I find the assertion that GZ was “jumped” by TM to be fascinating. The one very clear fact, attested to both by TM’s friend on the phone and GZ’s own statements, is that TM confronted GZ with a question, face to face, either “Why are you following me?” or “You got a problem?” How is this “jumping” someone? TM didn’t jump out of the bushes at him, as GZ suggested, because there are no bushes. The location where their paths crossed is an open pathway. As to what happened after TM confronted GZ with the (entirely reasonable) demand that GZ explain his creepy actions, there is no objective evidence - only GZ’s self serving claims. </p>
<p>What in the evidence possibly suggests that TM “jumped” anyone?</p>
<p>Trayvon “jumping” Zimmerman would fit neatly with Zimmerman’s “f—n punk” view of him wouldn’t it? It would fit with the hostile profiling view that Zimmerman maintained about Trayvon even after his death. they all get away= and they all jump people.</p>
In a word, no. Not even close. This may be a geographical thing, but I find this assertion to be singularly unconvincing. Unlike the N word, “cracker” is unlikely to raise any emotional response from anyone. I’m aware that it’s a term that was historically used to refer to white people, but if I heard it used today I’d assume it was meant jokingly or simply to identify the person as white rather than black, and nothing more. I’ve never heard the word “cracker” used as an insult or slur other than in comedy routines.</p>
<p>Many white people complain that blacks (especially young blacks) refer to others as “n…” but if for a white person to use that term is verboten. Every underdog group that I am aware of has had that same dichotomy at one point or another - homosexuals, women, latinos, you name it. The derogatory term used to put down the powerless is co-opted by that group and used in a sense as a rallying cry, a gesture of defiance.</p>
<p>The same is not true of the “overdog.” I could care less if someone calls me a cracker or a honky - it is meaningless to me. Those terms have never been used to oppress my people. There simply is no equivalence. The term “cracker” is just a word - and the fact that TM later referred to the clearly non-black GZ as a “N…” drives that home. Nothing that was said by TM evidences a race based animus. </p>
<p>Same with GZ, in my opinion. He profiled TM, and part of that profile was racial, but I don’t have any reason to believe that GZ shunned blacks or generally considered blacks to be inferior. But he did consider TM to be a #@$%$ punk and an #$$ hole. His animus, though not race based, is unmistakable.</p>
<p>Incidentally, a lot of people have opined that they think that an appropriate verdict would be guilty of manslaughter but not murder 2. I understand that as a sort of compromise, and would not be surprised if the jury came back that way, but in my strictly legal opinion I think the facts of the case fit murder 2 better than manslaughter.</p>
Where is the evidence TM confronted Zimmerman with this question? Didn’t that come from GZ’s statement? Maybe from Jantel too? </p>
<p>Are you saying GZ’s claims aren’t evidence for the jury to consider? THey were introduced in court. Whether the jury believes them or not is another matter.</p>
<p>BTW, you do now know that GZ’s DNA was found on TM’s inner shirt, so your contention in earlier posts that NONE of Zimmerman’s DNA was on Martin is untrue. We should all make sure we have our evidence straight.</p>
<p>As of now, I don’t think is is possible to determine how the fight started with any reasonable certainty. That’s probably a key question. If it was crystal clear I don’t think we’d be having all this disagreement But we do know there was a fight, and that Good stepped out and saw it and he thought GZ was on the bottom. And that matched at least part of GZ’s statement. Other neighbors saw other things, I know. But all of this is evidence for the jury to consider.</p>
<p>And I didn’t think juries were supposed to impose verdicts based on “compromise” when they want to convict of something. Aren’t there actual descriptions of the elements of a crime the are supposed to follow?</p>
<p>Thanks zoosermom. That’s exactly what it is that bugs me. </p>
<p>Personally, I can’t get past his continuous lack of remorse. Even in lesser disagreements, most people will eventually ask themselves what they could have done differently. </p>
<p>" I wish I would have stayed with my car. ". Seems a reasonable response to having killed another person. Even soldiers sometimes talk about this. </p>
<p>bovertine, I think the jury should (and will) start with what they do know: GZ spotted TM and followed him, referring to him as a @#$ punk and an #$$hole, profiling him as a burglar. TM in fact was on his way back to the house he was a guest in from an innocent errand, but became alarmed by the “creepy” guy following him and ran away. Despite being instructed not to do so, GZ got out of his car witha loaded gun and followed TM (but denied “following”, stating he just “went the same direction.”)</p>
<p>TM confronted the man following him, demanding “Why are you following me” or “You got a problem?” Some sort of struggle ensued. At some point GZ got a broken nose and minor cuts on the back of his head. GZ intentionally shot TM and killed him.</p>
<p>I don’t think there’s any “reasonable doubt” about those facts. The prosecution’s witnesses testified to those things, they are consistent with GZ’s out of court statements which have been admitted into evidence, and GZ’s counsel has not disputed them, other than to quibble about the severity of GZ’s injuries and how they might have been sustained.</p>
<p>With those facts and nothing more you have murder 2. Without GZ’s claim to have believed that he was in danger of death or great bodily injury, there’s nothing that makes that intentional homicide anything but murder. Self defense is what’s called an “affirmative defense” - that is, you start with the assumption that it’s a crime and negate the criminality with facts which make it justifiable. </p>
<p>In order to reduce the crime to manslaughter or not guilty, the jury needs to form an opinion about something beyond the set of facts set forth above. And the only basis they have for doing that is GZ’s out of court statements. Even though he can’t be cross-examined if he doesn’t take the stand (and I don’t think he will) the jury will form opinions about his mental state and the reliability of his self-serving statements from what they saw and heard. If GZ’s own statements are not sufficient to cause the jury to have a reasonable doubt as to whether GZ had a reasonable belief that would support a self defense claim they should convict him, plain and simple.</p>
<p>Incidentally, after sleeping on it, I recalled three homicide cases I handled about 20 years ago which had self defense issues. In all three cases the victim initially attacked the defendant, and the defendant responded with lethal force. Two resulted in murder2 convictions, the third went to manslaughter. As best I can recall, the only one the defendant testified in was the manslaughter one. The victims in all three cases were bad guys of one sort or another.</p>
Who threw the first punch is not necessarily the same thing as how the fight started. There are plenty of ways to start a physical altercation without punching. Shoving, grabbing, grabbing at legs, tripping, kicking, threatening with a firearm. That’s why I didn’t use the phrase “first punch” in my post.</p>
<p>Clear and you know for sure? Why don’t you just go to the court and tell them now and get everything square away since you “know”? Seriously, you sincerely think you know?</p>
One last time, and giving you the benefit of the doubt that you didn’t bother to read any of the posts explaining patiently why this is false: “Hispanic” is not a race. It just refers to the geographical area from whence one’s ancestors hailed. There are asian hispanics, white hispanics, indian hispanics, etc. (If you really want to insult an upper class Latin American of European ancestry, try talking to him like you assume he’s a mestizo. Oh, wait - it’s “racist” to assume that they’re not all alike, right?) Before calling others “racist” you should at least take the effort to figure out what “race” is.</p>
<p>
It’s not necessarily the case that any punches were thrown, or that all punches that were thrown landed. No one saw other than GZ and TM, and TM’s dead and GZ’s testimony is of questionable reliability.</p>
Okay, and that is all going to come down to whether the jury believes Zimmerman’s account. I know everyone around here has there mind made up, but I have not determined whether I believe it or not.</p>
<p>
In your opinion. What the jury decides remains to be seen. The commentary on TV doesn’t seem to be quite as certain as you are.</p>
<p>And BTW- once again, you do now disavow your earlier claim about the DNA on Martin’s clothes? Sorry, but to me that goes to show that to a certain extent, people hear what they want to hear.</p>
<p>Yes Zoosermom in post 1813. There is just something not right about Zimmerman. He has several instances of violence in his past and anger management issues so I think it was just a matter of time before something like this happened.</p>
<p>“And BTW- once again, you do now disavow your earlier claim about the DNA on Martin’s clothes? Sorry, but to me that goes to show that to a certain extent, people hear what they want to hear.”</p>
<p>Earlier reports said that there was no TM DNA on GZ clothes. This fact changed and corrected by yesterday testimony, and not exactly because some want to believe otherwise.</p>
What reports? News reports made after the DNA witness was excused? Or random chatter from the internet before the testimony was done? Do you have links? </p>
<p>I saw the actual testimony. It was pretty clear when he went through those alphabetical samples. Not a hard thing to check on if you care to before making those assertions in your arguments. I’d think a person would want to use the actual testimony if they are going to come on here forcefully expounding a theory. Pretty brazen for some reporter to just misstate facts from the trial.</p>
<p>kluge…We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this point. I wouldn’t excuse a teenager for using that term any more than I’d excuse a teenager from using the “n” word, or a gay slur, or any other slur. Referring to anyone by a term used to describe slave owners (it derives from “whip-cracker”) is completely offensive to me, but I won’t belabor the point.</p>
<p>It answers my underlying question though. I asked if people who say GZ’s use of derogatory terms speaks to his state of mind and thus supports their version of how the events unfolded were WILLING TO CONCEDE IT’S POSSIBLE that TM’s use of derogatory language MIGHT be argued in the same fashion.</p>
<p>The DNA on Martin’s sleeve could have just as easily gotten there because Z grabbed him.</p>
<p>The truth is that according to Florida law, Zimmerman may be set free.</p>
<p>As far as some here are concerned, getting out of your car with a loaded weapon, following an unarmed kid, against police recommendation, and then shooting the kid is not a crime if the kid got upset about being followed.</p>
<p>As far as I am concerned, the person who began this confrontation is the person who ended it.</p>
<p>Whatever the “law” is, in my book, this is murder.</p>
<p>He may not go to jail for murder, but he is a murderer.</p>
<p>He may be not guilty under the law. He may be entitled to his freedom under the law. But the fact remains that he followed Trayvon Martin, and he killed Trayvon Martin.</p>
<p>Yes - I was unaware that a small amount of GZ’s DNA was found on TM’s sweatshirt. That doesn’t change the fact that if GZ’s statements were true I’d expect to find a substantial amount on his outer clothing and hands. (Finding none at all would actually help GZ, as it would tend to indicate that the conditions simply weren’t conducive to the preservation of that evidence. Finding a small amount confirms contact between the two parties, but is not very consistent with the prolonged life and death struggle described by GZ.) </p>
<p>I don’t think there’s any question that GZ’s statements are of questionable reliability. His explanation for getting out of his truck is not credible, his claim that he wasn’t “following” TM caused the detective to laugh out loud. It’s not physically possible that TM punched him as often as GZ said (his lawyers have tried to smooth that over by suggesting that in times of stress it could “seem like” more) or that TM repeatedly slammed GZ’s head into concrete. None of that is fatal to GZ, though. Witnesses are never perfect. And the statements weren’t given in a structured setting like testifying at trial. If I was a juror I’d probably believe some and put some down to misrecollection.</p>
<p>His claim to have never heard of SYG laws becomes significant to me at that point. It’s hard to credit, given the testimony of his professors. And the statement was made after deliberation and in a fairly formal setting of the Hannity interview. I’d conclude that GZ was deliberately dissembling about that. Since it goes to the heart of GZ’s defense, I think it’s a problem for him.</p>