Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (8 Viewers)

[Clifford]

The reasonable doubt applies to whether or not he shot Martin. There is no reasonable doubt that he did. Therefore in order for an acquittal, he has to convince the jury he acted in self-defense. Or, the prosecution must create enough doubt in the jury's mind that his version of the events are true. The crux will likely come down to who was acting in self-defense, and that all comes down to his credibility.

As Schlzm pointed out, it is just as easy to believe that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation by physically shoving or grabbing Martin, in which case Martin would have been acting in self-defense.

Zimmerman lays it on thick about the things that Martin was saying to him, specifically "I'm going to ####### kill you" and "You're going to die tonight mother####er." but none of these things are audible on the 911 call where we can clearly hear someone yelling for help, and this according to Zimmerman occurred when Martin had his hands over Zimm's mouth.

Also, the things he has Martin saying here set off my BS meter in a big way. They're too perfect. It's like lines from a (bad) movie. Especially the "you got me" straight from a spaghetti western, but that is just my opinion.

Now, if I can spend about 1 hour online and come up with this many instances of Zimmerman saying things that either contradict himself or simply don't make sense, imagine what a semi-competent prosecutor can do over the course of a year.

OK, I'm confused about this point- actually I've been confused all along, because people are saying different things:1. If the law says that, in order to acquit, I have to be reasonably convinced that Zimmerman acted in self-defense, then I vote him guilty, because there's no way he can ever prove that, and I think he's a liar.

2. If the law says that, in order to acquit, I only have to believe that he COULD have acted in self-defense, that it's a possibility, no matter how slim, then I have to vote to acquit.

So which is it? You say it's #1. I understood it to be #2.

This point has not been clear to me either. If #2 is true, I would think that anyone who killed anyone in any sort of confrontation would be acquitted. For instance, I start a fight with you, you get the better of me in the fight, and I shoot you, I would have to be acquitted. I'm sure Christo will be along to drop the after this post and not help clarify anything.Maybe since it's murder 2 and not manslaughter, the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove that Zimmerman had intent to kill without premeditation. If it were manslaughter, then the prosecution would not have to prove intent to kill, only that Zimmerman was not acting in self-defense.

The way SYG defines self-defense, all that has to exist is a reasonable belief that his life was in danger.

To me, the way he tells his story, this case will ultimately come down to the 911 audio recording of the shot. I've worked with sound a bit and know enough to know that if Martin were saying these expletives to Zim during the confrontation, they will show on that audio. Might be inaudible to the human ear but you can really zero in on waveforms and see if there was at least some blip that would support Zim's claim about the things Martin was yelling.

What we have no is no audible instance of this on the recording, and the caller only saying that she heard someone crying for help, not noting any threats being issued.

If the prosecution can convince the jury that Zim is not telling the truth on this one count, in one stroke they destroy his credibility and remove some of his reason for believing his life was in danger. There's enough already out there to doubt his character and his story. If they can nail him on that, and if they have audio experts on the stand saying that if someone were yelling the things he says Martin yelled, that it would be there, but it's not, Zim goes down. If they can find something there that corroborates, he's a free man.

 

[kentric]

The reasonable doubt applies to whether or not he shot Martin. There is no reasonable doubt that he did. Therefore in order for an acquittal, he has to convince the jury he acted in self-defense. Or, the prosecution must create enough doubt in the jury's mind that his version of the events are true. The crux will likely come down to who was acting in self-defense, and that all comes down to his credibility.

As Schlzm pointed out, it is just as easy to believe that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation by physically shoving or grabbing Martin, in which case Martin would have been acting in self-defense.

Zimmerman lays it on thick about the things that Martin was saying to him, specifically "I'm going to ####### kill you" and "You're going to die tonight mother####er." but none of these things are audible on the 911 call where we can clearly hear someone yelling for help, and this according to Zimmerman occurred when Martin had his hands over Zimm's mouth.

Also, the things he has Martin saying here set off my BS meter in a big way. They're too perfect. It's like lines from a (bad) movie. Especially the "you got me" straight from a spaghetti western, but that is just my opinion.

Now, if I can spend about 1 hour online and come up with this many instances of Zimmerman saying things that either contradict himself or simply don't make sense, imagine what a semi-competent prosecutor can do over the course of a year.

OK, I'm confused about this point- actually I've been confused all along, because people are saying different things:1. If the law says that, in order to acquit, I have to be reasonably convinced that Zimmerman acted in self-defense, then I vote him guilty, because there's no way he can ever prove that, and I think he's a liar.

2. If the law says that, in order to acquit, I only have to believe that he COULD have acted in self-defense, that it's a possibility, no matter how slim, then I have to vote to acquit.

So which is it? You say it's #1. I understood it to be #2.

This point has not been clear to me either. If #2 is true, I would think that anyone who killed anyone in any sort of confrontation would be acquitted. For instance, I start a fight with you, you get the better of me in the fight, and I shoot you, I would have to be acquitted. I'm sure Christo will be along to drop the after this post and not help clarify anything.Maybe since it's murder 2 and not manslaughter, the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove that Zimmerman had intent to kill without premeditation. If it were manslaughter, then the prosecution would not have to prove intent to kill, only that Zimmerman was not acting in self-defense.

The way SYG defines self-defense, all that has to exist is a reasonable belief that his life was in danger.

To me, the way he tells his story, this case will ultimately come down to the 911 audio recording of the shot. I've worked with sound a bit and know enough to know that if Martin were saying these expletives to Zim during the confrontation, they will show on that audio. Might be inaudible to the human ear but you can really zero in on waveforms and see if there was at least some blip that would support Zim's claim about the things Martin was yelling.

What we have no is no audible instance of this on the recording, and the caller only saying that she heard someone crying for help, not noting any threats being issued.

If the prosecution can convince the jury that Zim is not telling the truth on this one count, in one stroke they destroy his credibility and remove some of his reason for believing his life was in danger. There's enough already out there to doubt his character and his story. If they can nail him on that, and if they have audio experts on the stand saying that if someone were yelling the things he says Martin yelled, that it would be there, but it's not, Zim goes down. If they can find something there that corroborates, he's a free man.

While I also believe Zimmerman embellished on his statements (specifically his claims about Martin telling Z he'd kill him and "you got me"), I don't think discrediting Zimmerman on that aspect of his story would be enough to disprove his claim of self-defence. My position on this is mostly related to the damage done to Zimmerman by Martin and the lack of damage (other than the fatal shot which ended the altercation) to Martin.

 

[jon_mx]

The reasonable doubt applies to whether or not he shot Martin. There is no reasonable doubt that he did. Therefore in order for an acquittal, he has to convince the jury he acted in self-defense. Or, the prosecution must create enough doubt in the jury's mind that his version of the events are true. The crux will likely come down to who was acting in self-defense, and that all comes down to his credibility.

As Schlzm pointed out, it is just as easy to believe that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation by physically shoving or grabbing Martin, in which case Martin would have been acting in self-defense.

Zimmerman lays it on thick about the things that Martin was saying to him, specifically "I'm going to ####### kill you" and "You're going to die tonight mother####er." but none of these things are audible on the 911 call where we can clearly hear someone yelling for help, and this according to Zimmerman occurred when Martin had his hands over Zimm's mouth.

Also, the things he has Martin saying here set off my BS meter in a big way. They're too perfect. It's like lines from a (bad) movie. Especially the "you got me" straight from a spaghetti western, but that is just my opinion.

Now, if I can spend about 1 hour online and come up with this many instances of Zimmerman saying things that either contradict himself or simply don't make sense, imagine what a semi-competent prosecutor can do over the course of a year.

OK, I'm confused about this point- actually I've been confused all along, because people are saying different things:1. If the law says that, in order to acquit, I have to be reasonably convinced that Zimmerman acted in self-defense, then I vote him guilty, because there's no way he can ever prove that, and I think he's a liar.

2. If the law says that, in order to acquit, I only have to believe that he COULD have acted in self-defense, that it's a possibility, no matter how slim, then I have to vote to acquit.

So which is it? You say it's #1. I understood it to be #2.

This point has not been clear to me either. If #2 is true, I would think that anyone who killed anyone in any sort of confrontation would be acquitted. For instance, I start a fight with you, you get the better of me in the fight, and I shoot you, I would have to be acquitted. I'm sure Christo will be along to drop the after this post and not help clarify anything.Maybe since it's murder 2 and not manslaughter, the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove that Zimmerman had intent to kill without premeditation. If it were manslaughter, then the prosecution would not have to prove intent to kill, only that Zimmerman was not acting in self-defense.

The way SYG defines self-defense, all that has to exist is a reasonable belief that his life was in danger.

To me, the way he tells his story, this case will ultimately come down to the 911 audio recording of the shot. I've worked with sound a bit and know enough to know that if Martin were saying these expletives to Zim during the confrontation, they will show on that audio. Might be inaudible to the human ear but you can really zero in on waveforms and see if there was at least some blip that would support Zim's claim about the things Martin was yelling.

What we have no is no audible instance of this on the recording, and the caller only saying that she heard someone crying for help, not noting any threats being issued.

If the prosecution can convince the jury that Zim is not telling the truth on this one count, in one stroke they destroy his credibility and remove some of his reason for believing his life was in danger. There's enough already out there to doubt his character and his story. If they can nail him on that, and if they have audio experts on the stand saying that if someone were yelling the things he says Martin yelled, that it would be there, but it's not, Zim goes down. If they can find something there that corroborates, he's a free man.

There is no way you can make that statement. There are so many factors that have to be accounted for. How far the 911 caller was from the fight. What kind of obstacles there were between the listener and the source. What the weather conditions were (wind and direction, temp, humidity, temperature gradients). How loud Martin was speaking. What kind of background noises were present. Plus there is a huge difference between talking normally (SPL of about 70 dBA) or talking in a loud voice (about 80 dBA) or screaming (which can exceed 110 dBA).

 

[Clifford]

This is what needs to be clarified: at what point, if any, can self-defense switch? If Zimmerman did start the confrontation by grabbing Martin, and Martin responded by attacking Zim in self-defense, and then got the better of Zim, can self-defense switch? We know that at some point in the altercation Martin was on top of Zimmerman. Is there a "tables turned" clause at which point Martin, if he began in self-defense, would have to quit and get off Zimmerman or he forfeits the ability to use this defense?

So much of this SYG law is murky due to it being away from private property, whereby it is easy to tell who the intruder is.

 

[Clifford]

The reasonable doubt applies to whether or not he shot Martin. There is no reasonable doubt that he did. Therefore in order for an acquittal, he has to convince the jury he acted in self-defense. Or, the prosecution must create enough doubt in the jury's mind that his version of the events are true. The crux will likely come down to who was acting in self-defense, and that all comes down to his credibility.

As Schlzm pointed out, it is just as easy to believe that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation by physically shoving or grabbing Martin, in which case Martin would have been acting in self-defense.

Zimmerman lays it on thick about the things that Martin was saying to him, specifically "I'm going to ####### kill you" and "You're going to die tonight mother####er." but none of these things are audible on the 911 call where we can clearly hear someone yelling for help, and this according to Zimmerman occurred when Martin had his hands over Zimm's mouth.

Also, the things he has Martin saying here set off my BS meter in a big way. They're too perfect. It's like lines from a (bad) movie. Especially the "you got me" straight from a spaghetti western, but that is just my opinion.

Now, if I can spend about 1 hour online and come up with this many instances of Zimmerman saying things that either contradict himself or simply don't make sense, imagine what a semi-competent prosecutor can do over the course of a year.

OK, I'm confused about this point- actually I've been confused all along, because people are saying different things:1. If the law says that, in order to acquit, I have to be reasonably convinced that Zimmerman acted in self-defense, then I vote him guilty, because there's no way he can ever prove that, and I think he's a liar.

2. If the law says that, in order to acquit, I only have to believe that he COULD have acted in self-defense, that it's a possibility, no matter how slim, then I have to vote to acquit.

So which is it? You say it's #1. I understood it to be #2.

This point has not been clear to me either. If #2 is true, I would think that anyone who killed anyone in any sort of confrontation would be acquitted. For instance, I start a fight with you, you get the better of me in the fight, and I shoot you, I would have to be acquitted. I'm sure Christo will be along to drop the after this post and not help clarify anything.Maybe since it's murder 2 and not manslaughter, the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove that Zimmerman had intent to kill without premeditation. If it were manslaughter, then the prosecution would not have to prove intent to kill, only that Zimmerman was not acting in self-defense.

The way SYG defines self-defense, all that has to exist is a reasonable belief that his life was in danger.

To me, the way he tells his story, this case will ultimately come down to the 911 audio recording of the shot. I've worked with sound a bit and know enough to know that if Martin were saying these expletives to Zim during the confrontation, they will show on that audio. Might be inaudible to the human ear but you can really zero in on waveforms and see if there was at least some blip that would support Zim's claim about the things Martin was yelling.

What we have no is no audible instance of this on the recording, and the caller only saying that she heard someone crying for help, not noting any threats being issued.

If the prosecution can convince the jury that Zim is not telling the truth on this one count, in one stroke they destroy his credibility and remove some of his reason for believing his life was in danger. There's enough already out there to doubt his character and his story. If they can nail him on that, and if they have audio experts on the stand saying that if someone were yelling the things he says Martin yelled, that it would be there, but it's not, Zim goes down. If they can find something there that corroborates, he's a free man.

There is no way you can make that statement. There are so many factors that have to be accounted for. How far the 911 caller was from the fight. What kind of obstacles there were between the listener and the source. What the weather conditions were (wind and direction, temp, humidity, temperature gradients). How loud Martin was speaking. What kind of background noises were present. Plus there is a huge difference between talking normally (SPL of about 70 dBA) or talking in a loud voice (about 80 dBA) or screaming (which can exceed 110 dBA).

Again, we are asked to believe something highly improbable by Zimmerman. We are asked to believe that him calling for help through someone's hand over his mouth was audible, but Martin's enraged threats were spoken at a much lower volume so that they would not register at all, under the exact same conditions (the factors you list would apply equally to both). The jury is being asked to believe that Martin, while trying to suffocate Zimmerman, was issuing these threats at the loudest in a normal spoken voice or at a lower volume.We are also being asked to believe that the woman on the call who heard the cries for help did not hear these threats or did not mention them to the police on her call. Most likely she will be a witness for the prosecution.

Do you find what you are being asked to believe by Zimmerman believable?

 

[jon_mx]

The reasonable doubt applies to whether or not he shot Martin. There is no reasonable doubt that he did. Therefore in order for an acquittal, he has to convince the jury he acted in self-defense. Or, the prosecution must create enough doubt in the jury's mind that his version of the events are true. The crux will likely come down to who was acting in self-defense, and that all comes down to his credibility.

As Schlzm pointed out, it is just as easy to believe that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation by physically shoving or grabbing Martin, in which case Martin would have been acting in self-defense.

Zimmerman lays it on thick about the things that Martin was saying to him, specifically "I'm going to ####### kill you" and "You're going to die tonight mother####er." but none of these things are audible on the 911 call where we can clearly hear someone yelling for help, and this according to Zimmerman occurred when Martin had his hands over Zimm's mouth.

Also, the things he has Martin saying here set off my BS meter in a big way. They're too perfect. It's like lines from a (bad) movie. Especially the "you got me" straight from a spaghetti western, but that is just my opinion.

Now, if I can spend about 1 hour online and come up with this many instances of Zimmerman saying things that either contradict himself or simply don't make sense, imagine what a semi-competent prosecutor can do over the course of a year.

OK, I'm confused about this point- actually I've been confused all along, because people are saying different things:1. If the law says that, in order to acquit, I have to be reasonably convinced that Zimmerman acted in self-defense, then I vote him guilty, because there's no way he can ever prove that, and I think he's a liar.

2. If the law says that, in order to acquit, I only have to believe that he COULD have acted in self-defense, that it's a possibility, no matter how slim, then I have to vote to acquit.

So which is it? You say it's #1. I understood it to be #2.

This point has not been clear to me either. If #2 is true, I would think that anyone who killed anyone in any sort of confrontation would be acquitted. For instance, I start a fight with you, you get the better of me in the fight, and I shoot you, I would have to be acquitted. I'm sure Christo will be along to drop the after this post and not help clarify anything.Maybe since it's murder 2 and not manslaughter, the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove that Zimmerman had intent to kill without premeditation. If it were manslaughter, then the prosecution would not have to prove intent to kill, only that Zimmerman was not acting in self-defense.

The way SYG defines self-defense, all that has to exist is a reasonable belief that his life was in danger.

To me, the way he tells his story, this case will ultimately come down to the 911 audio recording of the shot. I've worked with sound a bit and know enough to know that if Martin were saying these expletives to Zim during the confrontation, they will show on that audio. Might be inaudible to the human ear but you can really zero in on waveforms and see if there was at least some blip that would support Zim's claim about the things Martin was yelling.

What we have no is no audible instance of this on the recording, and the caller only saying that she heard someone crying for help, not noting any threats being issued.

If the prosecution can convince the jury that Zim is not telling the truth on this one count, in one stroke they destroy his credibility and remove some of his reason for believing his life was in danger. There's enough already out there to doubt his character and his story. If they can nail him on that, and if they have audio experts on the stand saying that if someone were yelling the things he says Martin yelled, that it would be there, but it's not, Zim goes down. If they can find something there that corroborates, he's a free man.

There is no way you can make that statement. There are so many factors that have to be accounted for. How far the 911 caller was from the fight. What kind of obstacles there were between the listener and the source. What the weather conditions were (wind and direction, temp, humidity, temperature gradients). How loud Martin was speaking. What kind of background noises were present. Plus there is a huge difference between talking normally (SPL of about 70 dBA) or talking in a loud voice (about 80 dBA) or screaming (which can exceed 110 dBA).

Again, we are asked to believe something highly improbable by Zimmerman. We are asked to believe that him calling for help through someone's hand over his mouth was audible, but Martin's enraged threats were spoken at a much lower volume so that they would not register at all, under the exact same conditions (the factors you list would apply equally to both). The jury is being asked to believe that Martin, while trying to suffocate Zimmerman, was issuing these threats at the loudest in a normal spoken voice or at a lower volume.We are also being asked to believe that the woman on the call who heard the cries for help did not hear these threats or did not mention them to the police on her call. Most likely she will be a witness for the prosecution.

Do you find what you are being asked to believe by Zimmerman believable?

I don't even think Zimmerman knows the exact truth anymore. He embellished his story and now it is being scrutinized, he is changing it. I don't know why Martin would even worry about covering up Zimmerman's mouth while he was beating him up. And even if Martin was trying, he could not muffle Zimmerman at all times. Some loud screams would escape unmuffled during a struggle. I think we all have embellished stories to make us look better, but that does not make someone a killer.

 

[Clifford]

No, killing someone makes someone a killer.

 

[jon_mx]

No, killing someone makes someone a killer.

You are correct. The question is of course whether it was murder.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Wasn't it raining? I doubt the audio background noise plays any part in the trial. When is the trial to put put this to bed?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Wasn't it raining? I doubt the audio background noise plays any part in the trial. When is the trial to put put this to bed?

June?

 

[BustedKnuckles]

The reasonable doubt applies to whether or not he shot Martin. There is no reasonable doubt that he did. Therefore in order for an acquittal, he has to convince the jury he acted in self-defense. Or, the prosecution must create enough doubt in the jury's mind that his version of the events are true. The crux will likely come down to who was acting in self-defense, and that all comes down to his credibility.

As Schlzm pointed out, it is just as easy to believe that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation by physically shoving or grabbing Martin, in which case Martin would have been acting in self-defense.

Zimmerman lays it on thick about the things that Martin was saying to him, specifically "I'm going to ####### kill you" and "You're going to die tonight mother####er." but none of these things are audible on the 911 call where we can clearly hear someone yelling for help, and this according to Zimmerman occurred when Martin had his hands over Zimm's mouth.

Also, the things he has Martin saying here set off my BS meter in a big way. They're too perfect. It's like lines from a (bad) movie. Especially the "you got me" straight from a spaghetti western, but that is just my opinion.

Now, if I can spend about 1 hour online and come up with this many instances of Zimmerman saying things that either contradict himself or simply don't make sense, imagine what a semi-competent prosecutor can do over the course of a year.

OK, I'm confused about this point- actually I've been confused all along, because people are saying different things:1. If the law says that, in order to acquit, I have to be reasonably convinced that Zimmerman acted in self-defense, then I vote him guilty, because there's no way he can ever prove that, and I think he's a liar.

2. If the law says that, in order to acquit, I only have to believe that he COULD have acted in self-defense, that it's a possibility, no matter how slim, then I have to vote to acquit.

So which is it? You say it's #1. I understood it to be #2.

This point has not been clear to me either. If #2 is true, I would think that anyone who killed anyone in any sort of confrontation would be acquitted. For instance, I start a fight with you, you get the better of me in the fight, and I shoot you, I would have to be acquitted. I'm sure Christo will be along to drop the after this post and not help clarify anything.Maybe since it's murder 2 and not manslaughter, the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove that Zimmerman had intent to kill without premeditation. If it were manslaughter, then the prosecution would not have to prove intent to kill, only that Zimmerman was not acting in self-defense.

The way SYG defines self-defense, all that has to exist is a reasonable belief that his life was in danger.

To me, the way he tells his story, this case will ultimately come down to the 911 audio recording of the shot. I've worked with sound a bit and know enough to know that if Martin were saying these expletives to Zim during the confrontation, they will show on that audio. Might be inaudible to the human ear but you can really zero in on waveforms and see if there was at least some blip that would support Zim's claim about the things Martin was yelling.

What we have no is no audible instance of this on the recording, and the caller only saying that she heard someone crying for help, not noting any threats being issued.

If the prosecution can convince the jury that Zim is not telling the truth on this one count, in one stroke they destroy his credibility and remove some of his reason for believing his life was in danger. There's enough already out there to doubt his character and his story. If they can nail him on that, and if they have audio experts on the stand saying that if someone were yelling the things he says Martin yelled, that it would be there, but it's not, Zim goes down. If they can find something there that corroborates, he's a free man.

There is no way you can make that statement. There are so many factors that have to be accounted for. How far the 911 caller was from the fight. What kind of obstacles there were between the listener and the source. What the weather conditions were (wind and direction, temp, humidity, temperature gradients). How loud Martin was speaking. What kind of background noises were present. Plus there is a huge difference between talking normally (SPL of about 70 dBA) or talking in a loud voice (about 80 dBA) or screaming (which can exceed 110 dBA).

Again, we are asked to believe something highly improbable by Zimmerman. We are asked to believe that him calling for help through someone's hand over his mouth was audible, but Martin's enraged threats were spoken at a much lower volume so that they would not register at all, under the exact same conditions (the factors you list would apply equally to both). The jury is being asked to believe that Martin, while trying to suffocate Zimmerman, was issuing these threats at the loudest in a normal spoken voice or at a lower volume.We are also being asked to believe that the woman on the call who heard the cries for help did not hear these threats or did not mention them to the police on her call. Most likely she will be a witness for the prosecution.

Do you find what you are being asked to believe by Zimmerman believable?

This whole situation would have been much simpler if zimmy had just told the truth from the very beginning,instead he panicked and lied ,twisted ,distorted and embellished what really happened. If he really was acting in self defense he screwed himself by telling his version of events like he did.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Anything new here?

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Anything new here?

January 8, 2013|By Jeff Weiner and Rene Stutzman, Orlando SentinelReport: Sanford cops initially wanted Zimmerman charged with 2nd-degree murder

They downgraded that to manslaughter.

The Orlando Sentinel reported those changes Dec. 12 when Special Prosecutor Angela Corey made public a list of evidence that she had just released to O'Mara. It included only a few sentences but made clear there was an initial draft plus four revisions.

O'Mara on Tuesday released each version. Corey's office is expected to release them in the next few days.

They reveal that Serino and his supervisors, made several changes but only two major ones.

The first was the change in the charges.

The second was a strongly-worded paragraph condemning Zimmerman's actions, pointing out that there was no need for a confrontation with Trayvon.



"The encounter between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin was ultimately avoidable by Zimmerman if Zimmerman had remained in his vehicle and awaited the arrival of law enforcement or conversely if he had identified himself to Martin as a concerned citizen and initiated dialog (sic) in an effort to dispel each party's concern. There is no indication that Trayvon Martin was involved in any criminal activity at the time of the encounter."

In that same new paragraph, added in the third of the five drafts released Tuesday and left in each version thereafter, Serino and his bosses faulted Zimmerman for assuming that Trayvon was about to break into a home.

"Zimmerman … made it clear that he had already reached a faulty conclusion as to Martin's purpose for being in the neighborhood," the revised report says.

Ultimately, the revisions made no difference. A special prosecutor took over the case and had 29-year-old Zimmerman arrested on a charge of second-degree murder.

 

[Joe Summer]

link

VANCOUVER -- A Vancouver man was arrested after a suspected prowler was shot and killed early Tuesday morning, and prosecutors say a witness saw the man shoot the suspect four times as he tried to leave the area.Sean Doucette, 27, (pictured, left) was arrested on second-degree murder charges in connection with the shooting. He appeared in court Wednesday morning and his bail was set at $250,000, with the condition that he is not allowed to have firearms in his home or in his possession.The incident began around 4 a.m. Tuesday, when dispatchers said they got a 911 call about a prowler near Northeast 33rd Street and 148th Place."Minutes later, another call came into dispatch reporting that the prowler had been shot," said Kim Kapp with the Vancouver Police Department.Officers arrived to find 19-year-old Iosif Dumitrash (pictured, right) dead in the street. The medical examiner's office said the cause of death is gunshot wound and the manner of death is homicide.Court documents show that Doucette's wife called 911 to report that her husband had shot a man after a physical altercation between the two.A defense attorney said Doucette was returning home from work when he heard a car alarm in the neighborhood. He then told his wife to call 911 and report a crime in progress, while he went to stop the crime. The defense also said Dumitrash attacked Doucette and that Doucette was defending himself, fearing for his safety.In a probable cause statement, a witness said the men started fighting and fell to the ground. As the fight stopped and Dumitrash started to walk away, Doucette shot him, according to the witness.Doucette’s arraignment was scheduled for February 12

 

[LarryAllen'sJockstrap]

link

VANCOUVER -- A Vancouver man was arrested after a suspected prowler was shot and killed early Tuesday morning, and prosecutors say a witness saw the man shoot the suspect four times as he tried to leave the area.

Sean Doucette, 27, (pictured, left) was arrested on second-degree murder charges in connection with the shooting. He appeared in court Wednesday morning and his bail was set at $250,000, with the condition that he is not allowed to have firearms in his home or in his possession.

The incident began around 4 a.m. Tuesday, when dispatchers said they got a 911 call about a prowler near Northeast 33rd Street and 148th Place.

"Minutes later, another call came into dispatch reporting that the prowler had been shot," said Kim Kapp with the Vancouver Police Department.

Officers arrived to find 19-year-old Iosif Dumitrash (pictured, right) dead in the street. The medical examiner's office said the cause of death is gunshot wound and the manner of death is homicide.

Court documents show that Doucette's wife called 911 to report that her husband had shot a man after a physical altercation between the two.

A defense attorney said Doucette was returning home from work when he heard a car alarm in the neighborhood. He then told his wife to call 911 and report a crime in progress, while he went to stop the crime. The defense also said Dumitrash attacked Doucette and that Doucette was defending himself, fearing for his safety.

In a probable cause statement, a witness said the men started fighting and fell to the ground. As the fight stopped and Dumitrash started to walk away, Doucette shot him, according to the witness.

Doucette’s arraignment was scheduled for February 12

I had to actually go check the article to make sure you didn't slip that name in there on us. I thought I had a hard time growing up with my last name.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Trayvon Martin would have celebrated his 18th birthday Tuesday feb 5th.It's the first of two difficult dates for the teenager's parents in February. The second comes Feb. 26, the one-year anniversary of Trayvon's fatal encounter with George Zimmerman, which sparked outcry across the globe.The teen's birthday coincides with the latest hearing in the second-degree murder case against Zimmerman. Attorneys for the state and defense will be at the Seminole County Courthouse Tuesday morning.The first of those events, announced by the Justice for Trayvon Martin Foundation, will take place before Tuesday's hearing. Community leaders and college students will say a prayer for the teen's family and sing "Happy Birthday" in front of the Seminole County Courthouse at 8:30 a.m, Crump said.The George Zimmerman hearing on Tuesday will be carried live on Central Florida News 13.The hearing is set to start at 9 a.m. Orlando attorney Mark NeJame will be in the News 13 studio to provide analysis.

 

[jon_mx]

Trayvon Martin would have celebrated his 18th birthday Tuesday feb 5th.It's the first of two difficult dates for the teenager's parents in February. The second comes Feb. 26, the one-year anniversary of Trayvon's fatal encounter with George Zimmerman, which sparked outcry across the globe.The teen's birthday coincides with the latest hearing in the second-degree murder case against Zimmerman. Attorneys for the state and defense will be at the Seminole County Courthouse Tuesday morning.The first of those events, announced by the Justice for Trayvon Martin Foundation, will take place before Tuesday's hearing. Community leaders and college students will say a prayer for the teen's family and sing "Happy Birthday" in front of the Seminole County Courthouse at 8:30 a.m, Crump said.The George Zimmerman hearing on Tuesday will be carried live on Central Florida News 13.The hearing is set to start at 9 a.m. Orlando attorney Mark NeJame will be in the News 13 studio to provide analysis.

Are you seriously this emotionally involved in this case?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

link

VANCOUVER -- A Vancouver man was arrested after a suspected prowler was shot and killed early Tuesday morning, and prosecutors say a witness saw the man shoot the suspect four times as he tried to leave the area.Sean Doucette, 27, (pictured, left) was arrested on second-degree murder charges in connection with the shooting. He appeared in court Wednesday morning and his bail was set at $250,000, with the condition that he is not allowed to have firearms in his home or in his possession.The incident began around 4 a.m. Tuesday, when dispatchers said they got a 911 call about a prowler near Northeast 33rd Street and 148th Place."Minutes later, another call came into dispatch reporting that the prowler had been shot," said Kim Kapp with the Vancouver Police Department.Officers arrived to find 19-year-old Iosif Dumitrash (pictured, right) dead in the street. The medical examiner's office said the cause of death is gunshot wound and the manner of death is homicide.Court documents show that Doucette's wife called 911 to report that her husband had shot a man after a physical altercation between the two.A defense attorney said Doucette was returning home from work when he heard a car alarm in the neighborhood. He then told his wife to call 911 and report a crime in progress, while he went to stop the crime. The defense also said Dumitrash attacked Doucette and that Doucette was defending himself, fearing for his safety.In a probable cause statement, a witness said the men started fighting and fell to the ground. As the fight stopped and Dumitrash started to walk away, Doucette shot him, according to the witness.Doucette’s arraignment was scheduled for February 12

The guy was walking away and he still shot him? If that's true, this guy is "toast"

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Trayvon Martin would have celebrated his 18th birthday Tuesday feb 5th.It's the first of two difficult dates for the teenager's parents in February. The second comes Feb. 26, the one-year anniversary of Trayvon's fatal encounter with George Zimmerman, which sparked outcry across the globe.The teen's birthday coincides with the latest hearing in the second-degree murder case against Zimmerman. Attorneys for the state and defense will be at the Seminole County Courthouse Tuesday morning.The first of those events, announced by the Justice for Trayvon Martin Foundation, will take place before Tuesday's hearing. Community leaders and college students will say a prayer for the teen's family and sing "Happy Birthday" in front of the Seminole County Courthouse at 8:30 a.m, Crump said.The George Zimmerman hearing on Tuesday will be carried live on Central Florida News 13.The hearing is set to start at 9 a.m. Orlando attorney Mark NeJame will be in the News 13 studio to provide analysis.

Are you seriously this emotionally involved in this case?

????? just giving an update ...does that bother you?

 

[cstu]

Community leaders and college students will say a prayer for the teen's family and sing "Happy Birthday" in front of the Seminole County Courthouse at 8:30 a.m, Crump said.

Anyone else find this tasteless?

 

[3C's]

Community leaders and college students will say a prayer for the teen's family and sing "Happy Birthday" in front of the Seminole County Courthouse at 8:30 a.m, Crump said.

Anyone else find this tasteless?

No?

tasteless?

 

[jon_mx]

Trayvon Martin would have celebrated his 18th birthday Tuesday feb 5th.It's the first of two difficult dates for the teenager's parents in February. The second comes Feb. 26, the one-year anniversary of Trayvon's fatal encounter with George Zimmerman, which sparked outcry across the globe.The teen's birthday coincides with the latest hearing in the second-degree murder case against Zimmerman. Attorneys for the state and defense will be at the Seminole County Courthouse Tuesday morning.The first of those events, announced by the Justice for Trayvon Martin Foundation, will take place before Tuesday's hearing. Community leaders and college students will say a prayer for the teen's family and sing "Happy Birthday" in front of the Seminole County Courthouse at 8:30 a.m, Crump said.The George Zimmerman hearing on Tuesday will be carried live on Central Florida News 13.The hearing is set to start at 9 a.m. Orlando attorney Mark NeJame will be in the News 13 studio to provide analysis.

Are you seriously this emotionally involved in this case?

????? just giving an update ...does that bother you?

No, but It sounded like it was written by a teenage girl. You should source stuff you cut and paste.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Trayvon Martin would have celebrated his 18th birthday Tuesday feb 5th.It's the first of two difficult dates for the teenager's parents in February. The second comes Feb. 26, the one-year anniversary of Trayvon's fatal encounter with George Zimmerman, which sparked outcry across the globe.The teen's birthday coincides with the latest hearing in the second-degree murder case against Zimmerman. Attorneys for the state and defense will be at the Seminole County Courthouse Tuesday morning.The first of those events, announced by the Justice for Trayvon Martin Foundation, will take place before Tuesday's hearing. Community leaders and college students will say a prayer for the teen's family and sing "Happy Birthday" in front of the Seminole County Courthouse at 8:30 a.m, Crump said.The George Zimmerman hearing on Tuesday will be carried live on Central Florida News 13.The hearing is set to start at 9 a.m. Orlando attorney Mark NeJame will be in the News 13 studio to provide analysis.

Are you seriously this emotionally involved in this case?

????? just giving an update ...does that bother you?

No, but It sounded like it was written by a teenage girl. You should source stuff you cut and paste.

dont you mean it ''read like'' it was typed by a teenage girl

 

[NajehHejan]

One year tomorrow. RIP Trayvon.

 

[T Bell]

My buddies and I are going to do a Trayvon reenactment tomorrow. I'm playing Trayvon, so I'm acting all sullen and impudent to get into character. Hoodie naturally. We have a musical number put together for the Zimmerman confrontation. A white boy's playing Trayvon's mom. It'll be like Shakespeare.

 

[pittstownkiller]

My buddies and I are going to do a Trayvon reenactment tomorrow. I'm playing Trayvon, so I'm acting all sullen and impudent to get into character. Hoodie naturally. We have a musical number put together for the Zimmerman confrontation. A white boy's playing Trayvon's mom. It'll be like Shakespeare.

Well this one is more tasteless than the "happy birthday" ritual in front of the courthouse.

 

[T Bell]

My buddies and I are going to do a Trayvon reenactment tomorrow. I'm playing Trayvon, so I'm acting all sullen and impudent to get into character. Hoodie naturally. We have a musical number put together for the Zimmerman confrontation. A white boy's playing Trayvon's mom. It'll be like Shakespeare.

Well this one is more tasteless than the "happy birthday" ritual in front of the courthouse.

It's being done as tastefully as possible. My GB Carl is playing Zimmerman, and we have him stalking around shooting his rubber band gun at childrens toys. He doesn't come off well at all.

 

[kentric]

My buddies and I are going to do a Trayvon reenactment tomorrow. I'm playing Trayvon, so I'm acting all sullen and impudent to get into character. Hoodie naturally. We have a musical number put together for the Zimmerman confrontation. A white boy's playing Trayvon's mom. It'll be like Shakespeare.

Well this one is more tasteless than the "happy birthday" ritual in front of the courthouse.

It's being done as tastefully as possible. My GB Carl is playing Zimmerman, and we have him stalking around shooting his rubber band gun at childrens toys. He doesn't come off well at all.

Please post youtube link when finished. FYI - From what I hear, Carl kills it.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

George Zimmerman to Skip 'Stand Your Ground Hearing' That Could End Case

George Zimmerman's attorneys stunned court observers today by deciding to skip a "Stand Your Ground" hearing slated for April that might have led to a dismissal of the charges in the shooting death of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin.

Under Florida's Stand Your Ground law, Zimmerman is entitled to immunity and if he can prove he shot and killed Martin Feb. 26, 2012 self defense. If self defense was determined, all criminal proceedings would have immediately stopped, and Zimmerman would have walked free.

But Zimmerman's legal team also risked the possibility that the judge would reject the motion and the hearing would give prosecutors an opportunity to pick apart Zimmerman's testimony.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Saw that earlier. Said they reserved the right to have an SYG hearing later.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Makes sense, why tip your hand when you don't need to.

One argument goes that Zimmerman's ultimate claim may not be "stand your ground" at all, since he technically was on the ground and unable to retreat any further at the moment he shot Trayvon. In that scenario, he could claim self-defense under pre-"stand your ground" laws.

A more likely scenario, says University of Florida law professor Bob Dekle, is that Mr. O'Mara doesn't want to go through a bench mini-trial and possibly tip off the prosecution about its strategy should the "stand your ground" plea fail.

"If you're not 100 percent sure you're going to win the 'stand your ground' hearing, you just end up telling the state what your defense is and you've got nothing with which to surprise the state at trial," says Professor Dekle. "What you want to do at trial is catch the state with their britches down."

Several new developments suggest that Zimmerman's defense attorneys are having some success finding information that could raise doubts among jurors about the state's version of events. For one, the defense has been digging furiously, with the judge's permission, into Trayvon's social media history, which may present a more complex, edgier picture of the youth.

Also on Tuesday, a key witness for the prosecution was caught in a second apparent lie amid probing by the defense. A woman who says she was on the phone with Trayvon as Zimmerman pursued him originally gave her age as 16, though she was really 18. And she also said she missed Trayvon's funeral because of a hospital stay, which wasn't true.

Prosecutors were put in the awkward position of having to explain that situation as reporters asked questions about whether they would charge the woman with perjury, as prosecutors did Zimmerman's wife, Shellie Zimmerman, after she allegedly lied about the couple's finances during a bond hearing last year.

I wonder what the law states about digging up deleted Facebook/Twitter/MySpace profiles to submit as evidence.

 

[Joe Summer]

Makes sense, why tip your hat when you don't need to.

Well, that just seems unnecessarily rude.

 

[jon_mx]

Makes sense, why tip your hat when you don't need to.

Well, that just seems unnecessarily rude.

Exactly.

 

[squistion]

Makes sense, why tip your hat when you don't need to.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Stand Your Ground and Self-Defense are two different things. They still will be asserting Self-Defense at trial regardless of whether what happens at any Stand Your Ground hearing (if there is one).

 

[Christo]

Makes sense, why tip your hand when you don't need to.

One argument goes that Zimmerman's ultimate claim may not be "stand your ground" at all, since he technically was on the ground and unable to retreat any further at the moment he shot Trayvon. In that scenario, he could claim self-defense under pre-"stand your ground" laws.

A more likely scenario, says University of Florida law professor Bob Dekle, is that Mr. O'Mara doesn't want to go through a bench mini-trial and possibly tip off the prosecution about its strategy should the "stand your ground" plea fail.

"If you're not 100 percent sure you're going to win the 'stand your ground' hearing, you just end up telling the state what your defense is and you've got nothing with which to surprise the state at trial," says Professor Dekle. "What you want to do at trial is catch the state with their britches down."

Several new developments suggest that Zimmerman's defense attorneys are having some success finding information that could raise doubts among jurors about the state's version of events. For one, the defense has been digging furiously, with the judge's permission, into Trayvon's social media history, which may present a more complex, edgier picture of the youth.

Also on Tuesday, a key witness for the prosecution was caught in a second apparent lie amid probing by the defense. A woman who says she was on the phone with Trayvon as Zimmerman pursued him originally gave her age as 16, though she was really 18. And she also said she missed Trayvon's funeral because of a hospital stay, which wasn't true.

Prosecutors were put in the awkward position of having to explain that situation as reporters asked questions about whether they would charge the woman with perjury, as prosecutors did Zimmerman's wife, Shellie Zimmerman, after she allegedly lied about the couple's finances during a bond hearing last year.

I wonder what the law states about digging up deleted Facebook/Twitter/MySpace profiles to submit as evidence.

If it's relevant and they can lay the proper foundation it's admissible.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Makes sense, why tip your hand when you don't need to.

One argument goes that Zimmerman's ultimate claim may not be "stand your ground" at all, since he technically was on the ground and unable to retreat any further at the moment he shot Trayvon. In that scenario, he could claim self-defense under pre-"stand your ground" laws.

A more likely scenario, says University of Florida law professor Bob Dekle, is that Mr. O'Mara doesn't want to go through a bench mini-trial and possibly tip off the prosecution about its strategy should the "stand your ground" plea fail.

"If you're not 100 percent sure you're going to win the 'stand your ground' hearing, you just end up telling the state what your defense is and you've got nothing with which to surprise the state at trial," says Professor Dekle. "What you want to do at trial is catch the state with their britches down."

Several new developments suggest that Zimmerman's defense attorneys are having some success finding information that could raise doubts among jurors about the state's version of events. For one, the defense has been digging furiously, with the judge's permission, into Trayvon's social media history, which may present a more complex, edgier picture of the youth.

Also on Tuesday, a key witness for the prosecution was caught in a second apparent lie amid probing by the defense. A woman who says she was on the phone with Trayvon as Zimmerman pursued him originally gave her age as 16, though she was really 18. And she also said she missed Trayvon's funeral because of a hospital stay, which wasn't true.

Prosecutors were put in the awkward position of having to explain that situation as reporters asked questions about whether they would charge the woman with perjury, as prosecutors did Zimmerman's wife, Shellie Zimmerman, after she allegedly lied about the couple's finances during a bond hearing last year.

I wonder what the law states about digging up deleted Facebook/Twitter/MySpace profiles to submit as evidence.

If it's relevant and they can lay the proper foundation it's admissible.

how could his face book page be relevant to a case where he was shot to death while unarmed?

 

[Novice2]

Makes sense, why tip your hand when you don't need to.

One argument goes that Zimmerman's ultimate claim may not be "stand your ground" at all, since he technically was on the ground and unable to retreat any further at the moment he shot Trayvon. In that scenario, he could claim self-defense under pre-"stand your ground" laws.

A more likely scenario, says University of Florida law professor Bob Dekle, is that Mr. O'Mara doesn't want to go through a bench mini-trial and possibly tip off the prosecution about its strategy should the "stand your ground" plea fail.

"If you're not 100 percent sure you're going to win the 'stand your ground' hearing, you just end up telling the state what your defense is and you've got nothing with which to surprise the state at trial," says Professor Dekle. "What you want to do at trial is catch the state with their britches down."

Several new developments suggest that Zimmerman's defense attorneys are having some success finding information that could raise doubts among jurors about the state's version of events. For one, the defense has been digging furiously, with the judge's permission, into Trayvon's social media history, which may present a more complex, edgier picture of the youth.

Also on Tuesday, a key witness for the prosecution was caught in a second apparent lie amid probing by the defense. A woman who says she was on the phone with Trayvon as Zimmerman pursued him originally gave her age as 16, though she was really 18. And she also said she missed Trayvon's funeral because of a hospital stay, which wasn't true.

Prosecutors were put in the awkward position of having to explain that situation as reporters asked questions about whether they would charge the woman with perjury, as prosecutors did Zimmerman's wife, Shellie Zimmerman, after she allegedly lied about the couple's finances during a bond hearing last year.

I wonder what the law states about digging up deleted Facebook/Twitter/MySpace profiles to submit as evidence.

If it's relevant and they can lay the proper foundation it's admissible.

how could his face book page be relevant to a case where he was shot to death while unarmed?

Was he shot to death walking home with skittles in his and or shot to death getting pissed at the nosey neighbor tailing him then confronting him then punching him then getting shot to death with skittles in his hand? Yeah rightly or wrongly a persons attitude dress and history of reaction to events will be used for them or against them in the court of law.

 

[Toad_1234]

Yep. A drug-dealing thug thief casing houses without an ID in an area that had a rash of break-ins doesn't look too good. This case if going to be a mass smear campaign on both sides. I'll be very curious to see what the racial breakdown of the jury will be.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Makes sense, why tip your hand when you don't need to.

One argument goes that Zimmerman's ultimate claim may not be "stand your ground" at all, since he technically was on the ground and unable to retreat any further at the moment he shot Trayvon. In that scenario, he could claim self-defense under pre-"stand your ground" laws.

A more likely scenario, says University of Florida law professor Bob Dekle, is that Mr. O'Mara doesn't want to go through a bench mini-trial and possibly tip off the prosecution about its strategy should the "stand your ground" plea fail.

"If you're not 100 percent sure you're going to win the 'stand your ground' hearing, you just end up telling the state what your defense is and you've got nothing with which to surprise the state at trial," says Professor Dekle. "What you want to do at trial is catch the state with their britches down."

Several new developments suggest that Zimmerman's defense attorneys are having some success finding information that could raise doubts among jurors about the state's version of events. For one, the defense has been digging furiously, with the judge's permission, into Trayvon's social media history, which may present a more complex, edgier picture of the youth.

Also on Tuesday, a key witness for the prosecution was caught in a second apparent lie amid probing by the defense. A woman who says she was on the phone with Trayvon as Zimmerman pursued him originally gave her age as 16, though she was really 18. And she also said she missed Trayvon's funeral because of a hospital stay, which wasn't true.

Prosecutors were put in the awkward position of having to explain that situation as reporters asked questions about whether they would charge the woman with perjury, as prosecutors did Zimmerman's wife, Shellie Zimmerman, after she allegedly lied about the couple's finances during a bond hearing last year.

I wonder what the law states about digging up deleted Facebook/Twitter/MySpace profiles to submit as evidence.

If it's relevant and they can lay the proper foundation it's admissible.

how could his face book page be relevant to a case where he was shot to death while unarmed?

Was he shot to death walking home with skittles in his and or shot to death getting pissed at the nosey neighbor tailing him then confronting him then punching him then getting shot to death with skittles in his hand? Yeah rightly or wrongly a persons attitude dress and history of reaction to events will be used for them or against them in the court of law.

Unless Treyvon posted on face book before he went out that night,and he posted that he was going out to case houses and if anyone messes with him he would try to beat them to death with his bare hands ,i cant see how face book is relevant to his death.

 

[jon_mx]

Makes sense, why tip your hand when you don't need to.

One argument goes that Zimmerman's ultimate claim may not be "stand your ground" at all, since he technically was on the ground and unable to retreat any further at the moment he shot Trayvon. In that scenario, he could claim self-defense under pre-"stand your ground" laws.

A more likely scenario, says University of Florida law professor Bob Dekle, is that Mr. O'Mara doesn't want to go through a bench mini-trial and possibly tip off the prosecution about its strategy should the "stand your ground" plea fail.

"If you're not 100 percent sure you're going to win the 'stand your ground' hearing, you just end up telling the state what your defense is and you've got nothing with which to surprise the state at trial," says Professor Dekle. "What you want to do at trial is catch the state with their britches down."

Several new developments suggest that Zimmerman's defense attorneys are having some success finding information that could raise doubts among jurors about the state's version of events. For one, the defense has been digging furiously, with the judge's permission, into Trayvon's social media history, which may present a more complex, edgier picture of the youth.

Also on Tuesday, a key witness for the prosecution was caught in a second apparent lie amid probing by the defense. A woman who says she was on the phone with Trayvon as Zimmerman pursued him originally gave her age as 16, though she was really 18. And she also said she missed Trayvon's funeral because of a hospital stay, which wasn't true.

Prosecutors were put in the awkward position of having to explain that situation as reporters asked questions about whether they would charge the woman with perjury, as prosecutors did Zimmerman's wife, Shellie Zimmerman, after she allegedly lied about the couple's finances during a bond hearing last year.

I wonder what the law states about digging up deleted Facebook/Twitter/MySpace profiles to submit as evidence.

If it's relevant and they can lay the proper foundation it's admissible.

how could his face book page be relevant to a case where he was shot to death while unarmed?

The jury will be given sketchy and seemingly conflicting evidence on how the fight was started and what happened during the fight, and they will have to determine if they believe it was self-defense or murder. If it can be established that Martin was an aggressive individual who regularly was in fights and had some skills which could be life-threatening to someone, how could it not be relevant? There are no smoking guns per se which is going to establish what really happened in the fight. It is going to come down to the judgement of the jury. Zimmerman will have to show by proponderance of evidence that it was self-defense. In my opinion, it is a slam dunk that the defense will use the stand your ground defense. It may come down to whether the judge believes that Zimmerman tracked down Martin and initiated the fight, or if Martin initiated it. I think Martin could have easily gotten away if that was his intention. But the judge could see if the other way, or may opt in his mind to just punt it to the jury. But the defense would be negligent if they did not assert stand your ground.

 

[squistion]

Makes sense, why tip your hand when you don't need to.

One argument goes that Zimmerman's ultimate claim may not be "stand your ground" at all, since he technically was on the ground and unable to retreat any further at the moment he shot Trayvon. In that scenario, he could claim self-defense under pre-"stand your ground" laws.

A more likely scenario, says University of Florida law professor Bob Dekle, is that Mr. O'Mara doesn't want to go through a bench mini-trial and possibly tip off the prosecution about its strategy should the "stand your ground" plea fail.

"If you're not 100 percent sure you're going to win the 'stand your ground' hearing, you just end up telling the state what your defense is and you've got nothing with which to surprise the state at trial," says Professor Dekle. "What you want to do at trial is catch the state with their britches down."

Several new developments suggest that Zimmerman's defense attorneys are having some success finding information that could raise doubts among jurors about the state's version of events. For one, the defense has been digging furiously, with the judge's permission, into Trayvon's social media history, which may present a more complex, edgier picture of the youth.

Also on Tuesday, a key witness for the prosecution was caught in a second apparent lie amid probing by the defense. A woman who says she was on the phone with Trayvon as Zimmerman pursued him originally gave her age as 16, though she was really 18. And she also said she missed Trayvon's funeral because of a hospital stay, which wasn't true.

Prosecutors were put in the awkward position of having to explain that situation as reporters asked questions about whether they would charge the woman with perjury, as prosecutors did Zimmerman's wife, Shellie Zimmerman, after she allegedly lied about the couple's finances during a bond hearing last year.

I wonder what the law states about digging up deleted Facebook/Twitter/MySpace profiles to submit as evidence.

If it's relevant and they can lay the proper foundation it's admissible.

how could his face book page be relevant to a case where he was shot to death while unarmed?

It isn't.

 

[SacramentoBob]

We've already seen what Zimmerman had on his social media, so I'm not sure he wants to play that game.

 

[T Bell]

We've already seen what Zimmerman had on his social media, so I'm not sure he wants to play that game.

Right, you've already seen it, so the damage is done. The judge is allowing investigating, but this social media stuff in truth is more of a PR battle than a legal one.

 

[jon_mx]

Makes sense, why tip your hand when you don't need to.

One argument goes that Zimmerman's ultimate claim may not be "stand your ground" at all, since he technically was on the ground and unable to retreat any further at the moment he shot Trayvon. In that scenario, he could claim self-defense under pre-"stand your ground" laws.

A more likely scenario, says University of Florida law professor Bob Dekle, is that Mr. O'Mara doesn't want to go through a bench mini-trial and possibly tip off the prosecution about its strategy should the "stand your ground" plea fail.

"If you're not 100 percent sure you're going to win the 'stand your ground' hearing, you just end up telling the state what your defense is and you've got nothing with which to surprise the state at trial," says Professor Dekle. "What you want to do at trial is catch the state with their britches down."

Several new developments suggest that Zimmerman's defense attorneys are having some success finding information that could raise doubts among jurors about the state's version of events. For one, the defense has been digging furiously, with the judge's permission, into Trayvon's social media history, which may present a more complex, edgier picture of the youth.

Also on Tuesday, a key witness for the prosecution was caught in a second apparent lie amid probing by the defense. A woman who says she was on the phone with Trayvon as Zimmerman pursued him originally gave her age as 16, though she was really 18. And she also said she missed Trayvon's funeral because of a hospital stay, which wasn't true.

Prosecutors were put in the awkward position of having to explain that situation as reporters asked questions about whether they would charge the woman with perjury, as prosecutors did Zimmerman's wife, Shellie Zimmerman, after she allegedly lied about the couple's finances during a bond hearing last year.

I wonder what the law states about digging up deleted Facebook/Twitter/MySpace profiles to submit as evidence.

If it's relevant and they can lay the proper foundation it's admissible.

how could his face book page be relevant to a case where he was shot to death while unarmed?

It isn't.

"X"

It really depends what it is.

 

[pantherclub]

Could you give an example of how his facebook or whatever may be relevant?

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Could you give an example of how his facebook or whatever may be relevant?

Under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(a)(2) (I haven't checked Florida's Rules of Evidence but most State rules track the Federal Rules), the accused is entitled introduce evidence of the victim's character if that evidence is relevant to the accused's defense. As Zimmerman is claiming self-defense, character evidence that tends to establish that Martin was violent and or aggressive could be relevant. Facebook posts present a certain problem as it's very easy to imagine that Martin acted differently on Facebook than he would in real life. But if it's a close call, I think most judges would side with the criminal defendant, who has a constitutional right to present his case.With that said, the Judge would be mindful of making sure that only character evidence going to agression or violence would be introduced. Not evidence that he used drugs or whatever. It doesn't say much that the defense has been allowed to seek discovery of the social media. You don't need to prove relevance to seek discovery.

 

[pantherclub]

Could you give an example of how his facebook or whatever may be relevant?

Under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(a)(2) (I haven't checked Florida's Rules of Evidence but most State rules track the Federal Rules), the accused is entitled introduce evidence of the victim's character if that evidence is relevant to the accused's defense. As Zimmerman is claiming self-defense, character evidence that tends to establish that Martin was violent and or aggressive could be relevant. Facebook posts present a certain problem as it's very easy to imagine that Martin acted differently on Facebook than he would in real life. But if it's a close call, I think most judges would side with the criminal defendant, who has a constitutional right to present his case.With that said, the Judge would be mindful of making sure that only character evidence going to agression or violence would be introduced. Not evidence that he used drugs or whatever. It doesn't say much that the defense has been allowed to seek discovery of the social media. You don't need to prove relevance to seek discovery.

Again, could you give an example?

 

[RCon]

Could you give an example of how his facebook or whatever may be relevant?

Under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(a)(2) (I haven't checked Florida's Rules of Evidence but most State rules track the Federal Rules), the accused is entitled introduce evidence of the victim's character if that evidence is relevant to the accused's defense. As Zimmerman is claiming self-defense, character evidence that tends to establish that Martin was violent and or aggressive could be relevant. Facebook posts present a certain problem as it's very easy to imagine that Martin acted differently on Facebook than he would in real life. But if it's a close call, I think most judges would side with the criminal defendant, who has a constitutional right to present his case.With that said, the Judge would be mindful of making sure that only character evidence going to agression or violence would be introduced. Not evidence that he used drugs or whatever. It doesn't say much that the defense has been allowed to seek discovery of the social media. You don't need to prove relevance to seek discovery.

Again, could you give an example?

The last sentence belies the need for an example, doesn't it? At this time, isn't defense only seeking discovery, not asking to introduce anything into evidence?

 

[Witz]

Could you give an example of how his facebook or whatever may be relevant?

Under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(a)(2) (I haven't checked Florida's Rules of Evidence but most State rules track the Federal Rules), the accused is entitled introduce evidence of the victim's character if that evidence is relevant to the accused's defense. As Zimmerman is claiming self-defense, character evidence that tends to establish that Martin was violent and or aggressive could be relevant. Facebook posts present a certain problem as it's very easy to imagine that Martin acted differently on Facebook than he would in real life. But if it's a close call, I think most judges would side with the criminal defendant, who has a constitutional right to present his case.With that said, the Judge would be mindful of making sure that only character evidence going to agression or violence would be introduced. Not evidence that he used drugs or whatever. It doesn't say much that the defense has been allowed to seek discovery of the social media. You don't need to prove relevance to seek discovery.

Again, could you give an example?

Who knows what is contained in a 17 year old facebook postings (thus the request to review them). Maybe he was exchanging comments back and forth with a friend and said something like 'The next time someone steps up to me I'm going to knock them out' or 'No ones going to get in my way of doing things'. To act like there would be zero chance there could be anything there is confusing to say the least. Will there be? Who knows. I don't, nor do you.