<p>
</p>
<p>oh please…people can have differing opinions on what happened. The majority of posters here have no problem with their own slant…yet you want to shout this one poster down who sees it differently?</p>
<p>comicfish, I think it is the other way around. The burden of proof is on the State to show that Zimmerman did not act in self-defence.</p>
<p>@JonoWono - You state: “…walked through a path to get an address, started walking back to his truck and was attacked. What evidence is there that this isn’t true?”</p>
<p>First, Trayvon’s body laying 47’ south of the T, along with George’s flashlight, and bullet casing is proof that this isn’t true. And if knowing that George sat in court while his wife and attorney lied to the Judge isn’t enough to make you question his honesty, then maybe you would be better convinced if you watch the video where Investigator Singleton asks George where he was when Trayvon punched him. George responds at the “T”. Investigator Singleton asks what happened when Trayvon punched him, did he fall down, or stagger - George responds, “yes maam, I fell backward on my butt” right at the T. (paraphrasing) Not true according to 3 eye witnesses.</p>
<p>"oh please…people can have differing opinions on what happened. The majority of posters here have no problem with their own slant…yet you want to shout this one poster down who sees it differently? "</p>
<p>I don’t mind opposite point of view, but it is tiresome to have to constantly correct the statements that are not true. I did not shout down, just ask to at least provide correct statement. You can give opinion, that is fine, but don’t say something that is not true and present as facts.</p>
<p>99 percent of the things people say here are NOT evidence. Evidence refers to things introduced in court under the rules of evidence. These are basically things in the press. Whether GZ lied about his finances is highly unlikely to become evidence in this case imo.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because that “get an address” story makes no sense – Zimmerman walked PAST the units facing the street where he was parked, essentially all the way over to houses facing the next, and in doing so he had to ignore the prominent street numbers on the units facing the street where he was parked. Plus he was the self-appointed neighborhood watch guy in a community with only 3 streets. </p>
<p>It’s as if someone was in an urban area and parked on, let’s say, 9th avenue – and “in order to get an address” leaves their car, walks through a dark alleyway over to 10th avenue, and then turns around and doubles back. No one is going to believe that person when if he says he entered the alleyway looking for an address. Zimmerman had a flashlight – he could have looked for the house numbers for the street where he was parked, not head over to the houses on the next block over.</p>
<p>Raise your hands. Who is sort of in love with Calmom? </p>
<p>Ever the voice of calm facts on this thread.</p>
<p>
Well, that does make things interesting - I am not aware of any other state where self-defense is such an easy thing to claim! If I ever need to kill someone, I am getting them to Florida!</p>
<p>I am still not convinced that Zimmerman has a clear path to acquittal here - “reasonable doubt” still requires that at the end of the day the jury buy the defense’s story, and it seems like he has already done a lot of damage to his credibility.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You case cited has nothing to do on whether George will have to testify in order to prevail on his claim of self-defense. In Murray, the defendant (Murray) and his roommate fought outside their apartment. The State charged that Murray introduced a butcher knife into the fight, but he claimed that the other guy first wielded a pocket knife against him. The key fact for the trial was who brought the knife to the fist fight. The issue on appeal was the issue of instructing the jury on the defendant’s burden of proof.</p>
<p>Florida Criminal Jury Instruction 3.04 states that a person is justified in using force likely to cause death or great bodily harm if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.</p>
<p>Witness Good did not testify that Trayvon was hitting George; Witness Good did not testify that Trayvon was bashing George’s head into concrete. There has been no evidence elicited that establishes that George wasn’t already bleeding and injured when he confronted Trayvon. Bloody photographs do not prove how those injuries were sustained. Who is going to testify how George received the bloody nose and knicks on the back of his head? If it isn’t George, can you please tell me? Otherwise, I would say George needs to tell the jury who caused those scratches and if Trayvon, how he believes deadly force was justified to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.</p>
<p>"Raise your hands. Who is sort of in love with Calmom? "</p>
<p>Raising my hand here. I seem to remember that calmom is an attorney.</p>
<p>Just judging by the obviously identifiable genders on this thread, I’d say GZ didn’t luck out with that all female jury.</p>
<p>CherokeeNative: "First, Trayvon’s body laying 47’ south of the T, along with George’s flashlight, and bullet casing is proof that this isn’t true. And if knowing that George sat in court while his wife and attorney lied to the Judge isn’t enough to make you question his honesty, then maybe you would be better convinced if you watch the video where Investigator Singleton asks George where he was when Trayvon punched him. George responds at the “T”. Investigator Singleton asks what happened when Trayvon punched him, did he fall down, or stagger - George responds, “yes maam, I fell backward on my butt” right at the T. (paraphrasing) Not true according to 3 eye witnesses. "</p>
<p>Taking this a bit further, watch Zimmerman’s reenactment the following day. He stands at the T, and begins to describe Trayvon’s jumping out of the bushes and punching him. Then he realizes how far away (over 40 feet) Trayvon’s body was found. Improvising, he adds a stumble, manages to get himself a few feet down the path. But not nearly far enough.</p>
<p>“I am still not convinced that Zimmerman has a clear path to acquittal here - “reasonable doubt” still requires that at the end of the day the jury buy the defense’s story, and it seems like he has already done a lot of damage to his credibility.”</p>
<p>This is Florida. Remember they let Casey Anthony go and EVERYONE knew she was guilty. Well except the jury.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I refuse to watch what is in the press. I have reviewed everything that is available through discovery under the Florida Sunshine laws and I have watched every moment of the trial to date. Last week, during cross-examination O’Mara opened the door to allow the prosecution to bring in George’s prior bad-acts - which would include his lying about his finances before Judge Lester. The attorneys are currently briefing Judge Nelson on the issue and she will make a ruling on whether or not indeed, O’Mara opened that door. In the meantime, whether or not the fact that George lied to the Court comes in at the trial or not has nothing to do with the fact that we know he is a proven liar. He has absolutely no problem sitting like a potted palm looking the Judge in the eye while his wife and attorney lie to the Court. If he will lie about his finances, why wouldn’t he lie about something that will affect the remainder of his life? He also has anger management issues and has been arrested for an assault on a police officer. Now just because he managed to plea it down and enter into a diversion program that would remove his conduct from his record, has nothing to do with the fact that he still has those problems. All of these issues will be looked at when he is convicted in determining what sentence to give him - so while the Jury may not yet be aware of these issues, they certainly affect my opinion on whether or not I believe him when he says that he shot Trayvon in self-defense.</p>
<p>no, cosmic at the end of the day, it isn’t if the jury buys the defense’s story (post 888)
it is whether the jury is certain that the prosecutions story is correct.</p>
<p>
Yes, that’s information that is out there, in the press or on TV or whatever you want to call it. It is not evidence in the trial, at least not yet. If and when it is accepted into evidence then it becomes a matter for the jury. Fortunately, we don’t run trials based on random people’s opinion before the case is fully presented. Because you already seem to have your mind made up. I assume you will accept the jury verdict when it is rendered.</p>
<p>Calmom … and some others … are welcomed voices of reason, and a nice offsetting balance to those of us who utilize, um, non-traditional approaches to find answers.</p>
<p>Bovertine - I agree with you that most people already have their minds made up. The real question is…
Has the jury already made up their minds or are they going to wait until all the evidence and testimony is in first?</p>
<p>^^^ Probably not. Unfortunately. I think they already caught one alternate lying about his opinions on the case.</p>
<p>I don’t have my mind made up because I haven’t been paying that much attention. If I had read everything out there and watched every minute on this maybe I would too.</p>
<p>I find it interesting that the folks who are certain that GZ will/should be acquitted rely so frequently on second hand information that is contradicted by the primary source. A guy says the autopsy report says that TM had bruises on his knuckles. But the autopsy report is in evidence and has been published on the internet. You can read it yourself. It doesn’t say that. At the same time, these folks accept everything GZ has stated about what happened as true - even when the parts that can be checked against verifiable external evidence - such as GZ’s claim that TM said “You got me” after being shot - don’t check out.</p>
<p>I still think it’s the NRA-fueled wannabes who are just like GZ who are driving the controversy. GZ’s screwup threatens the entire NRA mindset (citing the laughably John Lott as support for more guns in the community simply confirms that.) GZ was a “good guy with a gun.” If what he did was bad, cognitive dissonance sets in. That’s why the NRA-ites have to believe that GZ was in the right.</p>
<p>The racial aspect is also interesting. The racial issue has always been the concern that the Sanford PD were racist in their handling of the case - that if a black man had shot and killed someone (white or black) he would have been arrested and charged. I am not familiar with that police department but I have no trouble accepting that as a likely hypothesis. But note: the prattling about black on black crime is irrelevant to that. Blacks who are caught having shot other blacks are arrested and prosecuted. GZ was not arrested and prosecuted (initially.) That was the problem. It’s the pro-GZ crowd who continually inject race into the issue - and complaining about Obama’s statement - which did not raise race in any way - is part of that.</p>