Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (1 Viewer)

[CurlyNight]

So one woman is either black or Hispanic? That's kinda a big difference between the two, given this case.

Seems she's a mix, so hispanic bodes well for defense while black bodes well for prosecution.

 

[timschochet]

So one woman is either black or Hispanic? That's kinda a big difference between the two, given this case.

Seems she's a mix, so hispanic bodes well for defense while black bodes well for prosecution.

According to AP, she may be Hispanic, but there are no blacks on the jury.

2 of the women own guns in their homes. One of them carries a concealed weapon. None of this is good for the prosecution. Normally private citizens who own guns are law and order types. But not in this case, most likely.

I honestly and firmly believe that if George Zimmerman had been black and Trayvon Martin white, Zimmerman would have been arrested within hours, he would already be convicted, and this would not have been a national news story.

 

[jon_mx]

Tim, you are so consumed with this race issue. This is a horrible case regardless of race. You have it ### backwards. The only reason any prosecutor would take this crappy case to trial is because of the race-baiting politics involved. It is hard to feel sorry for Zimmerman because he is a tool, but this case is not right.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

So one woman is either black or Hispanic? That's kinda a big difference between the two, given this case.

If she was both she might be related to Zimmerman.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

So one woman is either black or Hispanic? That's kinda a big difference between the two, given this case.

Seems she's a mix, so hispanic bodes well for defense while black bodes well for prosecution.

According to AP, she may be Hispanic, but there are no blacks on the jury.2 of the women own guns in their homes. One of them carries a concealed weapon. None of this is good for the prosecution. Normally private citizens who own guns are law and order types. But not in this case, most likely.

I honestly and firmly believe that if George Zimmerman had been black and Trayvon Martin white, Zimmerman would have been arrested within hours, he would already be convicted, and this would not have been a national news story.

No, we would not be discussing it... Because there would not have been any national attention; There would not have been dead or alive bounties put out on the black man; and there would have been no people marching in the street demanding justice for the dead white man.

 

[pittstownkiller]

So one woman is either black or Hispanic? That's kinda a big difference between the two, given this case.

Seems she's a mix, so hispanic bodes well for defense while black bodes well for prosecution.

According to AP, she may be Hispanic, but there are no blacks on the jury.2 of the women own guns in their homes. One of them carries a concealed weapon. None of this is good for the prosecution. Normally private citizens who own guns are law and order types. But not in this case, most likely.

I honestly and firmly believe that if George Zimmerman had been black and Trayvon Martin white, Zimmerman would have been arrested within hours, he would already be convicted, and this would not have been a national news story.

This is a mindless statement.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

So one woman is either black or Hispanic? That's kinda a big difference between the two, given this case.

Seems she's a mix, so hispanic bodes well for defense while black bodes well for prosecution.

According to AP, she may be Hispanic, but there are no blacks on the jury.2 of the women own guns in their homes. One of them carries a concealed weapon. None of this is good for the prosecution. Normally private citizens who own guns are law and order types. But not in this case, most likely.

I honestly and firmly believe that if George Zimmerman had been black and Trayvon Martin white, Zimmerman would have been arrested within hours, he would already be convicted, and this would not have been a national news story.

This is a mindless statement.

Don't blame Tim, blame his upbringing in California.

 

[kentric]

Who does an all female jury benefit?

I don't think it benefits either side. You could say females will be sensitive to a child who was unarmed since we are more motherly thinking or Zimmerman if they really have in back of their minds the racist card. I think it will be a hung jury myself because like Arias, you cant say for sure what exactly happened especially since one of the two involved is dead...

If you're talking sensitivity, Zimmerman can be portrayed as someone looking out for his family. He's on the neighborhood watch, numerous calls to 911, helps out neighbors/friends. It will also be difficult to portray Martin as a child based on his pictures/stature.

Women = emotion. I think this dude's in trouble. He can be portrayed that way, but it will be contrasted with a "stalker mentality" or a "self acclaimed officer of the neighborhood" mentality by the prosecution.

Got to agree with you that Zimmerman's lack of expression can definately work against him here.

 

[kentric]

I'm guessing he was rejected due to his weight, I don't know how many people apply to become an officer and are given the opportunity.

Maybe he failed the IQ test (got too high of a score).

He can always come apply in NYC.

 

[kentric]

Looks like it was due to: "Collection Issues/Credit History"

Not sure how this will help the prosecution, also fwiw I think it was 9 years ago.

Judge Nelson just recessed the court until tomorrow morning at 09:00

This afternoon, once the jury was sworn in, the Frye Hearing was completed and Judge Nelson indicates she going to do some review tonight and will have a decision on the audio expert testimony in the morning.

There are other pretrial motions to be dealt with in the morning.

Jesus Christ, seriously guy?

This is why nobody takes you seriously.

His rejection based on being viewed as psychotic could be viewed as material. Credit issues, weight, IQ - immaterial.

 

[The Commish]

Who does an all female jury benefit?

I don't think it benefits either side. You could say females will be sensitive to a child who was unarmed since we are more motherly thinking or Zimmerman if they really have in back of their minds the racist card. I think it will be a hung jury myself because like Arias, you cant say for sure what exactly happened especially since one of the two involved is dead...

If you're talking sensitivity, Zimmerman can be portrayed as someone looking out for his family. He's on the neighborhood watch, numerous calls to 911, helps out neighbors/friends. It will also be difficult to portray Martin as a child based on his pictures/stature.

Women = emotion. I think this dude's in trouble. He can be portrayed that way, but it will be contrasted with a "stalker mentality" or a "self acclaimed officer of the neighborhood" mentality by the prosecution.

FFAer's = emotions. I think he is better off in the hands of women than the emotions I have seen in this thread.

You aren't setting the bar very high and I'd go as far as to say there's not much difference between what I see here in the FFA and what I think these women will think. If it were me, deliberations would be on TV so everyone could see the cat fight. All those who think they know what is going to happen make me laugh. Most here think he's guilty or innocent without the first witness being called. The only logical position at this point is "I don't know what to think". The rest are equally childish IMO.

I cant speak for anyone else but i have no idea what happened as i wasnt there....but i will say i have theories based on the evidence thats been presented so far. I do believe the entire incident could have been avoided if Zimmy wasnt so overzealous about his watch duties and adhered to the rules that are set for such crime watch members.(no weapons and no confrontations) IF trey was actually committing a crime when Zimmy spotted him then all bets are off...too bad that wasnt the case.

We need to be careful throwing the term "facts" around prior to a trial though. That's my point. There's a ton of allegation out there and nothing really on the record in terms of the trial. It's fine to hypothesize, but this thread has gone WAY beyond that. I can come up with theories just like the next guy, but they're just theories.

 

[kentric]

Who does an all female jury benefit?

I don't think it benefits either side. You could say females will be sensitive to a child who was unarmed since we are more motherly thinking or Zimmerman if they really have in back of their minds the racist card. I think it will be a hung jury myself because like Arias, you cant say for sure what exactly happened especially since one of the two involved is dead...

If you're talking sensitivity, Zimmerman can be portrayed as someone looking out for his family. He's on the neighborhood watch, numerous calls to 911, helps out neighbors/friends. It will also be difficult to portray Martin as a child based on his pictures/stature.

Women = emotion. I think this dude's in trouble. He can be portrayed that way, but it will be contrasted with a "stalker mentality" or a "self acclaimed officer of the neighborhood" mentality by the prosecution.

FFAer's = emotions. I think he is better off in the hands of women than the emotions I have seen in this thread.

You aren't setting the bar very high and I'd go as far as to say there's not much difference between what I see here in the FFA and what I think these women will think. If it were me, deliberations would be on TV so everyone could see the cat fight. All those who think they know what is going to happen make me laugh. Most here think he's guilty or innocent without the first witness being called. The only logical position at this point is "I don't know what to think". The rest are equally childish IMO.

I cant speak for anyone else but i have no idea what happened as i wasnt there....but i will say i have theories based on the evidence thats been presented so far. I do believe the entire incident could have been avoided if Zimmy wasnt so overzealous about his watch duties and adhered to the rules that are set for such crime watch members.(no weapons and no confrontations) IF trey was actually committing a crime when Zimmy spotted him then all bets are off...too bad that wasnt the case.

You're correct in that the incident could have been avoided if Z wasn't so overzealous. It could also have been avoided if Martin went straight home. Neither action in and of itself points to whether Z is guilty of murder/manslaughter or not. Its the actions of the two after they met which has the bearing on the case.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Who does an all female jury benefit?

I don't think it benefits either side. You could say females will be sensitive to a child who was unarmed since we are more motherly thinking or Zimmerman if they really have in back of their minds the racist card. I think it will be a hung jury myself because like Arias, you cant say for sure what exactly happened especially since one of the two involved is dead...

If you're talking sensitivity, Zimmerman can be portrayed as someone looking out for his family. He's on the neighborhood watch, numerous calls to 911, helps out neighbors/friends. It will also be difficult to portray Martin as a child based on his pictures/stature.

Women = emotion. I think this dude's in trouble. He can be portrayed that way, but it will be contrasted with a "stalker mentality" or a "self acclaimed officer of the neighborhood" mentality by the prosecution.

FFAer's = emotions. I think he is better off in the hands of women than the emotions I have seen in this thread.

You aren't setting the bar very high and I'd go as far as to say there's not much difference between what I see here in the FFA and what I think these women will think. If it were me, deliberations would be on TV so everyone could see the cat fight. All those who think they know what is going to happen make me laugh. Most here think he's guilty or innocent without the first witness being called. The only logical position at this point is "I don't know what to think". The rest are equally childish IMO.

I cant speak for anyone else but i have no idea what happened as i wasnt there....but i will say i have theories based on the evidence thats been presented so far. I do believe the entire incident could have been avoided if Zimmy wasnt so overzealous about his watch duties and adhered to the rules that are set for such crime watch members.(no weapons and no confrontations) IF trey was actually committing a crime when Zimmy spotted him then all bets are off...too bad that wasnt the case.

You're correct in that the incident could have been avoided if Z wasn't so overzealous. It could also have been avoided if Martin went straight home. Neither action in and of itself points to whether Z is guilty of murder/manslaughter or not. Its the actions of the two after they met which has the bearing on the case.

I think Martin's action are understandable (prior to confrontation), as I do Zimmerman's. If the jury thinks Martin threw the first punch, Z walks; I am not sure if Z gets convicted even if he is deemed the aggressor.

 

[Toad_1234]

So one woman is either black or Hispanic? That's kinda a big difference between the two, given this case.

Seems she's a mix, so hispanic bodes well for defense while black bodes well for prosecution.

According to AP, she may be Hispanic, but there are no blacks on the jury.

2 of the women own guns in their homes. One of them carries a concealed weapon. None of this is good for the prosecution. Normally private citizens who own guns are law and order types. But not in this case, most likely.

I honestly and firmly believe that if George Zimmerman had been black and Trayvon Martin white, Zimmerman would have been arrested within hours, he would already be convicted, and this would not have been a national news story.

So when you said this thread had a racist smell to it, you were basically talking about yourself and projecting your own racist feelings.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

The prosecution's best hope is this:

While Zimmerman was on the phone with NEN he exited his vehicle and started to pursue Martin.

Martin ran down the path and then took a right between the row houses.

Dispatch said to Zimmerman "we don't need you to do that".

Zimmerman responded o.k. but (allegedly) continued to walk in the same direction that Martin fled. I say allegedly since we can't know for certain how fast Zimmerman exited his vehicle and how fast he was running to follow Martin. We'd also have to know exactly where his truck was parked to assess the distance from his truck to the "T" in the pathway. IMO he doesn't need to reach the "T" he just needs to get to the edge of the building by the time he says "OK". Prosecution will try to say that Z continued in the same direction as M since at a later point on the call Z says "he's gone" as if he continued to walk to the "T" in order to get a clear view of the row of houses to see if he could see M. Prosecution will have to prove that this was negligent of Z.

Even if prosecution can somehow prove where Z was when he said "OK" I'm not sure if this proves negligence and I'm not even sure how this proves Z is guilty. It certainly does not prove guilt for Murder 2, perhaps Manslaughter but I think they would need some other key pieces of evidence to support it and the only two pieces of evidence that I think are strong enough are W8's testimony and the audio experts, both seem pretty shaky to me.

 

[kentric]

The prosecution's best hope is this:

While Zimmerman was on the phone with NEN he exited his vehicle and started to pursue Martin.

Martin ran down the path and then took a right between the row houses.

Dispatch said to Zimmerman "we don't need you to do that".

Zimmerman responded o.k. but (allegedly) continued to walk in the same direction that Martin fled. I say allegedly since we can't know for certain how fast Zimmerman exited his vehicle and how fast he was running to follow Martin. We'd also have to know exactly where his truck was parked to assess the distance from his truck to the "T" in the pathway. IMO he doesn't need to reach the "T" he just needs to get to the edge of the building by the time he says "OK". Prosecution will try to say that Z continued in the same direction as M since at a later point on the call Z says "he's gone" as if he continued to walk to the "T" in order to get a clear view of the row of houses to see if he could see M. Prosecution will have to prove that this was negligent of Z.

Even if prosecution can some how prove where Z was when he said "OK" I'm not sure if this proves negligence and I'm not even sure how this proves Z is guilty. It certainly does not prove guilt for Murder 2, perhaps Manslaughter but I think they would need some other key pieces of evidence to support it and the only two pieces of evidence that I think are strong enough are W8's testimony and the audio experts, both seem pretty shaky to me.

Z claims that he didn't run after Martin. He indicated the sound on the phone was the wind hitting his phone when he exited his vehicle. Just wanted to clarify. Carry on.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

I cant speak for anyone else but i have no idea what happened as i wasnt there....but i will say i have theories based on the evidence thats been presented so far. I do believe the entire incident could have been avoided if Zimmy wasnt so overzealous about his watch duties and adhered to the rules that are set for such crime watch members.(no weapons and no confrontations) IF trey was actually committing a crime when Zimmy spotted him then all bets are off...too bad that wasnt the case.

You might have a point IF instead of driving for their weekly groceries, Z was on assigned neighborhood watch duty, and if you could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Z confronted M.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

So one woman is either black or Hispanic? That's kinda a big difference between the two, given this case.

Seems she's a mix, so hispanic bodes well for defense while black bodes well for prosecution.

According to AP, she may be Hispanic, but there are no blacks on the jury.

2 of the women own guns in their homes. One of them carries a concealed weapon. None of this is good for the prosecution. Normally private citizens who own guns are law and order types. But not in this case, most likely.

I honestly and firmly believe that if George Zimmerman had been black and Trayvon Martin white, Zimmerman would have been arrested within hours, he would already be convicted, and this would not have been a national news story.

So when you said this thread had a racist smell to it, you were basically talking about yourself and projecting your own racist feelings.

exactly..

 

[BustedKnuckles]

The prosecution's best hope is this:

While Zimmerman was on the phone with NEN he exited his vehicle and started to pursue Martin.

Martin ran down the path and then took a right between the row houses.

Dispatch said to Zimmerman "we don't need you to do that".

Zimmerman responded o.k. but (allegedly) continued to walk in the same direction that Martin fled. I say allegedly since we can't know for certain how fast Zimmerman exited his vehicle and how fast he was running to follow Martin. We'd also have to know exactly where his truck was parked to assess the distance from his truck to the "T" in the pathway. IMO he doesn't need to reach the "T" he just needs to get to the edge of the building by the time he says "OK". Prosecution will try to say that Z continued in the same direction as M since at a later point on the call Z says "he's gone" as if he continued to walk to the "T" in order to get a clear view of the row of houses to see if he could see M. Prosecution will have to prove that this was negligent of Z.

Even if prosecution can some how prove where Z was when he said "OK" I'm not sure if this proves negligence and I'm not even sure how this proves Z is guilty. It certainly does not prove guilt for Murder 2, perhaps Manslaughter but I think they would need some other key pieces of evidence to support it and the only two pieces of evidence that I think are strong enough are W8's testimony and the audio experts, both seem pretty shaky to me.

Z claims that he didn't run after Martin. He indicated the sound on the phone was the wind hitting his phone when he exited his vehicle. Just wanted to clarify. Carry on.

I think his breathing while talking on the phone is an indication to his pace ...listening to that call you can picture Zimm moving faster than he has lead people to believe.

 

[The Commish]

Who does an all female jury benefit?

I don't think it benefits either side. You could say females will be sensitive to a child who was unarmed since we are more motherly thinking or Zimmerman if they really have in back of their minds the racist card. I think it will be a hung jury myself because like Arias, you cant say for sure what exactly happened especially since one of the two involved is dead...

If you're talking sensitivity, Zimmerman can be portrayed as someone looking out for his family. He's on the neighborhood watch, numerous calls to 911, helps out neighbors/friends. It will also be difficult to portray Martin as a child based on his pictures/stature.

Women = emotion. I think this dude's in trouble. He can be portrayed that way, but it will be contrasted with a "stalker mentality" or a "self acclaimed officer of the neighborhood" mentality by the prosecution.

FFAer's = emotions. I think he is better off in the hands of women than the emotions I have seen in this thread.

You aren't setting the bar very high and I'd go as far as to say there's not much difference between what I see here in the FFA and what I think these women will think. If it were me, deliberations would be on TV so everyone could see the cat fight. All those who think they know what is going to happen make me laugh. Most here think he's guilty or innocent without the first witness being called. The only logical position at this point is "I don't know what to think". The rest are equally childish IMO.

I have no idea exactly what happened, but if the evidence that we have seen in the media is representative of the prosecution case, it is not very compelling to prove that it was not an act of self-defense. Just because he is a wannabe cop who is overly paranoid, is no grounds for a conviction.

We spend thread after thread around here bashing the "media" on how they present things, yet what they tell us is enough to consider it "evidence" when it comes to a person's fate. Does that sound right to you?

 

[pittstownkiller]

The prosecution's best hope is this:

While Zimmerman was on the phone with NEN he exited his vehicle and started to pursue Martin.

Martin ran down the path and then took a right between the row houses.

Dispatch said to Zimmerman "we don't need you to do that".

Zimmerman responded o.k. but (allegedly) continued to walk in the same direction that Martin fled. I say allegedly since we can't know for certain how fast Zimmerman exited his vehicle and how fast he was running to follow Martin. We'd also have to know exactly where his truck was parked to assess the distance from his truck to the "T" in the pathway. IMO he doesn't need to reach the "T" he just needs to get to the edge of the building by the time he says "OK". Prosecution will try to say that Z continued in the same direction as M since at a later point on the call Z says "he's gone" as if he continued to walk to the "T" in order to get a clear view of the row of houses to see if he could see M. Prosecution will have to prove that this was negligent of Z.

Even if prosecution can some how prove where Z was when he said "OK" I'm not sure if this proves negligence and I'm not even sure how this proves Z is guilty. It certainly does not prove guilt for Murder 2, perhaps Manslaughter but I think they would need some other key pieces of evidence to support it and the only two pieces of evidence that I think are strong enough are W8's testimony and the audio experts, both seem pretty shaky to me.

Z claims that he didn't run after Martin. He indicated the sound on the phone was the wind hitting his phone when he exited his vehicle. Just wanted to clarify. Carry on.

I think his breathing while talking on the phone is an indication to his pace ...listening to that call you can picture Zimm moving faster than he has lead people to believe.

I think this only matters if there was a chase; who do you think was faster, Zimmerman or Martin?

 

[BustedKnuckles]

The prosecution's best hope is this:

While Zimmerman was on the phone with NEN he exited his vehicle and started to pursue Martin.

Martin ran down the path and then took a right between the row houses.

Dispatch said to Zimmerman "we don't need you to do that".

Zimmerman responded o.k. but (allegedly) continued to walk in the same direction that Martin fled. I say allegedly since we can't know for certain how fast Zimmerman exited his vehicle and how fast he was running to follow Martin. We'd also have to know exactly where his truck was parked to assess the distance from his truck to the "T" in the pathway. IMO he doesn't need to reach the "T" he just needs to get to the edge of the building by the time he says "OK". Prosecution will try to say that Z continued in the same direction as M since at a later point on the call Z says "he's gone" as if he continued to walk to the "T" in order to get a clear view of the row of houses to see if he could see M. Prosecution will have to prove that this was negligent of Z.

Even if prosecution can some how prove where Z was when he said "OK" I'm not sure if this proves negligence and I'm not even sure how this proves Z is guilty. It certainly does not prove guilt for Murder 2, perhaps Manslaughter but I think they would need some other key pieces of evidence to support it and the only two pieces of evidence that I think are strong enough are W8's testimony and the audio experts, both seem pretty shaky to me.

Z claims that he didn't run after Martin. He indicated the sound on the phone was the wind hitting his phone when he exited his vehicle. Just wanted to clarify. Carry on.

I think his breathing while talking on the phone is an indication to his pace ...listening to that call you can picture Zimm moving faster than he has lead people to believe.

I think this only matters if there was a chase; who do you think was faster, Zimmerman or Martin?

define chase

 

[kentric]

The prosecution's best hope is this:

While Zimmerman was on the phone with NEN he exited his vehicle and started to pursue Martin.

Martin ran down the path and then took a right between the row houses.

Dispatch said to Zimmerman "we don't need you to do that".

Zimmerman responded o.k. but (allegedly) continued to walk in the same direction that Martin fled. I say allegedly since we can't know for certain how fast Zimmerman exited his vehicle and how fast he was running to follow Martin. We'd also have to know exactly where his truck was parked to assess the distance from his truck to the "T" in the pathway. IMO he doesn't need to reach the "T" he just needs to get to the edge of the building by the time he says "OK". Prosecution will try to say that Z continued in the same direction as M since at a later point on the call Z says "he's gone" as if he continued to walk to the "T" in order to get a clear view of the row of houses to see if he could see M. Prosecution will have to prove that this was negligent of Z.

Even if prosecution can some how prove where Z was when he said "OK" I'm not sure if this proves negligence and I'm not even sure how this proves Z is guilty. It certainly does not prove guilt for Murder 2, perhaps Manslaughter but I think they would need some other key pieces of evidence to support it and the only two pieces of evidence that I think are strong enough are W8's testimony and the audio experts, both seem pretty shaky to me.

Z claims that he didn't run after Martin. He indicated the sound on the phone was the wind hitting his phone when he exited his vehicle. Just wanted to clarify. Carry on.

I think his breathing while talking on the phone is an indication to his pace ...listening to that call you can picture Zimm moving faster than he has lead people to believe.

I think this only matters if there was a chase; who do you think was faster, Zimmerman or Martin?

define chase

 

[kentric]

The prosecution's best hope is this:

While Zimmerman was on the phone with NEN he exited his vehicle and started to pursue Martin.

Martin ran down the path and then took a right between the row houses.

Dispatch said to Zimmerman "we don't need you to do that".

Zimmerman responded o.k. but (allegedly) continued to walk in the same direction that Martin fled. I say allegedly since we can't know for certain how fast Zimmerman exited his vehicle and how fast he was running to follow Martin. We'd also have to know exactly where his truck was parked to assess the distance from his truck to the "T" in the pathway. IMO he doesn't need to reach the "T" he just needs to get to the edge of the building by the time he says "OK". Prosecution will try to say that Z continued in the same direction as M since at a later point on the call Z says "he's gone" as if he continued to walk to the "T" in order to get a clear view of the row of houses to see if he could see M. Prosecution will have to prove that this was negligent of Z.

Even if prosecution can some how prove where Z was when he said "OK" I'm not sure if this proves negligence and I'm not even sure how this proves Z is guilty. It certainly does not prove guilt for Murder 2, perhaps Manslaughter but I think they would need some other key pieces of evidence to support it and the only two pieces of evidence that I think are strong enough are W8's testimony and the audio experts, both seem pretty shaky to me.

Z claims that he didn't run after Martin. He indicated the sound on the phone was the wind hitting his phone when he exited his vehicle. Just wanted to clarify. Carry on.

I think his breathing while talking on the phone is an indication to his pace ...listening to that call you can picture Zimm moving faster than he has lead people to believe.

Upon first hearing the recording I sure thought he was running and slightly out of breath. We'll see what the jury thinks. Z's best defense is his creadibility. If he comes across as a liar, he's likely cooked.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

The prosecution's best hope is this:

While Zimmerman was on the phone with NEN he exited his vehicle and started to pursue Martin.

Martin ran down the path and then took a right between the row houses.

Dispatch said to Zimmerman "we don't need you to do that".

Zimmerman responded o.k. but (allegedly) continued to walk in the same direction that Martin fled. I say allegedly since we can't know for certain how fast Zimmerman exited his vehicle and how fast he was running to follow Martin. We'd also have to know exactly where his truck was parked to assess the distance from his truck to the "T" in the pathway. IMO he doesn't need to reach the "T" he just needs to get to the edge of the building by the time he says "OK". Prosecution will try to say that Z continued in the same direction as M since at a later point on the call Z says "he's gone" as if he continued to walk to the "T" in order to get a clear view of the row of houses to see if he could see M. Prosecution will have to prove that this was negligent of Z.

Even if prosecution can some how prove where Z was when he said "OK" I'm not sure if this proves negligence and I'm not even sure how this proves Z is guilty. It certainly does not prove guilt for Murder 2, perhaps Manslaughter but I think they would need some other key pieces of evidence to support it and the only two pieces of evidence that I think are strong enough are W8's testimony and the audio experts, both seem pretty shaky to me.

Z claims that he didn't run after Martin. He indicated the sound on the phone was the wind hitting his phone when he exited his vehicle. Just wanted to clarify. Carry on.

I think his breathing while talking on the phone is an indication to his pace ...listening to that call you can picture Zimm moving faster than he has lead people to believe.

Upon first hearing the recording I sure thought he was running and slightly out of breath. We'll see what the jury thinks. Z's best defense is his creadibility. If he comes across as a liar, he's likely cooked.

I go back and forth, I have heard it a few times, I'm at the point where he was not at a full out sprint and I don't think he was walking slowly. I haven't been able to listen to his recorded audio statement at the Sanford PD, in his video walkthrough he just says he walked. On the NEN call with his responses to dispatch it does seem like he is at least walking briskly due to his responses coming between breaths or I could just be imagining it.

Regardless he does say "he's gone" at one point which would signify he was still looking for M, I don't see a problem with this behavior but prosecution may try to make something out of it.

 

[pittstownkiller]

The prosecution's best hope is this:

While Zimmerman was on the phone with NEN he exited his vehicle and started to pursue Martin.

Martin ran down the path and then took a right between the row houses.

Dispatch said to Zimmerman "we don't need you to do that".

Zimmerman responded o.k. but (allegedly) continued to walk in the same direction that Martin fled. I say allegedly since we can't know for certain how fast Zimmerman exited his vehicle and how fast he was running to follow Martin. We'd also have to know exactly where his truck was parked to assess the distance from his truck to the "T" in the pathway. IMO he doesn't need to reach the "T" he just needs to get to the edge of the building by the time he says "OK". Prosecution will try to say that Z continued in the same direction as M since at a later point on the call Z says "he's gone" as if he continued to walk to the "T" in order to get a clear view of the row of houses to see if he could see M. Prosecution will have to prove that this was negligent of Z.

Even if prosecution can some how prove where Z was when he said "OK" I'm not sure if this proves negligence and I'm not even sure how this proves Z is guilty. It certainly does not prove guilt for Murder 2, perhaps Manslaughter but I think they would need some other key pieces of evidence to support it and the only two pieces of evidence that I think are strong enough are W8's testimony and the audio experts, both seem pretty shaky to me.

Z claims that he didn't run after Martin. He indicated the sound on the phone was the wind hitting his phone when he exited his vehicle. Just wanted to clarify. Carry on.

I think his breathing while talking on the phone is an indication to his pace ...listening to that call you can picture Zimm moving faster than he has lead people to believe.

I think this only matters if there was a chase; who do you think was faster, Zimmerman or Martin?

define chase

The prosecution's best hope is this:

While Zimmerman was on the phone with NEN he exited his vehicle and started to pursue Martin.

Martin ran down the path and then took a right between the row houses.

Dispatch said to Zimmerman "we don't need you to do that".

Zimmerman responded o.k. but (allegedly) continued to walk in the same direction that Martin fled. I say allegedly since we can't know for certain how fast Zimmerman exited his vehicle and how fast he was running to follow Martin. We'd also have to know exactly where his truck was parked to assess the distance from his truck to the "T" in the pathway. IMO he doesn't need to reach the "T" he just needs to get to the edge of the building by the time he says "OK". Prosecution will try to say that Z continued in the same direction as M since at a later point on the call Z says "he's gone" as if he continued to walk to the "T" in order to get a clear view of the row of houses to see if he could see M. Prosecution will have to prove that this was negligent of Z.

Even if prosecution can some how prove where Z was when he said "OK" I'm not sure if this proves negligence and I'm not even sure how this proves Z is guilty. It certainly does not prove guilt for Murder 2, perhaps Manslaughter but I think they would need some other key pieces of evidence to support it and the only two pieces of evidence that I think are strong enough are W8's testimony and the audio experts, both seem pretty shaky to me.

Z claims that he didn't run after Martin. He indicated the sound on the phone was the wind hitting his phone when he exited his vehicle. Just wanted to clarify. Carry on.

I think his breathing while talking on the phone is an indication to his pace ...listening to that call you can picture Zimm moving faster than he has lead people to believe.

I think this only matters if there was a chase; who do you think was faster, Zimmerman or Martin?

define chase

I would think that Martin would have to be purposely distancing himself from Z for there to be a chase.I hate when the new upgrade does that with the quotes.

 

[timschochet]

So one woman is either black or Hispanic? That's kinda a big difference between the two, given this case.

Seems she's a mix, so hispanic bodes well for defense while black bodes well for prosecution.

According to AP, she may be Hispanic, but there are no blacks on the jury.

2 of the women own guns in their homes. One of them carries a concealed weapon. None of this is good for the prosecution. Normally private citizens who own guns are law and order types. But not in this case, most likely.

I honestly and firmly believe that if George Zimmerman had been black and Trayvon Martin white, Zimmerman would have been arrested within hours, he would already be convicted, and this would not have been a national news story.

So when you said this thread had a racist smell to it, you were basically talking about yourself and projecting your own racist feelings.

exactly..

In what way I am racist?

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Court in session, video up on Orlando Sentinel.

Judge grants prosecution being allowed to present their audio experts at trial.

Frye goes to prosecution, expect the defense to then have their experts testify.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

I don't understand this, I thought these were already ruled out?

During the session this morning Judge Nelson ruled that the prosecution was not limited on language it used during opening statements because the defense has a chance to rebut and to show in their case where the prosecution has not met the claims they make.

"Profile", "wannabe cop", "vigilante" are in if the state chooses to use them during opening statements.

She did advise against using specifically "racially profiled" and the state indicated that race was only one aspect of the profile Zimmerman used that night.

 

[Lutherman2112]

Court has been in recess for over an hour, and will remain that way until 9am Monday.

 

[Lutherman2112]

I don't understand this, I thought these were already ruled out?

During the session this morning Judge Nelson ruled that the prosecution was not limited on language it used during opening statements because the defense has a chance to rebut and to show in their case where the prosecution has not met the claims they make.

"Profile", "wannabe cop", "vigilante" are in if the state chooses to use them during opening statements.

She did advise against using specifically "racially profiled" and the state indicated that race was only one aspect of the profile Zimmerman used that night.

The Orlando Sentinel got it wrong. Here's the link to the article you provided the other day.:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/trayvon-martin/os-geo-zimmerman-trial-profile-20130617,0,1761292.story

Note at the bottom of article:

An earlier version of this story incorrectly reported that the judge had banned the word "profiled" and other phrases described by defense attorneys as inflammatory from prosecutors' opening statement. Prosecutors voluntarily agreed to avoid those terms but only during jury selection.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

I don't understand this, I thought these were already ruled out?

During the session this morning Judge Nelson ruled that the prosecution was not limited on language it used during opening statements because the defense has a chance to rebut and to show in their case where the prosecution has not met the claims they make.

"Profile", "wannabe cop", "vigilante" are in if the state chooses to use them during opening statements.

She did advise against using specifically "racially profiled" and the state indicated that race was only one aspect of the profile Zimmerman used that night.

The Orlando Sentinel got it wrong.

This was from the live video, are you saying you watched it and missed her make these rulings?

 

[Lutherman2112]

Please see my edited post above.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

State's motion to perpetuate testimony of a witness who will be absent during the time of trial - GRANTED

(This witness may be one who also attended GZ's educational institution)

State' motion to block all self-serving second hand statements regarding the defendant - GRANTED

(This one is a biggie because it means if the defense wants to put on anything positive about GZ, GZ will have to choose to take the stand and testify himself and that opens the door to cross-examination and character evidence.)

Defense Motion for Sanctions - DENIED

Defense motion to relax the Florida Rules of Evidence on authentication so that he could submit information from Trayvon's phone - DENIED

Defense Motion to prohibit the use of certain terms in opening statements - DENIED

Defense Asks for 2 exceptions to the restriction on second hand self-serving statements - QUASHED

(West failed to submit a written motion and exhibits)

Def asks to submit external evidence not presented at the Frye hearing - DENIED

(West failed to submit this evidence at the Frye hearing)

TOAST

So judge grants all state's motions and denies all defense motions, wtf.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

unless State really screws the pooch, Z will have to testify

Pursuant to this rule they can introduce into evidence any statement by Zimmerman that they choose, including his custodial statements to the police, assuming they satisfy the Miranda rule, which they apparently do.

Notice that they are not required to introduce any of his statements and the defense has no say in which statements they introduce and which statements they leave out.

This means that all of the exculpatory statements he made to support his claim of self-defense are inadmissible hearsay, unless the prosecution decides to offer one or more of them as an admission by a party opponent.

Needless to say, the prosecution is not going to do him any favors and introduce any of his exculpatory statements and, since the defense cannot introduce them, the judge will not be able to consider them during the [trial] and the jury will never get to hear them.

But that’s not fair, you say.

That complaint happens in every courtroom across America every day, but it’s the law.

This is why, as a practical matter, George Zimmerman must take the stand and testify.

http://frederickleatherman.com/2012/08/18/will-george-zimmerman-testify/

 

[CurlyNight]

Anyone NOT think the voice on the 911 call yelling for help is TM? It's clearly a teenage voice imo vs a grown man..

 

[pittstownkiller]

Anyone NOT think the voice on the 911 call yelling for help is TM? It's clearly a teenage voice imo vs a grown man..

Initially his mother didn't.

 

[timschochet]

unless State really screws the pooch, Z will have to testify

Pursuant to this rule they can introduce into evidence any statement by Zimmerman that they choose, including his custodial statements to the police, assuming they satisfy the Miranda rule, which they apparently do.

Notice that they are not required to introduce any of his statements and the defense has no say in which statements they introduce and which statements they leave out.

This means that all of the exculpatory statements he made to support his claim of self-defense are inadmissible hearsay, unless the prosecution decides to offer one or more of them as an admission by a party opponent.

Needless to say, the prosecution is not going to do him any favors and introduce any of his exculpatory statements and, since the defense cannot introduce them, the judge will not be able to consider them during the [trial] and the jury will never get to hear them.

But that’s not fair, you say.

That complaint happens in every courtroom across America every day, but it’s the law.

This is why, as a practical matter, George Zimmerman must take the stand and testify.

http://frederickleatherman.com/2012/08/18/will-george-zimmerman-testify/

I've been trying to tell you guys this for months.

However, to give credit where it is due, it was Christo in this thread who wrote this before anyone else. Even several people in the media got this wrong; Christo was right all along. Self-defense is an affirmative claim. If Zimmerman's argument was that he never fired the gun, he would not be forced to testify. But since he admits to killing Martin, he must testify in order to offer a defense.

So once again, put aside all of the prosecution arguments. Put aside the defense arguments. Throw out my discussion of racism. Throw out everything that JoJo and Jon and Carolina have written about reasonable doubt. Throw out EVERYTHING. This case will be decided on whether or not Zimmerman survives his cross-examination. That's the determining factor.

 

[timschochet]

Anyone NOT think the voice on the 911 call yelling for help is TM? It's clearly a teenage voice imo vs a grown man..

Initially his mother didn't.

You mean his father.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Anyone NOT think the voice on the 911 call yelling for help is TM? It's clearly a teenage voice imo vs a grown man..

Initially his mother didn't.

Neither did his father.

Then you have the fact that Zimmerman attested to being the one screaming the night he was questioned BEFORE he even knew they had recordings of the screams from 911 calls.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Anyone NOT think the voice on the 911 call yelling for help is TM? It's clearly a teenage voice imo vs a grown man..

Initially his mother didn't.

You mean his father.

I assume you are correct. I did not feel like looking it up.

 

[CurlyNight]

Anyone NOT think the voice on the 911 call yelling for help is TM? It's clearly a teenage voice imo vs a grown man..

Initially his mother didn't.

You mean his father.

I don't know when he said it but maybe being in shock and denial that his son is dead contributed.

 

[CurlyNight]

Would it make sense to have GZ yell for help at the spot that he says he did and record it in that 911 apt to see if it could be GZ? Technology is so advanced these days that maybe that would help.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Anyone NOT think the voice on the 911 call yelling for help is TM? It's clearly a teenage voice imo vs a grown man..

Initially his mother didn't.

You mean his father.

I don't know when he said it but maybe being in shock and denial that his son is dead contributed.

Sure, or grief could be causing him to hear things that are not true.

 

[jon_mx]

unless State really screws the pooch, Z will have to testify

Pursuant to this rule they can introduce into evidence any statement by Zimmerman that they choose, including his custodial statements to the police, assuming they satisfy the Miranda rule, which they apparently do.

Notice that they are not required to introduce any of his statements and the defense has no say in which statements they introduce and which statements they leave out.

This means that all of the exculpatory statements he made to support his claim of self-defense are inadmissible hearsay, unless the prosecution decides to offer one or more of them as an admission by a party opponent.

Needless to say, the prosecution is not going to do him any favors and introduce any of his exculpatory statements and, since the defense cannot introduce them, the judge will not be able to consider them during the [trial] and the jury will never get to hear them.

But that’s not fair, you say.

That complaint happens in every courtroom across America every day, but it’s the law.

This is why, as a practical matter, George Zimmerman must take the stand and testify.

http://frederickleatherman.com/2012/08/18/will-george-zimmerman-testify/

I've been trying to tell you guys this for months.

However, to give credit where it is due, it was Christo in this thread who wrote this before anyone else. Even several people in the media got this wrong; Christo was right all along. Self-defense is an affirmative claim. If Zimmerman's argument was that he never fired the gun, he would not be forced to testify. But since he admits to killing Martin, he must testify in order to offer a defense.

So once again, put aside all of the prosecution arguments. Put aside the defense arguments. Throw out my discussion of racism. Throw out everything that JoJo and Jon and Carolina have written about reasonable doubt. Throw out EVERYTHING. This case will be decided on whether or not Zimmerman survives his cross-examination. That's the determining factor.

Just because it is an affirmative claim does not mean he has to testify to establish it. There are eye-witnesses who saw a fight. There injuries which are documented concerning Zimmerman. There will be ample evidence from the prosecution which will establish there was a fight. I really don't see why Zimmerman has to testify to establish a positive evidence that he acted in self-defense. The orginal investigation concluded it was self-defense and I am sure Zimmerman's statements are on record. If any asanine arguements need to be thrown out, it is the mind-reading crap you constantly spew based on your extreme prejudice in the case of your wishful thinking that Zimmerman gets convicted in spite of what is established by the evidence.

 

[Clifford]

So one woman is either black or Hispanic? That's kinda a big difference between the two, given this case.

Seems she's a mix, so hispanic bodes well for defense while black bodes well for prosecution.

According to AP, she may be Hispanic, but there are no blacks on the jury.

2 of the women own guns in their homes. One of them carries a concealed weapon. None of this is good for the prosecution. Normally private citizens who own guns are law and order types. But not in this case, most likely.

I honestly and firmly believe that if George Zimmerman had been black and Trayvon Martin white, Zimmerman would have been arrested within hours, he would already be convicted, and this would not have been a national news story.

It would have been and I bet responses on here would be very different.

 

[jon_mx]

So one woman is either black or Hispanic? That's kinda a big difference between the two, given this case.

Seems she's a mix, so hispanic bodes well for defense while black bodes well for prosecution.

According to AP, she may be Hispanic, but there are no blacks on the jury.

2 of the women own guns in their homes. One of them carries a concealed weapon. None of this is good for the prosecution. Normally private citizens who own guns are law and order types. But not in this case, most likely.

I honestly and firmly believe that if George Zimmerman had been black and Trayvon Martin white, Zimmerman would have been arrested within hours, he would already be convicted, and this would not have been a national news story.

It would have been and I bet responses on here would be very different.

Really? There is black on white violence everyday, and it does not make the national news. It is more prevelent than white on black violence.

 

[kentric]

Black on black violence is the most prevalent and you rarely here about such events on the news. I'm with Tim on this one. White guy shooting black guy >>>>> black guy shooting white guy (from a new reporting perspective).

 

[jon_mx]

Florida Law on Self Defense : Use of Force Self Defense in Florida: Deadly and Non-Deadly ForceUnder Florida law, a person may avoid criminal liability for the use of deadly or non-deadly force where the circumstances show that he or she was legally justified in using such force. One such justification is known as “self-defense.” Self-defense may be used to defeat a criminal charge and, under Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, may even be used to claim immunity from prosecution.

In Florida prosecutions, self-defense is a type of affirmative defense that operates to avoid (or cancel) the legal effect of a violent act (such as a homicide or battery), which would ordinarily subject the accused to criminal liability. When an accused raises a self-defense claim, he or she effectively admits to the truth of the alleged act (i.e. that he or she committed violence against another person), but justifies the act by asserting that the act was reasonably necessary to save him- or herself from the imminent use of unlawful force by the other person. In effect, the defendant says: “Yes, I committed the violent act. But I did not commit the violent act unlawfully because, under the facts and circumstances, my acts were justifiable to prevent physical or legal harm to myself.”

Self Defense in Florida: When is Non-Deadly Force Allowed?

Under Section 776.012, Florida Statutes (Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” Law), a person is justified in the use of non-deadly force in self-defense where the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against such other’s imminent use of unlawful force. There is no duty to retreat. If the defendant is in his or her home or vehicle, then, under Section 776.013, Florida Statutes, the law will presume that the defendant had a reasonable fear of imminent death or bodily harm if the alleged victim unlawfully entered or remained or attempted to remove another person against their will. A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter another’s home or vehicle is furthermore presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

Self Defense in Florida: When is Deadly Force Allowed?There are two primary statutes in Florida outlining when the use of deadly force is justified so as to avoid criminal liability. Under Section 776.012, Florida Statutes (Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” Law), a person is justified in using deadly force (and does not have a duty to retreat) if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony or to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another. Under Section 782.02, Florida Statutes, the use of deadly force is further justified when a person is resisting any attempt to murder such person or to commit any felony upon him or her or upon or in any dwelling house in which the person is located.

If the defendant is in his or her home or vehicle, then, under Section 776.013, Florida Statutes, the law will presume that the defendant had a reasonable fear of imminent death or bodily harm if the alleged victim unlawfully entered or remained or attempted to remove another person against their will. A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter another’s home or vehicle is furthermore presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

The presumption of reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm does not apply if: (a) the person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in the home or vehicle, or (b) the person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used, or © the person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the home or vehicle to further an unlawful activity, or (d) the person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, who enters or attempts to enter the home or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer properly identified his or herself (or the person reasonably should have known that it was a police officer).

If a defendant was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked where he or she was allowed to be, then the defendant has no duty of retreat and has a right to use force, or even deadly force, if the defendant (under those circumstances) reasonably believed that his or her use of force was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm. This is the key provision of Florida’s “Stand your Ground” law.

How Does a Jury Decide the Issue of Self-Defense in Florida?

In determining whether the use of deadly force or non-deadly force was warranted, a jury will look at the facts and circumstances as they appeared to the defendant at the time he or she claims to have acted in self-defense. The jury will examine what a reasonable person would have done under the circumstances appearing to the defendant at the time of the incident. This inquiry into what a “reasonable person” would have done is known as an “objective standard.”

Where the defendant in a Florida criminal case presents any evidence of self-defense, the State must overcome the claim of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

unless State really screws the pooch, Z will have to testify

Pursuant to this rule they can introduce into evidence any statement by Zimmerman that they choose, including his custodial statements to the police, assuming they satisfy the Miranda rule, which they apparently do.

Notice that they are not required to introduce any of his statements and the defense has no say in which statements they introduce and which statements they leave out.

This means that all of the exculpatory statements he made to support his claim of self-defense are inadmissible hearsay, unless the prosecution decides to offer one or more of them as an admission by a party opponent.

Needless to say, the prosecution is not going to do him any favors and introduce any of his exculpatory statements and, since the defense cannot introduce them, the judge will not be able to consider them during the [trial] and the jury will never get to hear them.

But that’s not fair, you say.

That complaint happens in every courtroom across America every day, but it’s the law.

This is why, as a practical matter, George Zimmerman must take the stand and testify.

http://frederickleatherman.com/2012/08/18/will-george-zimmerman-testify/

I've been trying to tell you guys this for months.However, to give credit where it is due, it was Christo in this thread who wrote this before anyone else. Even several people in the media got this wrong; Christo was right all along. Self-defense is an affirmative claim. If Zimmerman's argument was that he never fired the gun, he would not be forced to testify. But since he admits to killing Martin, he must testify in order to offer a defense.

So once again, put aside all of the prosecution arguments. Put aside the defense arguments. Throw out my discussion of racism. Throw out everything that JoJo and Jon and Carolina have written about reasonable doubt. Throw out EVERYTHING. This case will be decided on whether or not Zimmerman survives his cross-examination. That's the determining factor.

Just because it is an affirmative claim does not mean he has to testify to establish it. There are eye-witnesses who saw a fight. There injuries which are documented concerning Zimmerman. There will be ample evidence from the prosecution which will establish there was a fight. I really don't see why Zimmerman has to testify to establish a positive evidence that he acted in self-defense. The orginal investigation concluded it was self-defense and I am sure Zimmerman's statements are on record. If any asanine arguements need to be thrown out, it is the mind-reading crap you constantly spew based on your extreme prejudice in the case of your wishful thinking that Zimmerman gets convicted in spite of what is established by the evidence.

Just an fyi, the judge ruled today any exculpatory statements Zimmerman previously made cannot be introduced by Defense during the trial, only if the State mentions them (which they won't). So Z will need to take the stand to reiterate those statements and allow State to cross-examine.