there are some actions for which no good outcome is possible and they must be avoided completely. Also that when you choose badly, if fate adds a little bad luck to the equation, lives can be ruined. Thing is that Zimmerman was a fully-cooked adult and still had no better sense. I pray that my kids always bring their brains with them when they leave our home.</p>
<p>Now that it’s well-established that the case is up to the jury, and that the verdict could go either way, how about a few “Theories of the Crime.” (I’m using GZ’s bloody nose as evidence that some crime was committed.)</p>
<p>I’m going with the two-scuffle theory. GZ and TM meet at the sidewalk. There are words and a scuffle, ending up with TM on top and GZ being slapped around. That’s what Good saw, and explains the scratches on the back of GZ’s head AND the lack of fistfight evidence on TM’s hands. TM gets off GZ and begins to walk away. GZ’s p*ssed. He gets up and chases after TM. He catches up with TM in the grassy area. More words. TM clocks GZ on the nose. Infuriated, GZ pulls his pistol and shoots TM dead. (Much easier to extract the pistol when you’re not the supplicant in “ground and pound.”)</p>
<p>Jonathan Good was a very credible witness indeed but so was Selma Mora, the attractive blonde neighbor that used the court appointed interpreter. She testified that GZ was on top of TM when GZ instructed her to call the police (on her third attempt to get a response from him). Does this suggest that GZ was on top of TM before and/or after the gunshot at some brief moment? Are we to assume she was mistaken? I wonder if the prosecution will do a follow-up with her?</p>
<p>“I think that it reasonable to expect anyone in Zimmerman’s situation would do what was ever necessary to protect their life.”</p>
<p>Zimmerman’s situation? We don’t know what Zimmerman’s situation was. We DO know that TM was likely shot in the grassy area where TM was found, not at the sidewalk. (The Coroner said the shot was instantly fatal.)</p>
<p>If you really are interested, you need to get on a database and read Florida penal provisions relating to when the self defense justification is NOT available. There is a body of law in Florida on this and IMO the jury (unless the trial court dismisses the case) will be charged on the law of provocation.</p>
<p>At this stage I think the state would be satisfied nailing GZ with any kind of felony. GZ could maybe even end up with something as small as a misdemeanor/manslaughter conviction.</p>
<p>Zimmerman’s situation was that he had injuries to his face and head consistent with testimony that Martin was on top of him and Martin’s arms were moving in a downward motion apparently raining down blows.</p>
<p>^ If we grant that this is true, and we grant that GZ felt his life was in danger, and we assume that he responded at that time by shooting TM … how did TM’s body get to where the police found it? (We can grant that it’s unlikely that TM got up and staggered over there with his instantly fatal wound, ESPECIALLY since GZ said he held TM’s arms after the shooting to prevent further blows.)</p>
<p>You know, a lot of this could be cleared up if George Zimmerman would simply testify in his own defense. The fact that this seems unlikely to happen makes me less inclined to believe he is innocent.</p>
<p>The bar fight analogy is interesting, but not a good comparison to the case at hand. Not many consider following equal to picking a fight. If a guy followed another guy into a bar, and the first guy didn’t like it, so he came over and hit the follower, and if they were alone, and if the beating was bad enough so that the follower felt his life was in danger, then could he shoot him?
This would be a much closer analogy based the story of the presumed innocent man. </p>
<p>those that say- he followed and, then he shot him, have not connected point A to point B. They have connected Point A to point C or D or E, because a lot happened in between the 2 events.</p>
<p>And if I may answer NH33 post 692, although rhetorical, for me, yes. After the jury hears all the evidence if they decide beyond a reasonable doubt that he’s guilty, then I am satisfied he wasn’t just defending himself. On the other hand, if the jury sees a reasonable doubt, and thus votes not guilty, will NH and others be satisfied that he could have been?(leaving open a reasonable doubt)</p>
<p>in re post 695. Yes, that is one reasonable interpretation. Another possibility is that since their star witness says TM was using racial slurs, some people may feel race played a factor for TM to have attacked GZ. If people suspect that could be true- then that helps the defense, and that could explain why prosecutors want to say- race wasn’t a factor.</p>
<p>The burden of proof is on the prosecution. If the prosecution hasn’t proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, Zimmerman would be foolish to testify. He has already cooperated with the police.</p>
<p>^^^
Yeah, that’s the difference between an internet forum and actual court. You can base your opinion on whatever you want when you are arguing on the internet. But in court they explicitly tell you that you are to draw absolutely no conclusions based on whether the defendant testifies or not. He has that choice under the 5th amendment. </p>
<p>I’ve been on many juries and rendered verdicts in maybe 8 cases. I know many people ignore the law, and ignore the instructions, and just vote on what they think. Many have their minds made up in advance. But I always try to follow the rules even when it counters my gut. The prosecution always has to prove its case. I’ve voted to acquit a couple folks I felt “probably” did it. I couldn’t reach the burden of proof in my mind and neither could my fellow jurors in one case (the other case settled while we were deliberating).</p>
<p>But nobody has to hold to these rules on the internet.</p>
<p>I understand how burden of proof works and that defendants don’t have to testify.</p>
<p>I think the prosecution has a way to go to get beyond reasonable doubt but there are so many holes in Zimmerman’s story, the position of TM’s body, GZ’s “fearing for his life” claim, and so on that we will be seeing a lot more evidence and testimony as they build their case.</p>
<p>It appears fairly likely that Zimmerman will be acquited. The next question is since the president and the media have turned this into a race issue, will there be riots? I pray to God there won’t be.</p>
<p>I assume the case has just started, although it doesn’t seem like this one is going to be real protracted like some others (Arias, Simpson, Anthony). Since I don’t watch these court trials I guess I’ll learn what happens on here or in the news.</p>
<p>If GZ gets off, he will still have a tough time in life out on the streets. Supposedly, there is a standing bounty award out on the streets for anyone who kills him. I understand he always wears a bullet-proof vest now and disguises himself when he goes out. Maybe he could hideout and room with Casey Anthony?</p>