<p>It seems as if some believe the story of the defendant and others are not as inclined to believe that the defendant’s comments on the 911 call indicate anything other than aggressive following.</p>
<p>should be interesting to see how the jury sees the defendant’s case.</p>
<p>ETA: I agree. O’Mara is an excellent attorney.</p>
<p>I agree. O’Mara manages to not seem smarmy like some defense attorneys. He is also dealing with a client who is not the most sympathetic to begin with. He is doing an amazing job for him. I wonder what will happen when/if GZ’s defense fund dries up again?</p>
<p>Bear in mind that I have said that I recently edged into the guilty n MS camp, but only slightly. I know the defense is calling one of the bests pathologists in the country. So that should be interesting.</p>
<p>That said -I admit there are some inconsistencies in the GZ story. But that doesn’t mean that every single fact in this case points towards his guilt. </p>
<p>First, the comments on the 911 tape. Yes, people can interpret them as some sort of malevolence. To me, I’ve said worse things about noisy neighbors or annoying drivers. Granted, I haven’t killed any of those folks, but those comments don’t do it for me as far as 2nd degree, or the belief that GZ got out of the car looking to hunt TM down in cold blood as was expounded by one poster. </p>
<p>But yes, I’d say that from other evidence and inconsistencies (and his own statement) it appears he was following him, at least to some degree and for some time, for whatever reason he had. If that matters, and I’m waiting for the actual arguments to decide, then it matters. From the legal article calmom posted it seems it does matter. Which is sort of why I edged ever so slightly to guilty.</p>
<p>But I think when two people are seen by witnesses to be fighting, and one of them ends up with a broken nose that it is certainly plausible that the broken nose was caused by the other fighter. And I’ve been in plenty of fights (as a kid and younger adult) and your actual fear over the fight and what the other person will do often has little to do with the injuries you sustain, as I think that JAG officer said.</p>
<p>So those two elements matter little to me, and I’m not personally going to use hem to build up all sorts of alternate theories. When other people use them as the basis for their theories, since I don’t interpret those things the same way, I don’t lend much credence to those theories. JMO, I guess we’ll see after the trial ends. May turn out I can’t decide.</p>
<p>One thing I’ve never heard - where did TM’s stepmom live with respect to where all this went down? Was it close? In the same complex? In which direction? Just curious. Since nobody has brought it up in trial I assume that fact isn’t important.</p>
<p>bovertine, I was wondering that myself. Surprising to me that it wasn’t mentioned by the prosecution if he was in fact on his way there. On the other hand, given that he was only a visitor and even GZ apparently got confused about his location (after living there for years) maybe it is immaterial. He could have been lost too.</p>
<p>^^^
yeah, not sure but from the map it appears it was a pretty small complex. Mainly I ask because it would be really sad if he was only a few hundred feet from the door when all this went down.</p>
<p>I’m noticing from the posts on this and the other thread that if a poster most likely puts him/herself in the defendant’s shoes, he sees one side and if a poster puts him/herself in the victim’s shoes, he/she sees another side to it all.</p>
<p>Having been followed, I know how scary that can be. It’s not like the defendant was someone familiar to Trayvon. He was a man following him at night in the dark, from whom he had already run away.</p>
<p>Just how I see it.</p>
<p>Now I am confused. I thought it was the new girlfriend house that is in the complex. The stepmom lives in Miami and raised Trayvon and his brother there. The girlfriend house was very closed towards the back entrance of the complex. It made perfect sense that Trayvon took the route he did to get back to the house. TM was almost there where he was shot.</p>
<p>“First, the comments on the 911 tape. Yes, people can interpret them as some sort of malevolence.”</p>
<p>At first blush, I thought it might have been a malevolence of some sort. But as GZ’s other commentary came to light, I saw it more as “just George being George.” I’m not discounting the comments entirely … but let’s face it, George lived in a reality different from us. (OK to assault a police officer, OK to ignore instruction from the 911 Operator, OK to follow a “suspect” in the dark with a non-functioning flashlight, OK to misrepresent the “suspect’s” actions, OK to give misleading and conflicting stories to the police, OK to lie to the Judge about assets, etc.) At this point it’s hard to support the hypothesis that this was a race-based crime, or that GZ followed TM with the intent of murdering him. But I think it’s also questionable to interpret GZ’s warped world as evidence of malevolence. If TM had made it to his front door after the alteration at the “T” would the issue of malevolence even be relevant?</p>
<p>
Okay, new girlfriend. That’s what I meant.</p>
<p>tt - This map may help, and also this pic of the walkway (taken I believe from the East Gate end):</p>
<p>[File:Shooting</a> of Trayvon Martin map.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin_map.png]File:Shooting”>File:Shooting of Trayvon Martin map.png - Wikipedia)
<a href=“http://justoneminute.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451b2aa69e20168e96a4266970c-800wi[/url]”>JustOneMinute;
<p>^^^
Perfect. Thanks. Guess I could have Googled it.</p>
<p>The path that TM was walking was the direct & most appropriate route to the father’s girlfriends unit. There are some people who have questioned why TM was not able to get to his unit within the 2 minutes after GZ reported him running, but I think it’s very plausible that he may have stopped to see whether he was still being followed, as he may not have wanted to lead the “creepy” guy directly to the place he was staying. That is, his plan may have been to run from the street to the walkway between the houses, then stop to observe whether he was being followed. </p>
<p>(If I thought I was being stalked, I’d want to get to a position of safety, but if I was thinking rationally, I would not think it was a good idea to show the stalker where I lived. If I was in my own neighborhood, I might choose to go to a neighbors house instead of my own - but of course TM would probably not have met any of the neighbors as he was only visiting.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[George</a> Zimmerman Probably Won’t Be Convicted of Murder or Manslaughter – Here’s Why - ABC News](<a href=“Analysis: George Zimmerman Probably Won't Be Convicted of Murder or Manslaughter -- Here's Why - ABC News”>Analysis: George Zimmerman Probably Won't Be Convicted of Murder or Manslaughter -- Here's Why - ABC News)</p>
<p>So I guess it all rides on “reasonable”</p>
<p>Poetgrl, I think there are some inaccuracies in the article razorsharp linked to – here’s a fairly detailed article explaining the jury instructions that will be given (admittedly rather complicated):
[Self</a> Defense Jury Instruction in Florida - Lyons, Snyder & Collin, P.A.](<a href=“http://www.lyonssnyder.com/law-blog/self-defense-jury-instruction-in-florida/]Self”>http://www.lyonssnyder.com/law-blog/self-defense-jury-instruction-in-florida/)</p>
<p>I think the prosecution will be able to get an instruction that GZ cannot claim self defense if the jury finds that he provoked the confrontation, essentially: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>^^^
I don’t understand how that is different from what Abrams wrote. Part of his article is addressing point a exception in this instruction. I’m assuming that’s an implied “and” between a and b. If so I don’t know how gz could prove point b.</p>
<p>But calmom, if the jury believes that it was GZ begging TM to stop punching him–despite the lack of evidence–wouldn’t point b hold?</p>
<p>ETA: bovertine, I had assumed that was an “or.” Interesting.</p>
<p>I assumed “and” because in the document calmom posted it looks like all the "or"s are written into the rules. Could be wrong of course.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Jury Instruction
</p>
<p>thanks JAMCAFE, that’s helpful to see the jury instruction vs. Abrams’ article</p>
<p>question, if the instruction is “had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger, other than using deadly force on Martin” how would a jury know without asking Zimmerman if he tried other means, ie. threatening to shoot before shooting, shooting to harm but not to kill. Can they presume he in fact didn’t exhaust other means, since it hasn’t been stated?</p>
![http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin_map.png]File:Shooting](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin_map.png%5DFile:Shooting){kind=link}
