This. His story IMO has been very solid. I'd straight up tell my attorney, I have nothing to hide, I'm sorry for the Martin family, but he attacked me and I was afraid for my life. His lack of emotions get me the most.
No you wouldn't. If your attorney told you that there was no benefit to you taking the stand while staring at a long prison term you would keep your happy ass in the chair. Give me a break.
If I'm guilty, ya, I STFU. If I'm innocent, I'm on the stand looking jurors in the eyes. Eyes tell so much about a person. They are the window to the soul to use a cliche.
So rather than talk about GZ's reaction and something relevant to the case you change subjects to talk about Nancy Grace.
This may be my first time posting in D&D thread, and probably my last but wanted to throw my thoughts in. Sorry in advance for the long post. As many of you know, I am a pretty big supporter of law enforcement. As a supporter of law, I don't believe in anyone acting as a vigilante or taking the law into their own hands. Also, I am not a huge gun advocate. I believe that people have the right to own a gun, I have no issues with it, but I don't own a gun myself and doubt I ever will. That being said, when this story originally broke last year, I was pretty pissed. While Martin had his warts, just like a lot of teenagers do, i was bothered by his death. It sounded like vigilante justice to me. Like many, I was bothered that Zimmerman wasn't charged as this seemed like a pretty clear cut case of murder. I wanted Zimmerman brought to justice. Based on what I heard, I felt there was no doubt he was in the wrong here. With the exception of news on Cluthfans and Chron.com, I generally avoid national news. Too much stress. So overall, I haven't paid a lot of attention to this case until the trial started a few weeks ago. With my work, I spend most of my day in my car so I have had the opportunity to listen to much of the testimony on HLN Channel 116 or CNN 115. I would guess I've heard about 85% of the case (I have a newer car that allows you to pause SAT radio, which is very cool!). I've tried to place myself in the place of the jury here. It's been a weird feeling for me, because I always feel my first gut feeling on something is usually correct, but in this case, I have done a 180. A few important points I've taken from the trial that have swayed my opinion: 1) First and foremost, Dr. Dimiao (sp.) pretty much was the most effective in his testimony. He was beyond reproach and supported Zimmerman's account pretty much 100%. He made the 2 prosecution forensic pathologists look incompetent in their findings. 2) The neighbor, Jim Good, whose back porch was basically where the event occured. I believe he is the one who walked outside and had the best perspective. He stated it was Zimmerman on the bottom and that Zimmerman was the one screaming. He also testified Zimmerman was basically getting his ass whipped. Very effective testimony. No reason not to believe him. No reason not to believe he was the best person to try and verify Zimmerman's version, which he did. 3) Too many of the prosecution witness were turned into defense witnesses. Not sure if the prosecution was trying to be proactive by calling them for their side. A lot of them backfired. Their best witness, Rachel J., came across as pretty un-likeable. 4) Zimmerman could have confronted Martin several times, but he didn't. He called the police (more than once I think?). Doesn't make sense to me that if Zimmerman was hell bent on engaging in a confrontation with Martin, why did he wait so long? Why not when he first saw him? Why not when Martin (allegedly) circled his vehicle? Why didn't Zimmerman confront any of the other folks he called the police about in the past? Overall, I just don't get the feeling that Zimmerman was looking for a confrontation. I get the feeling that he didn't want to lose Martin, which is why he followed him so the police could question him when they got there (I think all of us wish that the police had gotten there just 1 minute before they did *sigh*). 5) All of the friends/relatives who have identified the screaming as either Zimmerman or Martin have effectively cancelled each other out. However, a few of the experts have testified that it would make sense, given Zimmerman's injuries and Martin's lack of injuries, that Zimmerman would have been the one screaming for help. This, coupled with Good's testimony has me pretty much convinced that it was Zimmerman screaming. 6) Last, I was concerned that Zimmerman had pretty minor injuries. Yes, his nose was busted and he had cuts on his head & face, but I don't need an expert to tell me they were not life threatening. However, one of the experts said something that made sense. First, several have said they have no doubt Zimmerman was stunned. Second, they said if the blows had continued (and there is no evidence showing that they wouldn't have), there was potential for more serious head/brain injuries that would have incapacitated Zimmerman, and thus, left him unable to defend himself at all. This rang a bell with me and made sense. Zimmerman shot him before his injuries got to that point. I do think Zimmerman has lied about a few things. My main issue is with the following/looking for an address. I have no doubt that Zimmerman was following him. I just don't believe he was looking for an address or whatever. However, I don't feel he was following him to confront him. I feel he was following him so he could relay to the police where he was going. Not sure why he would lie about that as I would guess there is nothing illegal about following him. Again, just a gut feeling. I think there was no doubt Zimmerman was "profiling" him, otherwise, he would not have called police. I don't think it was racial profiling though. No evidence has come out that shows Zimmerman had any racial bias or ill will (shame on NBC BTW). Also, I think he is lying about what words were exchanged prior to the fight. I definitely think Zimmerman embellished here. Again, not sure why Zimmerman would lie about that. I have no doubts harsh words were exchanged though. A fight usually doesn't just start without some ugly words. IMO though, just because he lied about a couple of things, doesn't mean he isn't credible or that he has lied about everything. Based on all the evidence I've heard, the majority of his statement has been verified by witnesses who have testified, and I don't think there is much doubt here anymore. You can get into semantics and dig into some of the smaller details and find inconsistencies. I just don't think any of them are a game changer. I don't care that Martin called Zimmerman a "creepy ass cracker". I believe what his friend said, something along the lines of "that is just the way we talk in our culture" or something like that. IOW, I think that remark is just an observation, made out of frustration, but IMO, doesn't show ill will or hate on Martin's part. I don't care about THC in Martin's system. I don't care that much about the texts/tweets or whatever showing he was getting into fights. Just because someone fights at school doesn't mean he is prone to jumping someone in public. Extending Zimmerman the same courtesy, and as a witness in the trial has testified to, I believe the "****ing punks" or "these assholes always get away" remarks were also just an observation made out of frustration. Listening to Zimmerman on the tapes, he just never appears angry or hell bent on "getting his man". Bottom line here for me is, it boils down to who started the physical confrontation. So far, the trial hasn't proven that either way. We can theorize all we want, but there are no facts to prove any of these theories. I've heard a lot of criticism of the prosecution. I don't think it is fair at all. This was a no win situation for them. They will come out of this looking bad and they will be second guessed by Martin's supporters, but they were asked to make a diamond out of a big pile of trash. Based on what I know now, I don't think any charges should have ever been filed against Zimmerman. At this point, they are just wildly throwing out different theories on the events, and by doing so, are inadvertently showing reasonable doubt IMHO. They are helping the defense it seems. On the surface, Martin didn't deserve to die and because of that, we as a society feel blame has to be placed somewhere, no matter where it is. Someone needs to be held accountable right? Unfortunately, I have just accepted that this was a perfect storm of an unfortunate set of circumstances that led to Martin's death. A lot of things could have been done differently, by both participants: As much as I hate that there is no justice for Martin, who again, didn't seem to be a bad kid, Zimmerman should be and will be acquitted. That's what the law says and because I believe in the law, I am content to accept that. Even if he doesn't regret his actions, over time, Zimmerman will have to live with the fact he killed someone, who before the confrontation, wasn't doing anything wrong. Maybe that punishment is the best punishment in this case.
Umm no. Especially in a case where the prosecution brings no evidence to the table, its best to keep your mouth shut. Just like your miranda rights, anything you say can and will be used against you. One misstatement from him will be twisted and turned into something completely different. Even the media couldn't get the original statement 911 call right a year ago. They edited the 911 recording to perceive Zimmerman as a racist out for blood.
As someone who hasn't been following the trial very closely, thanks for your summary. Very clear and objective.
Very well thought out post. To highlight a few points; I feel the ones who should be on trial are the media. They have distorted this case beyond what it really is about. There is absolutely no excuse for the butchered 911 calls. The media has divided this case to the point where everyone has left the facts behind and made it about race. And yes, it is all about race. The prosecution should have never let this gone to trial. I was expecting some damning hidden evidence come forth to show Zimmerman acted malicious. The prosecution did the opposite. What further bothered me was the bail issue. The justice system should be unbiased. Regardless of the said perjury, raising the bail from 150k to 1 million was simply designed to strip Zimmerman of his donation fund to help him with his trial. I was puzzled by this decision because I really thought the prosecution had some solid evidence to support their claims that Zimmerman was a flight risk. In retrospect, this was nothing less than legal retribution. But yes, at the end of the day, it was nothing more than a tragedy. I don't believe for once second that Martin was trying to kill Zimmerman (not that Zimmerman didn't honestly believe his life was in danger) nor do I believe Zimmerman was acting as a vigilante. I think its a shame for anyone trying to make it out as anything more than this.
Very good post codell ------------ Broward County Sheriff Tells Black Leaders “We Are Not Preparing For A Riot” After Zimmerman Verdict As He Asks For Their Help Stopping A Riot… Because if he was preparing for a riot that would be racist. http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/20...immerman-broward-sheriff-scott-israel-verdict FORT LAUDERDALE — Broward Sheriff Scott Israel, his top brass, several police chiefs and dozens of pastors and community leaders from throughout the county met on Tuesday to prepare for any fallout triggered by the verdict in the George Zimmerman murder trial. “We have no reason to believe there will be any civil unrest of any kind,” Israel said. “We just want to be prepared.” The preparations discussed at the 45-minute meeting included the sheriff’s Raise Your Voice public service announcements designed to encourage the expression of joy or frustration, whichever way the verdict goes, while discouraging any violent backlash. [...] “We are not preparing for a riot. We’re not preparing for a riot,” he stressed to the audience. “What we are doing now is being proactive to defuse that.” If the verdict comes down before weekend services, pastors said they can still get information to their congregations the old-fashioned way. “Our people are connected community-wide and they’ll spread the word,” said Pastor Rasheed Baaith, of Christ Resurrection Community Church in Fort Lauderdale. “Will we get everyone? Probably not, but we’ll get a good number of folks.
Ex-Sanford Police Chief Says He Was Pressured By City Officials To Arrest Zimmerman Even Though He Already Cleared Him Of Any Wrongdoing… The Al Sharpton effect. http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/10/justice/sanford-bill-lee-exclusive/index.html (CNN) – The George Zimmerman investigation was hijacked “in a number of ways” by outside forces, said the former police chief of Sanford, Florida. Bill Lee, who testified Monday in Zimmerman’s second-degree murder trial, told CNN’s George Howell in an exclusive interview that he felt pressure from city officials to arrest Zimmerman to placate the public rather than as a matter of justice. “It was (relayed) to me that they just wanted an arrest. They didn’t care if it got dismissed later,” he said. “You don’t do that.” When Sanford police arrived on the scene on February 26, 2012, after Zimmerman fatally shot unarmed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, they conducted a “sound” investigation, and the evidence provided no probable cause to arrest Zimmerman at the scene, he said. It had nothing to do with Florida’s controversial Stand Your Ground law, he said; from an investigative standpoint, it was purely a matter of self-defense. Zimmerman told police he killed Martin after the teen attacked him. While the evidence at the time corroborated that claim, the ex-chief said, Lee’s lead investigator made a recommendation that Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter. It was a matter of protocol, Lee said. Arresting Zimmerman based on the evidence at hand would have been a violation of Zimmerman’s Fourth Amendment rights, he said. Thus, the Sanford police presented a “capias request” to the state’s attorney, asking that the prosecutor determine whether it was a “justifiable homicide,” issue a warrant for arrest or present the case to a grand jury.
Our resident BBS lawyer says otherwise; This case will set a legal precedent for future Stand Your Ground cases. When Zimmerman is officially acquitted of all charges, you are now legally allow to punch someone in the face and then shoot them dead if they swing back.
Actually it doesn't. Self defense is an ancient concept. It came to America from the English common law. The race of either party has no bearing on the doctrine. For some reason people seem to think this case is presenting novel concepts or that it has some basis in a recently enacted statute. That is simply not the case. As a matter of law, self defense has been around for thousands of years. As a concept, it is as old as life itself.
I think GZ genuinely killed TM in self-defense. Seems pretty clear. What likely happened is that at some point TM didn't like GZ following him and decided to confront him. Would he have killed GZ? I don't know, but I doubt it. GZ may be guilty of manslaughter, and he is definitely guilty of not listening to the police and intimidating/scaring a young teenage. He should face some sort of penalty. But he is not a murderer.
That's one of the scarier parts about this trial, which almost certainly is going to end with a Zimmerman acquittal at this point. It does set a precedent of possibly being able to legally respond to a couple of punches with a fatal gunshot. Of course, each case is fact specific with multiple variables so it's not really that black and white. Still a dangerous slippery slope. The concept of "proportionality" has long been a backbone of self-defense. You can't respond to a push in the back (minor force) with a gunshot (deadly force) because you have clearly elevated the extent and degree of the confrontation. It seems though that our legal system and society is becoming much more liberal in the application of self-defense. I was shaking my head when I saw analysts on TV lauding Mark O'Mara for his brilliant question to one of the prosecution witnesses along the lines of "How much damage could the next punch have caused?". Punches can inflict damage, of course, but the probability of a punch causing death or severe harm is very, very low. This is where traditionally a self-defense claim that a punch was going to be of lethal/deadly force would be ineffective, but that may not be the case in 2013. IMO, your attacker should have to be armed with a real weapon (gun, knife, etc) for you to respond with fatal force. I think the idea that a fist is a weapon capable of inflicting lethal force is a stretch and a misunderstanding of the principles upon which self-defense is grounded. Otherwise, we are basically sanctioning and endorsing gross overreactions to what would 99% of the time be minor altercations.
