<p>Isn’t this completely based on whether or not he “thought he was in danger” when he actually shot. The way I understand stand your ground laws is that you can beat me over the head with a shovel, but if you start to walk away and I shoot you in the back I become the aggressor. I don’t see how it is VERY relevant whether he followed or not, except maybe to show a shady character or something of that nature. </p>
<p>I’ve looked up Nevada’s stand your ground law, and the way I interpret it is that I can defend myself and my property with deadly force if threatened.</p>
<p>And does following someone really constitute aggression? Wouldn’t I have to physically violate you, or charge you aggressively? It’s creepy as hell to follow someone, but that’s not attacking someone enough to say TM is using self defense.</p>
<p>raiders, if some creeper was following your teenage daughter would you encourage her to stand her ground and defend herself–with mace, pepper spray, or a well-placed kick or punch–or would you just tell her to let it play out?</p>
<p>I think that some of you are now seeing how important it is to “prove beyond a reasonable doubt” that GZ initiated, not the event, but the actual physical altercation.</p>
<p>Okay, so based on the testimony of Rachel, Zimmerman attacked Trayvon first. </p>
<p>Maybe he will get convicted of the full charge.</p>
<p>Oh, and that’s the other thing… I thought that one of the reasons Anthony was acquitted was because the charge was “too high” and they didn’t have recourse to a lesser charge? I might be mixing this up with another case. But, is this how it works in Florida? Will the jury have a chance to convict of a lesser charge? Or does the prosecution have to actually lower the charge before deliberation?</p>
<p>Could be, O7. My sense was that she heard him get attacked.</p>
<p>But, also, not just that. He wouldn’t have still been on the phone if HE was attacking. The phone went dead. I imagine when he started to fight.</p>
<p>Realistically, who can talk on the phone and deliver physical blows that would cause someone to fear for their life? That’s implausible, imho.</p>
<p>poetgirl - Casey Anthony was found not guilty of first-degree murder, aggravated manslaughter and aggravated child abuse. She was only convicted of lying.
I think the jury can find decide that GZ is guilty of a lesser charge if they want to.</p>
<p>The jury will almost certainly be given instructions as to the lesser included offense of aggravated manslaughter. </p>
<p>I think a self-defense case almost always carries the possibility of manslaughter – and certainly the facts of this case are very strong for manslaughter. I don’t think that under Florida law the court would have discretion NOT to instruct on the lesser offense, but I may be mistaken on that – perhaps if both the prosecution and defense waived that, it would apply. But I know that the prosecution wants manslaughter considered because of the way the charging document was written – there is a specific allegation that Trayvon was under age 18, which is irrelevant to a 2nd degree murder charge but a necessary element for the “aggravated” part of “aggravated manslaughter.” </p>
<p>I do think that a manslaughter verdict is a very likely outcome, especially given the uncertainty about who hit first, etc. It’s very clear that Zimmerman shot Martin, and it isn’t all that difficult to decide that the facts show that Zimmerman’s conduct in following Martin & in drawing his weapon was negligent.</p>
<p>it may also be hard for all 6 jurors to believe that if GZ initiated an altercation of a level sufficient to take him out of the defense of self defense that TM showed no physical indication of such a blow or blows and we know that punches were thrown (witnesses saw them fighting, but not really sure who did what and when).</p>
<p>Remember, the prosecution went to great lenghts to introduce evidence that GZ is possibly a MMA practitioner. Some have said GZ should have been able to do serious damage to TM with his fists and physical moves. I’ve had a couple of defense attorneys wonder if the prosecution realizes that by indicating that GZ was capable of doing great physical damages to TM, the prosecution has made a huge tactical blunder.</p>
<p>Because if TM landed a sucker punch (with phone in the other hand), then continued to punch GZ, THAT squares with the physical evidence of the injuries to GZ and explains the lack of injury to TM.</p>
<p>And, the jury has to believe GZ was the first aggressor in a physical altercation beyond a reasonable doubt --with what physical evidence that he did anything physically damaging to TM before he shot him?</p>
<p>I would want her to defend herself if she was attacked, or right before she was attacked. You don’t get to shoot someone if they are following you right before they have a chance to hand you the twenty dollar bill that fell out of your pocket. It’s a fine line, probably too fine of a line imo. I’ve read interviews with random people on this case who do not like stand your ground laws period. That’s crazy.</p>
<p>I don’t like the SYG laws in general, either. They seem to enable the trigger-happy gun “enthusiasts” to shoot first and ask questions later.</p>
<p>I don’t know about you, but I have a teenage daughter and I would not encourage her to wait UNTIL she was attacked to defend herself–at that point, it might be too late. Bringing it back to the GZ/TM case, TM did know he was being followed. He may or may not have known GZ was armed. In either case, he was creeped out by this guy following him. (In other words, he felt threatened and his call to Rachel Jeantel confirms this.) We have no way of knowing if GZ would have waited for something to happen or if he was going to shoot TM and make up a story afterwards anyway. We do know he had a loaded gun and a history of calling the cops about black people in the neighborhood.</p>
<p>Referring to 07dad’s last post, I would like to know where the police found Trayvon Martin’s phone. Was it near him? In his pocket? Had he dropped it somewhere? Does anyone know?</p>
<p>That is untrue. If the jury believes that GZ was pursuing Martin, and that Martin turned and fought GZ in an effort to defend himself against GZ, then GZ can be convicted – plus the pursuit itself could provide the “ill will” evidence needed for 2nd degree murder. That is, one reasonable interpretation is that GZ went after Martin, Martin tried to run away, GZ caught up with him and perhaps grabbed onto him, and then Martin became terrified and turned on GZ, fighting with everything he had. </p>
<p>There is a large amount of very convincing evidence that GZ was pursuing Martin: his own statements on the dispatch tape, the testimony of neighbors who heard shouting and running, the location of the body in relation to the spot where GZ claims to have first encountered Martin. </p>
<p>The fact that GZ denied following Martin in his statement to the cops also is really damaging – the prosecution will be able to argue very convincingly that GZ was lying about that, and from there argue that his lies show consciousness of guilt, as well as undermine his credibility about the last moments of the fight. It definitely is not irrelevant and is a huge problem for the defense. </p>
<p>That doesn’t mean that GZ can’t be acquitted – but the jury is going to be scrutinizing every detail, and it’s really wishful thinking for GZ supporters to brush that off as if it doesn’t matter, or to take the implausible bits of GZ’s stories at face value. </p>
<p>It’s a lot easier for a lawyer to defend a client who has said nothing at all than one who has given a statement that can be shown to be false as to material details.</p>
<p>I wish I was a picture thinker, right now and not a word thinker. I want to know where all the things were found, too, and also the body and also where the sidewalk was. But I’ll never be able to “see” it. darn.</p>
<p>Did Good say that he saw them fighting on the sidewalk or the grass?</p>
<p>Also, thank you for the clarifications on the law and how it works.</p>
<p>“That is untrue. If the jury believes that GZ was pursuing Martin, and that Martin turned and fought GZ in an effort to defend himself against GZ, then GZ can be convicted --”</p>
<p>Where is the evidence that Martin turned and fought GZ in an an effort to defend himself against GZ?</p>
<p>What appears more likely from Zimmerman’s face and head injuries and Martin’s injury to his hand from striking Zimmerman, is that Martin coldcocked Zimmerman, jumped on top of him, and continued to beat him while Zimmerman was in a defenseless position.</p>
<p>there was much distress about TM’s phone not being used to identify him, and to alert his family.</p>
<p>“Martin’s family was not notified for three days until his father filed a missing person’s report. During that time, Martin’s body was tagged a “John Doe” in the morgue. The fact that Martin had a cell phone in his possession did not lead to his timely identification.”</p>
<p>this was one of the reasons it appeared there was little empathy for the deceased victim. how do you not at least try to notifiy next of kin. This along with believing the shooter’s version of events as gospel and not arresting. what value did TM’s life have?</p>