<p>I think that’s the risk for the defendant not taking the stand. He can’t embellish further or explain away inconsistencies.<br>
The prosecutor won’t be allowed to suggest that the jury can “presume” anything. But the defendant gave several statements where he failed to mention any attempts to use less than deadly force. He hung his hat on the claim that he was ambushed, i.e. he didn’t provoke the attack. So the prosecutor will argue that GZ did what he said, shot (instead of threatening to shoot).</p>
<p>One important point: self-defense doesn’t allow a person to use a gun to defend themselves in a fistfight. No matter how the physical altercation started, GZ’s claims depend on the story that TM was repeatedly bashing his head in the concrete & smothering him – but the physical evidence of GZ’s injuries & report of the neighbor (Good) don’t really support that conclusion. </p>
<p>The bullet angle isn’t really consistent with GZ’s story either. </p>
<p>Obviously if the jury believes GZ’s account then they probably will acquit. But the prosecution is going to argue that GZ is lying on the critical details – that what really happened is that that he followed an innocent teenager, provoked a fight with the kid, and then when the kid managed to get the advantage in the fight, pulled out his gun and shot him. </p>
<p>And that really isn’t good enough for “self defense”.</p>
<p>I’m glad to hear that isn’t good enough for self-defense. I don’t want to live in a country where you can follow someone with a loaded weapon, get in a fight and shoot them in “self-defense.” It just seems fundamentally wrong.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. There was plenty that he could do, and did do, about his neighborhood. He kept a sharp eye out, and called the police when he thought he saw something suspicious. That’s called being a good citizen. </p>
<p>But he took it step further, and decided to become a free-lance law enforcement officer, taking the law into his own hands, pursuing, confronting, and finally killing someone he deemed to be suspicious. That’s called being a vigilante, and THAT is what he’s getting slammed for.</p>
<p>Is it believable that someone with MMA training and a significant weight/strength advantage would be unable to fend off blows from a gangly teenager, even if he was underneath him? Remember that GZ was in very good shape at the time of the shooting–he has gained 120 pounds or more since, according to his lawyer.</p>
<p>poetgrl, I’m with you. I have the same fears that we are turning into a nation of armed vigilantes, and that it is thus open season on everyone they don’t like.</p>
<p>The state has no case. There is going to be a few disappointed folks here when the verdict comes back. Politcal pressure is a poor reason to charge someone with 2nd degree murder.</p>
<p>riprorin, if the state didn’t have a case the judge would have granted the defense’s move to acquit on Friday. She denied the motion. Have you read anything calmom has written? She is one of the most knowledgeable posters here and understands the law in Florida. If you haven’t, I recommend that you do.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agree with every word of this. The important thing about the Zimmerman trial is what it means for all of us in the future.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What this shows is that TM most likely sucker punched GZ as GZ says. It was dark and GZ’s ability to fend off an attacker probably was affected. Supposedly TM had a history of assaults and he was younger and mad. That might account for his ability to beat up GZ.</p>
<p>I should point out that Dan Abrams is male. Another male commentator saying he will walk. The jury is an all woman jury. Until I start seeing many women commentators saying acquittal, I won’t believe it.</p>
<p>razor–you wrote “supposedly TM had a history of assaults and he was younger and mad.”</p>
<p>can you provide a source for this?</p>
<p>it is GZ who has a criminal history of assaults and we know he was angry,that “the f—n punks always get away”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/29/us/judge-in-trayvon-martin-case-puts-limits-on-defense.html?_r=0[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/29/us/judge-in-trayvon-martin-case-puts-limits-on-defense.html?_r=0</a></p>
<p>I also heard O’mara mention that he wanted to introduce TM’s history of fights. (I used the term assaults but I meant fights which might or might not be assaults depending on the instance.)</p>
<p>thanks razor, I see. </p>
<p>history of assaults has a ring of criminal history, is that just me that hears it that way?</p>
<p>Trayvon did not have a history of assaults, however GZ did. so it seems a bit illogical to present Trayvon’s supposed non existent history of assaults as a reason for his abilities, without fairly presenting GZ’s criminal history of assault.</p>
<p>“There is going to be a few disappointed folks here when the verdict comes back.”</p>
<p>Well I (for one) am going to be disappointed when the verdict comes back … regardless of what that verdict is. TM is dead, GZ will have a civil trial to look forward to next, the 2nd Amendment will again be questioned, the State needed to be brought in to investigate a homicide, the Sanford Police Chief has been fired, etc. etc. etc. If there’s a silver lining in there someplace I sure don’t see it.</p>
<p>The defense has presented several witnesses who are friends of GZ who also said they recognized GZ’s voice screaming in the 911 tapes.</p>
<p>I guess we have a screaming match now.</p>
<p>Is it down to a matter of quantity? What’s the count for each side?</p>
<p>I think TM has mother and brother testify about his voice. GZ has had mother, uncle, US Marshall, wife of US Marshall, coworker, and business friend so far.</p>
<p>The more people the defendant has testify that he was screaming continuously, the stronger the evidence that he was NOT being smothered by Trayvon. One way or the other, he was lying.</p>
<p>Either it is him screaming, based on injuries for which he did not require medical treatment, or it is not him screaming. The defense seems to be going with screaming. </p>
<p>My question is whether or not the defendant’s cowardice makes for self-defense or not? I mean, just because he was screaming does not mean he was in mortal danger.</p>
<p>However, most troublesome, for the defense, imho, is his testimony to the police that he was being smothered when he reached for his gun.</p>
<p>I’ve known my husband for 34 years, and I’ve never heard him scream in mortal fear. </p>
<p>I’ve known my two young adult sons their entire lives, and I have never heard them scream in mortal fear.</p>
<p>I have heard whoops, shouts, “sort of” screams during sporting events, all sorts of raised voices, but never (thankfully) an extended scream of fear. I’m honestly not sure whether I could or could not identify one of my loved ones only by a scream.</p>
<p>I would venture a guess at which members of my family would probably have a higher pitched scream, but even that would be an educated guess.</p>
<p>I would discount all the witnesses who are claiming they can identify the scream, unless the witness has heard Zimmerman or Martin scream in fear under prior circumstances.</p>
<p>I think the lawyers would be better off with a witness who had accompanied Zimmerman or Martin in a Halloween haunted house, or on an extreme rollercoaster ride. I have heard my kids scream in fun fear on rollercoasters, which is the closest thing I can come to a scream of mortal fear, but some people really do scream in mortal fear on rides and in “haunted houses”.</p>
<p>The prosecution’s cross of the business woman is strange.</p>
<p>If GZ’s mortgage office colleague could recognize those blood curdling screams as his because of her familiarity with his voice, that must have been one heck of a mortgage business!</p>
<p>I don’t see how a defendant’s family or friends have an iota of credibility in a murder trial anyway. I’d see them as the least reliable of all witnesses and discount all their testimony as worthless.</p>