Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (3 Viewers)

[BustedKnuckles]

This thing is totally over. The State should just drop all charges, just like the end of "My Cousin Vinny."

Interesting that you and jon mx and others seem to believe this. I'm watching a HLN analysis right now, and most of the attorneys there believe that the prosecution is winning big time. They find Rachel's essential testimony credible (as do I) and they think that the jury can't stand the defense attorney. They all seem to believe that Zimmerman is going to have to testify or he is going down.

Who knows?

Should I just rely on internet blogs instead, the way JoJo and others around here seem to be doing?

No, you should think for yourself and stop quoting talking head experts. Not every case is about who has the smoothest lawyers. Sometimes there are juries who actually listen to the court instructions and believe that the prosecution has the burden to meet their obligations to lock someone up. So far there has been very little substance to back up essential elements of this crime. That is not an opinion, it is a fact.

No it is an opinion.

The essential elements of this crime are that (1) George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin to death (not contested) and (2) that George Zimmerman did not act in self-defense. We just had a witness state unequivocally that she heard Trayvon Martin say "get off me, get off me." Either she is lying, or George Zimmerman did not act in self-defense. I found Rachel to be, in this aspect of her overall testimony, a credible witness. The defense tried to shake her testimony and they failed rather miserably IMO. Therefore there HAVE been enough substance to back up the essential elements of this crime, contrary to your statement.

Bunk

So it is your position that if Martin was saying "get off me get off me", Zimmerman still could have killed him in self-defense? I don't think any jury is going to believe that.

Christo is going to say that even if he started the fight he could still end up fearing for his life ...but id say that treyvon was also in fear of his life at the very same time...the gun was the difference maker.

 

[avoiding injuries]

If the defense's biggest obstacle is to overcome Rachel's testimony, which appears to be the current situation, I think that is a good place to be in.

 

[timschochet]

This thing is totally over. The State should just drop all charges, just like the end of "My Cousin Vinny."

Interesting that you and jon mx and others seem to believe this. I'm watching a HLN analysis right now, and most of the attorneys there believe that the prosecution is winning big time. They find Rachel's essential testimony credible (as do I) and they think that the jury can't stand the defense attorney. They all seem to believe that Zimmerman is going to have to testify or he is going down.Who knows?

Should I just rely on internet blogs instead, the way JoJo and others around here seem to be doing?

No, you should think for yourself and stop quoting talking head experts. Not every case is about who has the smoothest lawyers. Sometimes there are juries who actually listen to the court instructions and believe that the prosecution has the burden to meet their obligations to lock someone up. So far there has been very little substance to back up essential elements of this crime. That is not an opinion, it is a fact.

No it is an opinion.The essential elements of this crime are that (1) George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin to death (not contested) and (2) that George Zimmerman did not act in self-defense. We just had a witness state unequivocally that she heard Trayvon Martin say "get off me, get off me." Either she is lying, or George Zimmerman did not act in self-defense. I found Rachel to be, in this aspect of her overall testimony, a credible witness. The defense tried to shake her testimony and they failed rather miserably IMO. Therefore there HAVE been enough substance to back up the essential elements of this crime, contrary to your statement.

Since you are clearly not dealing with facts Tim, how about this: let's say that GZ grabbed TM, then TM punched him in the face, straddled Z, and started to tee off; could Z be scared for his life then?

If George Zimmerman testified to that on the stand, and I was on the jury, I would vote to convict him of manslaughter. And if the judge instructed me not to based on some crazy Florida law I would resign from the jury. The idea that Zimmerman could start the fight and then kill Martin because he became concerned over how the fight was going is repellent to me.

 

[timschochet]

This thing is totally over. The State should just drop all charges, just like the end of "My Cousin Vinny."

Interesting that you and jon mx and others seem to believe this. I'm watching a HLN analysis right now, and most of the attorneys there believe that the prosecution is winning big time. They find Rachel's essential testimony credible (as do I) and they think that the jury can't stand the defense attorney. They all seem to believe that Zimmerman is going to have to testify or he is going down.

Who knows?

Should I just rely on internet blogs instead, the way JoJo and others around here seem to be doing?

No, you should think for yourself and stop quoting talking head experts. Not every case is about who has the smoothest lawyers. Sometimes there are juries who actually listen to the court instructions and believe that the prosecution has the burden to meet their obligations to lock someone up. So far there has been very little substance to back up essential elements of this crime. That is not an opinion, it is a fact.

No it is an opinion.

The essential elements of this crime are that (1) George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin to death (not contested) and (2) that George Zimmerman did not act in self-defense. We just had a witness state unequivocally that she heard Trayvon Martin say "get off me, get off me." Either she is lying, or George Zimmerman did not act in self-defense. I found Rachel to be, in this aspect of her overall testimony, a credible witness. The defense tried to shake her testimony and they failed rather miserably IMO. Therefore there HAVE been enough substance to back up the essential elements of this crime, contrary to your statement.

Bunk

So it is your position that if Martin was saying "get off me get off me", Zimmerman still could have killed him in self-defense? I don't think any jury is going to believe that.

Christo is going to say that even if he started the fight he could still end up fearing for his life ...but id say that treyvon was also in fear of his life at the very same time...the gun was the difference maker.

Yeah I consider that to be an internet argument. No way any attorney ever makes that argument to a real life jury.

 

[jon_mx]

OK, so someone explain this to me: thanks to Rachel, the prosecution has established a narrative of what they believed happened. Zimmerman was the aggressor, Martin said "get off me", indicating that Zimmerman did not fear for his life and therefore is guilty of murder or at least manslaughter.

How does the defense come up with their own narrative? They will have John, who will testify that at least one point Martin was on top of Zimmerman (maybe). They have photos of injuries suffered by Zimmerman (somewhat minor.) But without Zimmerman's testimony,, they have nothing to tie this together, nothing for the jury to assume self-defense. So again, can the defense get away with not putting GZ on the stand?

You put way more weight on Didi's testimony than most people and none of her testimony really matters. The physical evidence along with the 911 voice recording indicates Martin was on top of Zimmerman, beating him up, and Martin was screaming for help. How they got in that position really does not matter. Zimmerman was in fear for his life yelling for help. It was not Martin.

Besides, in order for a second degree conviction, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the following:

• A "person of ordinary judgment" would know the act, or series of acts, "is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another";
• The act is "done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent"; and
• The act is "of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life."

There is no way with the evidence the defense is presenting, a fair jury would rule that the state has met those elements. The case is deficient even without the defense doing one thing.

The bolded statements are unbelievable. Where do you get this?

Zimmerman's face was beaten in. He had injuries on the back of his head. He had grass stains on his back. Martin had a bullet hole and hurt knuckles. Zimmerman was losing the fight. Zimmerman was on the ground getting his ### kicked. Nothing else makes a bit of sense. Zimmerman may be lying about details such as a struggle over the gun. He probably just pulled it out and shot him. But I do believe Zimmerman was scared for his life, rightly or wrongly.

 

[Christo]

This thing is totally over. The State should just drop all charges, just like the end of "My Cousin Vinny."

Interesting that you and jon mx and others seem to believe this. I'm watching a HLN analysis right now, and most of the attorneys there believe that the prosecution is winning big time. They find Rachel's essential testimony credible (as do I) and they think that the jury can't stand the defense attorney. They all seem to believe that Zimmerman is going to have to testify or he is going down.

Who knows?

Should I just rely on internet blogs instead, the way JoJo and others around here seem to be doing?

No, you should think for yourself and stop quoting talking head experts. Not every case is about who has the smoothest lawyers. Sometimes there are juries who actually listen to the court instructions and believe that the prosecution has the burden to meet their obligations to lock someone up. So far there has been very little substance to back up essential elements of this crime. That is not an opinion, it is a fact.

No it is an opinion.

The essential elements of this crime are that (1) George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin to death (not contested) and (2) that George Zimmerman did not act in self-defense. We just had a witness state unequivocally that she heard Trayvon Martin say "get off me, get off me." Either she is lying, or George Zimmerman did not act in self-defense. I found Rachel to be, in this aspect of her overall testimony, a credible witness. The defense tried to shake her testimony and they failed rather miserably IMO. Therefore there HAVE been enough substance to back up the essential elements of this crime, contrary to your statement.

Bunk

So it is your position that if Martin was saying "get off me get off me", Zimmerman still could have killed him in self-defense? I don't think any jury is going to believe that.

Christo is going to say that even if he started the fight he could still end up fearing for his life ...but id say that treyvon was also in fear of his life at the very same time...the gun was the difference maker.

Martin fearing for his life does not negate Zimmerman fearing for his life.

 

[Christo]

This thing is totally over. The State should just drop all charges, just like the end of "My Cousin Vinny."

Interesting that you and jon mx and others seem to believe this. I'm watching a HLN analysis right now, and most of the attorneys there believe that the prosecution is winning big time. They find Rachel's essential testimony credible (as do I) and they think that the jury can't stand the defense attorney. They all seem to believe that Zimmerman is going to have to testify or he is going down.

Who knows?

Should I just rely on internet blogs instead, the way JoJo and others around here seem to be doing?

No, you should think for yourself and stop quoting talking head experts. Not every case is about who has the smoothest lawyers. Sometimes there are juries who actually listen to the court instructions and believe that the prosecution has the burden to meet their obligations to lock someone up. So far there has been very little substance to back up essential elements of this crime. That is not an opinion, it is a fact.

No it is an opinion.

The essential elements of this crime are that (1) George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin to death (not contested) and (2) that George Zimmerman did not act in self-defense. We just had a witness state unequivocally that she heard Trayvon Martin say "get off me, get off me." Either she is lying, or George Zimmerman did not act in self-defense. I found Rachel to be, in this aspect of her overall testimony, a credible witness. The defense tried to shake her testimony and they failed rather miserably IMO. Therefore there HAVE been enough substance to back up the essential elements of this crime, contrary to your statement.

Bunk

So it is your position that if Martin was saying "get off me get off me", Zimmerman still could have killed him in self-defense? I don't think any jury is going to believe that.

Christo is going to say that even if he started the fight he could still end up fearing for his life ...but id say that treyvon was also in fear of his life at the very same time...the gun was the difference maker.

Yeah I consider that to be an internet argument. No way any attorney ever makes that argument to a real life jury.

 

[jon_mx]

Tim, you just ignore the essential elements of second degree murder as if it is a non-starter. It is unbelievable. Just keep listening to the idiots on HLN. The legal stuff is way over your head.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

This thing is totally over. The State should just drop all charges, just like the end of "My Cousin Vinny."

Interesting that you and jon mx and others seem to believe this. I'm watching a HLN analysis right now, and most of the attorneys there believe that the prosecution is winning big time. They find Rachel's essential testimony credible (as do I) and they think that the jury can't stand the defense attorney. They all seem to believe that Zimmerman is going to have to testify or he is going down.

Who knows?

Should I just rely on internet blogs instead, the way JoJo and others around here seem to be doing?

No, you should think for yourself and stop quoting talking head experts. Not every case is about who has the smoothest lawyers. Sometimes there are juries who actually listen to the court instructions and believe that the prosecution has the burden to meet their obligations to lock someone up. So far there has been very little substance to back up essential elements of this crime. That is not an opinion, it is a fact.

No it is an opinion.

The essential elements of this crime are that (1) George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin to death (not contested) and (2) that George Zimmerman did not act in self-defense. We just had a witness state unequivocally that she heard Trayvon Martin say "get off me, get off me." Either she is lying, or George Zimmerman did not act in self-defense. I found Rachel to be, in this aspect of her overall testimony, a credible witness. The defense tried to shake her testimony and they failed rather miserably IMO. Therefore there HAVE been enough substance to back up the essential elements of this crime, contrary to your statement.

Bunk

So it is your position that if Martin was saying "get off me get off me", Zimmerman still could have killed him in self-defense? I don't think any jury is going to believe that.

Christo is going to say that even if he started the fight he could still end up fearing for his life ...but id say that treyvon was also in fear of his life at the very same time...the gun was the difference maker.

Martin fearing for his life does not negate Zimmerman fearing for his life.

i never said it did...but if im packing a gun im going to have that ace in my pocket vs a guy whos only weapons are his hands.

 

[jon_mx]

This thing is totally over. The State should just drop all charges, just like the end of "My Cousin Vinny."

Interesting that you and jon mx and others seem to believe this. I'm watching a HLN analysis right now, and most of the attorneys there believe that the prosecution is winning big time. They find Rachel's essential testimony credible (as do I) and they think that the jury can't stand the defense attorney. They all seem to believe that Zimmerman is going to have to testify or he is going down.

Who knows?

Should I just rely on internet blogs instead, the way JoJo and others around here seem to be doing?

No, you should think for yourself and stop quoting talking head experts. Not every case is about who has the smoothest lawyers. Sometimes there are juries who actually listen to the court instructions and believe that the prosecution has the burden to meet their obligations to lock someone up. So far there has been very little substance to back up essential elements of this crime. That is not an opinion, it is a fact.

No it is an opinion.

The essential elements of this crime are that (1) George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin to death (not contested) and (2) that George Zimmerman did not act in self-defense. We just had a witness state unequivocally that she heard Trayvon Martin say "get off me, get off me." Either she is lying, or George Zimmerman did not act in self-defense. I found Rachel to be, in this aspect of her overall testimony, a credible witness. The defense tried to shake her testimony and they failed rather miserably IMO. Therefore there HAVE been enough substance to back up the essential elements of this crime, contrary to your statement.

Bunk

So it is your position that if Martin was saying "get off me get off me", Zimmerman still could have killed him in self-defense? I don't think any jury is going to believe that.

Christo is going to say that even if he started the fight he could still end up fearing for his life ...but id say that treyvon was also in fear of his life at the very same time...the gun was the difference maker.

Yeah I consider that to be an internet argument. No way any attorney ever makes that argument to a real life jury.

It is clearly stipulated in the law. You really don't seem to care about all these silly details about what the law says.

 

[Christo]

Interesting that you and jon mx and others seem to believe this. I'm watching a HLN analysis right now, and most of the attorneys there believe that the prosecution is winning big time. They find Rachel's essential testimony credible (as do I) and they think that the jury can't stand the defense attorney. They all seem to believe that Zimmerman is going to have to testify or he is going down.

Who knows?

Should I just rely on internet blogs instead, the way JoJo and others around here seem to be doing?

No, you should think for yourself and stop quoting talking head experts. Not every case is about who has the smoothest lawyers. Sometimes there are juries who actually listen to the court instructions and believe that the prosecution has the burden to meet their obligations to lock someone up. So far there has been very little substance to back up essential elements of this crime. That is not an opinion, it is a fact.

No it is an opinion.

The essential elements of this crime are that (1) George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin to death (not contested) and (2) that George Zimmerman did not act in self-defense. We just had a witness state unequivocally that she heard Trayvon Martin say "get off me, get off me." Either she is lying, or George Zimmerman did not act in self-defense. I found Rachel to be, in this aspect of her overall testimony, a credible witness. The defense tried to shake her testimony and they failed rather miserably IMO. Therefore there HAVE been enough substance to back up the essential elements of this crime, contrary to your statement.

Bunk

So it is your position that if Martin was saying "get off me get off me", Zimmerman still could have killed him in self-defense? I don't think any jury is going to believe that.

Christo is going to say that even if he started the fight he could still end up fearing for his life ...but id say that treyvon was also in fear of his life at the very same time...the gun was the difference maker.

Martin fearing for his life does not negate Zimmerman fearing for his life.

i never said it did...but if im packing a gun im going to have that ace in my pocket vs a guy whos only weapons are his hands.

What does that have to do with anything?

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

I just don't like the precedent being set that the shooter possessing a gun escalates the situation so that what he brought to the fight gives him cause to fear for his life when being in a fight with no other weapons. I do not think a reasonable person would fear for his life in a fight with a teenager. He will have to take the stand and say he was screaming for help, that he felt like he could lose consciousness, and say trayvon reached for his gun.

 

[jon_mx]

If George Zimmerman testified to that on the stand, and I was on the jury, I would vote to convict him of manslaughter. And if the judge instructed me not to based on some crazy Florida law I would resign from the jury. The idea that Zimmerman could start the fight and then kill Martin because he became concerned over how the fight was going is repellent to me.

Don't worry Tim. There is no way you would ever make it on a jury. You want to impose the same vigilante justice that you so despise in Zimmerman. You want to write your laws and convict people on that basis. That is ####### crazy.

 

[Ballstein]

Is it OK to say crackas? Is the "c" word more appropriate?

 

[timschochet]

Christo, can you or anyone else provide an example of the following case?

1. A defendant is accused of murder.

2. The defendant claims self-defense.

3. The defendant admits to starting a fight with the victim, but explains that in the middle of the fight, the defendant feared for his life, and so killed the victim in self-defense.

4. The defendant was acquitted.

See, I get this is theoretically possible, and the law, but I'm pretty skeptical this sort of defense would ever fly with a jury.

 

[jon_mx]

I just don't like the precedent being set that the shooter possessing a gun escalates the situation so that what he brought to the fight gives him cause to fear for his life when being in a fight with no other weapons. I do not think a reasonable person would fear for his life in a fight with a teenager. He will have to take the stand and say he was screaming for help, that he felt like he could lose consciousness, and say trayvon reached for his gun.

He was 17. He was 6' tall. He was a capable fighter. There was a gun present. It was a deadly situation.

 

[jon_mx]

I just don't like the precedent being set that the shooter possessing a gun escalates the situation so that what he brought to the fight gives him cause to fear for his life when being in a fight with no other weapons. I do not think a reasonable person would fear for his life in a fight with a teenager. He will have to take the stand and say he was screaming for help, that he felt like he could lose consciousness, and say trayvon reached for his gun.

Exactly. The Zimmerman defenders seem to have no problem with this logic and it really confuses me.

It has nothing to do with logic, it is laid out in Florida law.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Christo, can you or anyone else provide an example of the following case?

1. A defendant is accused of murder.

2. The defendant claims self-defense.

3. The defendant admits to starting a fight with the victim, but explains that in the middle of the fight, the defendant feared for his life, and so killed the victim in self-defense.

4. The defendant was acquitted.

See, I get this is theoretically possible, and the law, but I'm pretty skeptical this sort of defense would ever fly with a jury.

It can happen, but normally the instigator had to have first retreated, or something happened to escalate the situation.

 

[pittstownkiller]

I just don't like the precedent being set that the shooter possessing a gun escalates the situation so that what he brought to the fight gives him cause to fear for his life when being in a fight with no other weapons. I do not think a reasonable person would fear for his life in a fight with a teenager. He will have to take the stand and say he was screaming for help, that he felt like he could lose consciousness, and say trayvon reached for his gun.

Exactly. The Zimmerman defenders seem to have no problem with this logic and it really confuses me.

How the hell would Zimmerman know if Martin was armed or not?

 

[jon_mx]

Christo, can you or anyone else provide an example of the following case?

1. A defendant is accused of murder.

2. The defendant claims self-defense.

3. The defendant admits to starting a fight with the victim, but explains that in the middle of the fight, the defendant feared for his life, and so killed the victim in self-defense.

4. The defendant was acquitted.

See, I get this is theoretically possible, and the law, but I'm pretty skeptical this sort of defense would ever fly with a jury.

Juries are given the facts and instructed how to apply those facts within the bounds of the laws. They are not there to make personal judgements on what they think is right or wrong. If the law allows Zimmerman to defend himself under those circumstances, the jury just can't ignore the law.

 

[timschochet]

Christo, can you or anyone else provide an example of the following case?

1. A defendant is accused of murder.

2. The defendant claims self-defense.

3. The defendant admits to starting a fight with the victim, but explains that in the middle of the fight, the defendant feared for his life, and so killed the victim in self-defense.

4. The defendant was acquitted.

See, I get this is theoretically possible, and the law, but I'm pretty skeptical this sort of defense would ever fly with a jury.

It can happen, but normally the instigator had to have first retreated, or something happened to escalate the situation.

I'm sure it can happen, I'm curious if there's anything "normal" about it, and curious if it ever HAS happened.

 

[timschochet]

Christo, can you or anyone else provide an example of the following case?

1. A defendant is accused of murder.

2. The defendant claims self-defense.

3. The defendant admits to starting a fight with the victim, but explains that in the middle of the fight, the defendant feared for his life, and so killed the victim in self-defense.

4. The defendant was acquitted.

See, I get this is theoretically possible, and the law, but I'm pretty skeptical this sort of defense would ever fly with a jury.

Juries are given the facts and instructed how to apply those facts within the bounds of the laws. They are not there to make personal judgements on what they think is right or wrong. If they law allows Zimmerman to defend himself under those circumstances, they jury just can't ignore the law.

That wasn't my question, but thanks anyhow.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

I just don't like the precedent being set that the shooter possessing a gun escalates the situation so that what he brought to the fight gives him cause to fear for his life when being in a fight with no other weapons. I do not think a reasonable person would fear for his life in a fight with a teenager. He will have to take the stand and say he was screaming for help, that he felt like he could lose consciousness, and say trayvon reached for his gun.

Exactly. The Zimmerman defenders seem to have no problem with this logic and it really confuses me.

How the hell would Zimmerman know if Martin was armed or not?

So anytime you're in a fight or there's an altercation, one can presume their opponent is armed and act accordingly?

 

[Christo]

Christo, can you or anyone else provide an example of the following case?

1. A defendant is accused of murder.

2. The defendant claims self-defense.

3. The defendant admits to starting a fight with the victim, but explains that in the middle of the fight, the defendant feared for his life, and so killed the victim in self-defense.

4. The defendant was acquitted.

See, I get this is theoretically possible, and the law, but I'm pretty skeptical this sort of defense would ever fly with a jury.

It can happen, but normally the instigator had to have first retreated, or something happened to escalate the situation.

Like being knocked to the ground, jumped on and having your head slammed into the pavement?

 

[Mark Davis]

This thing is totally over. The State should just drop all charges, just like the end of "My Cousin Vinny."

Interesting that you and jon mx and others seem to believe this. I'm watching a HLN analysis right now, and most of the attorneys there believe that the prosecution is winning big time. They find Rachel's essential testimony credible (as do I) and they think that the jury can't stand the defense attorney. They all seem to believe that Zimmerman is going to have to testify or he is going down.

Who knows?

I am no attorney but I can't name a defense attorney I've heard say they'd put Zimmerman on the stand.

 

[timschochet]

Just to clarify: Zimmerman does NOT admit to starting the fight in this case. Christo and jon seem to be arguing that even if Zimmerman DID admit to starting the fight, he could still be acquitted for self-defense. I find that highly implausible, even if it is legal, and that's why I asked for an example.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Christo, can you or anyone else provide an example of the following case?

1. A defendant is accused of murder.

2. The defendant claims self-defense.

3. The defendant admits to starting a fight with the victim, but explains that in the middle of the fight, the defendant feared for his life, and so killed the victim in self-defense.

4. The defendant was acquitted.

See, I get this is theoretically possible, and the law, but I'm pretty skeptical this sort of defense would ever fly with a jury.

It can happen, but normally the instigator had to have first retreated, or something happened to escalate the situation.

Like being knocked to the ground, jumped on and having your head slammed into the pavement?

Maybe. Punched in the face and hitting the ground with the back of your head is different than grabbing and slamming a head into the ground though. I just don't think losing a fist fight necessarily justifies deadly force.

Murder 2 though? No. Manslaughter or negligence. Yes.

 

[jon_mx]

I

n January, Garcia was in his apartment in Miami's Little Havana district when he saw Pedro Roteta stealing a stereo from his truck. Garcia grabbed a kitchen knife and chased after Roteta for about a block. When Garcia caught up to him, surveillance cameras caught Roteta swinging a bag containing the stereos at him. Authorities said Garcia fatally stabbed Roteta in the chest, picked up the bag of stereos and then went home and went to sleep. He then hid the knife and sold two of the stereos.

Arrested and charged with second-degree murder, Garcia claimed his actions were taken in self-defense as defined by Florida's 'stand your ground" law. That law came to national prominence after neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman invoked it in the shooting death of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin.

The 2005 law broadly eliminates a person's duty to retreat under threat of death or serious injury, as long as the person isn't committing a crime and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

In March, a circuit court judge ruled that Garcia acted within the law. The judge said Garcia could have been killed or seriously injured if Roteta had hit him in the head with the bag of stereos.

 

[jon_mx]

Just to clarify: Zimmerman does NOT admit to starting the fight in this case. Christo and jon seem to be arguing that even if Zimmerman DID admit to starting the fight, he could still be acquitted for self-defense. I find that highly implausible, even if it is legal, and that's why I asked for an example.

It is legal and the jury would be instructed as such. You think the jury is just going to ignore the judge's instructions????

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Just to clarify: Zimmerman does NOT admit to starting the fight in this case. Christo and jon seem to be arguing that even if Zimmerman DID admit to starting the fight, he could still be acquitted for self-defense. I find that highly implausible, even if it is legal, and that's why I asked for an example.

It is legal and the jury would be instructed as such. You think the jury is just going to ignore the judge's instructions????

I know that's something that's never happened for sure.

 

[timschochet]

I

n January, Garcia was in his apartment in Miami's Little Havana district when he saw Pedro Roteta stealing a stereo from his truck. Garcia grabbed a kitchen knife and chased after Roteta for about a block. When Garcia caught up to him, surveillance cameras caught Roteta swinging a bag containing the stereos at him. Authorities said Garcia fatally stabbed Roteta in the chest, picked up the bag of stereos and then went home and went to sleep. He then hid the knife and sold two of the stereos.

Arrested and charged with second-degree murder, Garcia claimed his actions were taken in self-defense as defined by Florida's 'stand your ground" law. That law came to national prominence after neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman invoked it in the shooting death of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin.

The 2005 law broadly eliminates a person's duty to retreat under threat of death or serious injury, as long as the person isn't committing a crime and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

In March, a circuit court judge ruled that Garcia acted within the law. The judge said Garcia could have been killed or seriously injured if Roteta had hit him in the head with the bag of stereos.

Thanks, but this is not an example, because it never went before a jury. My whole point was that no real life jury would ever buy such an argument. In the case you cited, a judge refused to let it go before a jury.

There is also the added element of the victim committing a crime against the perpetrator. It's hard to argue that Garcia "initiated" the fight.

 

[jon_mx]

• The number of cases is increasing, largely because defense attorneys are using "stand your ground" in ways state legislators never envisioned. The defense has been invoked in dozens of cases with minor or no injuries. It has also been used by a self-described "vampire" in Pinellas County, a Miami man arrested with a single marijuana cigarette, a Fort Myers homeowner who shot a bear and a West Palm Beach jogger who beat a Jack Russell terrier.

• People often go free under "stand your ground" in cases that seem to make a mockery of what lawmakers intended. One man killed two unarmed people and walked out of jail. Another shot a man as he lay on the ground. Others went free after shooting their victims in the back. In nearly a third of the cases the Times analyzed, defendants initiated the fight, shot an unarmed person or pursued their victim — and still went free.

 

[timschochet]

Just to clarify: Zimmerman does NOT admit to starting the fight in this case. Christo and jon seem to be arguing that even if Zimmerman DID admit to starting the fight, he could still be acquitted for self-defense. I find that highly implausible, even if it is legal, and that's why I asked for an example.

It is legal and the jury would be instructed as such. You think the jury is just going to ignore the judge's instructions????

I am waiting for an example of a jury that followed instructions based on the example I gave.

 

[jon_mx]

Christo, can you or anyone else provide an example of the following case?

1. A defendant is accused of murder.

2. The defendant claims self-defense.

3. The defendant admits to starting a fight with the victim, but explains that in the middle of the fight, the defendant feared for his life, and so killed the victim in self-defense.

4. The defendant was acquitted.

See, I get this is theoretically possible, and the law, but I'm pretty skeptical this sort of defense would ever fly with a jury.

It can happen, but normally the instigator had to have first retreated, or something happened to escalate the situation.

Like being knocked to the ground, jumped on and having your head slammed into the pavement?

Maybe. Punched in the face and hitting the ground with the back of your head is different than grabbing and slamming a head into the ground though. I just don't think losing a fist fight necessarily justifies deadly force.

Murder 2 though? No. Manslaughter or negligence. Yes.

An all woman jury would see such an act as life threatening.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Just to clarify: Zimmerman does NOT admit to starting the fight in this case. Christo and jon seem to be arguing that even if Zimmerman DID admit to starting the fight, he could still be acquitted for self-defense. I find that highly implausible, even if it is legal, and that's why I asked for an example.

I think they are saying it doesn't matter who started the fight so there is no need to even touch it with their defense. They just need to focus on proving that Zimmerman was afraid for his life.

The prosecution can focus all they want on what some girl thinks she did or did not hear on the phone. The defense will focus on the fight itself. If they can create enough of a picture of Martin beating up zimmerman, it wont matter what the girl said.

 

[timschochet]

• The number of cases is increasing, largely because defense attorneys are using "stand your ground" in ways state legislators never envisioned. The defense has been invoked in dozens of cases with minor or no injuries. It has also been used by a self-described "vampire" in Pinellas County, a Miami man arrested with a single marijuana cigarette, a Fort Myers homeowner who shot a bear and a West Palm Beach jogger who beat a Jack Russell terrier.

• People often go free under "stand your ground" in cases that seem to make a mockery of what lawmakers intended. One man killed two unarmed people and walked out of jail. Another shot a man as he lay on the ground. Others went free after shooting their victims in the back. In nearly a third of the cases the Times analyzed, defendants initiated the fight, shot an unarmed person or pursued their victim — and still went free.

Again, in any of these cases did it reach a jury? Or did a judge simply invoke the "stand your ground" defense? If I am correct, that defense HAS to be placed before a judge in a preliminary hearing.

Come back to me when you have a jury who acquitted a guy who admitted to starting a fight and then claimed self-defense. That was my question.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Christo, can you or anyone else provide an example of the following case?

1. A defendant is accused of murder.

2. The defendant claims self-defense.

3. The defendant admits to starting a fight with the victim, but explains that in the middle of the fight, the defendant feared for his life, and so killed the victim in self-defense.

4. The defendant was acquitted.

See, I get this is theoretically possible, and the law, but I'm pretty skeptical this sort of defense would ever fly with a jury.

It can happen, but normally the instigator had to have first retreated, or something happened to escalate the situation.

Like being knocked to the ground, jumped on and having your head slammed into the pavement?

Maybe. Punched in the face and hitting the ground with the back of your head is different than grabbing and slamming a head into the ground though. I just don't think losing a fist fight necessarily justifies deadly force.Murder 2 though? No. Manslaughter or negligence. Yes.

An all woman jury would see such an act as life threatening.

Possibly. I'm not sure how they got this jury either. All middle aged white women with more than half gun owners, right?

Florida is a joke.

 

[timschochet]

Just to clarify: Zimmerman does NOT admit to starting the fight in this case. Christo and jon seem to be arguing that even if Zimmerman DID admit to starting the fight, he could still be acquitted for self-defense. I find that highly implausible, even if it is legal, and that's why I asked for an example.

I think they are saying it doesn't matter who started the fight so there is no need to even touch it with their defense. They just need to focus on proving that Zimmerman was afraid for his life.

The prosecution can focus all they want on what some girl thinks she did or did not hear on the phone. The defense will focus on the fight itself. If they can create enough of a picture of Martin beating up zimmerman, it wont matter what the girl said.

Thanks for getting to the core of things. But I don't agree with you. I believe that if the jury comes to believe that Zimmerman started the fight, then Zimmerman will be found guilty of manslaughter at least. The defense has to at least provide reasonable doubt that Zimmerman started the fight.

 

[jon_mx]

Tim is a joke. I give up. Just watch HLN and be shocked when all the smart experts there are proven wrong time after time.

 

[Christo]

Christo, can you or anyone else provide an example of the following case?

1. A defendant is accused of murder.

2. The defendant claims self-defense.

3. The defendant admits to starting a fight with the victim, but explains that in the middle of the fight, the defendant feared for his life, and so killed the victim in self-defense.

4. The defendant was acquitted.

See, I get this is theoretically possible, and the law, but I'm pretty skeptical this sort of defense would ever fly with a jury.

It can happen, but normally the instigator had to have first retreated, or something happened to escalate the situation.

Like being knocked to the ground, jumped on and having your head slammed into the pavement?

Maybe. Punched in the face and hitting the ground with the back of your head is different than grabbing and slamming a head into the ground though. I just don't think losing a fist fight necessarily justifies deadly force.Murder 2 though? No. Manslaughter or negligence. Yes.

An all woman jury would see such an act as life threatening.

Possibly. I'm not sure how they got this jury either. All middle aged white women with more than half gun owners, right?

Florida is a joke.

How so?

 

[timschochet]

Christo, can you or anyone else provide an example of the following case?

1. A defendant is accused of murder.

2. The defendant claims self-defense.

3. The defendant admits to starting a fight with the victim, but explains that in the middle of the fight, the defendant feared for his life, and so killed the victim in self-defense.

4. The defendant was acquitted.

See, I get this is theoretically possible, and the law, but I'm pretty skeptical this sort of defense would ever fly with a jury.

It can happen, but normally the instigator had to have first retreated, or something happened to escalate the situation.

Like being knocked to the ground, jumped on and having your head slammed into the pavement?

Maybe. Punched in the face and hitting the ground with the back of your head is different than grabbing and slamming a head into the ground though. I just don't think losing a fist fight necessarily justifies deadly force.Murder 2 though? No. Manslaughter or negligence. Yes.

An all woman jury would see such an act as life threatening.

Possibly. I'm not sure how they got this jury either. All middle aged white women with more than half gun owners, right?

Florida is a joke.

I really think there is a misconception here about gun owners. Not all gun owners believe in whatever the NRA tells them. Not all of them react in the exact same way to these sorts of situations either. My understanding is that at least one of the women who admitted to being a gun owner also stated she was in favor of more stringent gun control.

I also personally know plenty of people who don't own any guns but who side completely with the NRA and are against almost all gun control efforts. So I don't think any conclusions can be drawn here.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

OK, so someone explain this to me: thanks to Rachel, the prosecution has established a narrative of what they believed happened. Zimmerman was the aggressor, Martin said "get off me", indicating that Zimmerman did not fear for his life and therefore is guilty of murder or at least manslaughter.

How does the defense come up with their own narrative? They will have John, who will testify that at least one point Martin was on top of Zimmerman (maybe). They have photos of injuries suffered by Zimmerman (somewhat minor.) But without Zimmerman's testimony,, they have nothing to tie this together, nothing for the jury to assume self-defense. So again, can the defense get away with not putting GZ on the stand?

You put way more weight on Didi's testimony than most people and none of her testimony really matters. The physical evidence along with the 911 voice recording indicates Martin was on top of Zimmerman, beating him up, and Martin was screaming for help. How they got in that position really does not matter. Zimmerman was in fear for his life yelling for help. It was not Martin.

Besides, in order for a second degree conviction, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the following:

• A "person of ordinary judgment" would know the act, or series of acts, "is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another";
• The act is "done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent"; and
• The act is "of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life."

There is no way with the evidence the defense is presenting, a fair jury would rule that the state has met those elements. The case is deficient even without the defense doing one thing.

The bolded statements are unbelievable. Where do you get this?

Zimmerman's face was beaten in. He had injuries on the back of his head. He had grass stains on his back. Martin had a bullet hole and hurt knuckles. Zimmerman was losing the fight. Zimmerman was on the ground getting his ### kicked. Nothing else makes a bit of sense. Zimmerman may be lying about details such as a struggle over the gun. He probably just pulled it out and shot him. But I do believe Zimmerman was scared for his life, rightly or wrongly.

Just to pile on...Martin had grass stains on his knees, there was screaming that sounded like yelps (as if one person had their hands over the other person's mouth) that turned into screams for help, Zimmerman stated he was screaming for help that night before knowing of any recording, a witness confirmed the screams sounded like they were life threatening screams, the screaming went on for 40 seconds, perhaps as long as a minute, another witness will confirm Martin was on top, Zimmerman has no grass stains on his knees, but did have a wet back (no pun intended) and grass on his back (not stains due to surface area). The forensics show a contact shot with the muzzle making contact with the clothing.

Crazy cat lady had a number of evident inconsistencies in her story, her cat Leo would have made for a better witness.

DiDi was even less credible than Crazy cat lady (if that is possible), if you don't believe her general demeanor in the trial did not change the more you saw her then you'll never believe she was coached. She outright lied in court about saying "you want that too", the bald-headed-dude fought tooth and nail to make sure the jury never heard the truth straight from the tape since it points to coaching about what to say during her deposition. Even if you are to believe everything she has said, then you will believe that Martin said he was right in the back of his dad's GF's house which would indicate he went home, was talking to her out back and then walked BACK to where Zimmerman was to confront him. She did not have a valid reason not to contact anyone including authorities when this boy whom she was talking non-stop with for 7+ hours a day fell off the face of the earth. I can understand she may not be smart, but why in the world would she not bother to tell anyone? She said it was just a fight so she didn't bother to tell anyone. Even if she heard rumors the next day at school, wouldn't it click that since she was on the phone with him the night before that she was probably the last person to talk to him and that maybe she was wrong that it was "just a fight"? You are putting an awful lot of stock in this young lady's changed testimony.

You want a preponderance of evidence that the State needs to overcome? You got it..

 

[timschochet]

Tim is a joke. I give up. Just watch HLN and be shocked when all the smart experts there are proven wrong time after time.

I'm watching everything. Right now I'm watching CNN and Mark Geragos continues to give opinions very similar to yours.

As far as you "giving up", perhaps you should. After all, I asked you for an example to back up your claim of what a jury would do, and you brought up numerous examples of cases that never went to a jury.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

btw for Tim or anyone else, please don't watch or listen to any experts until at least after you have watched the court proceedings yourself - it makes a huge difference what you can see with your own eyes and ears vs. whatever outlet you choose from the MSM to get your (usually) biased information, regardless of which side of the courtroom you sit.

 

[timschochet]

OK, so someone explain this to me: thanks to Rachel, the prosecution has established a narrative of what they believed happened. Zimmerman was the aggressor, Martin said "get off me", indicating that Zimmerman did not fear for his life and therefore is guilty of murder or at least manslaughter.

How does the defense come up with their own narrative? They will have John, who will testify that at least one point Martin was on top of Zimmerman (maybe). They have photos of injuries suffered by Zimmerman (somewhat minor.) But without Zimmerman's testimony,, they have nothing to tie this together, nothing for the jury to assume self-defense. So again, can the defense get away with not putting GZ on the stand?

You put way more weight on Didi's testimony than most people and none of her testimony really matters. The physical evidence along with the 911 voice recording indicates Martin was on top of Zimmerman, beating him up, and Martin was screaming for help. How they got in that position really does not matter. Zimmerman was in fear for his life yelling for help. It was not Martin.

Besides, in order for a second degree conviction, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the following:

• A "person of ordinary judgment" would know the act, or series of acts, "is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another";
• The act is "done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent"; and
• The act is "of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life."

There is no way with the evidence the defense is presenting, a fair jury would rule that the state has met those elements. The case is deficient even without the defense doing one thing.

The bolded statements are unbelievable. Where do you get this?

Zimmerman's face was beaten in. He had injuries on the back of his head. He had grass stains on his back. Martin had a bullet hole and hurt knuckles. Zimmerman was losing the fight. Zimmerman was on the ground getting his ### kicked. Nothing else makes a bit of sense. Zimmerman may be lying about details such as a struggle over the gun. He probably just pulled it out and shot him. But I do believe Zimmerman was scared for his life, rightly or wrongly.

Just to pile on...Martin had grass stains on his knees, there was screaming that sounded like yelps (as if one person had their hands over the other person's mouth) that turned into screams for help, Zimmerman stated he was screaming for help that night before knowing of any recording, a witness confirmed the screams sounded like they were life threatening screams, the screaming when on for 40 seconds, perhaps as long as a minute, another witness will confirm Martin was on top, Zimmerman has no grass stains on his knees, but did have a wet back (no pun intended) and grass on his back (not stains due to surface area). The forensics show a contact shot with the muzzle making contact with the clothing.

Crazy cat lady had a number of evident inconsistencies in her story, her cat Leo would have made for a better witness.

DiDi was even less credible than Crazy cat lady (if that is possible), if you don't believe her general demeanor in the trial did not change the more you saw her then you'll never believe she was coached. She outright lied in court about saying "you want that too", the bald-headed-dude fought tooth and nail to make sure the jury never heard the truth straight from the tape since it points to coaching about what to say during her deposition. Even if you are to believe everything she has said, then you will believe that Martin said he was right in the back of his dad's GF's house which would indicate he went home, was talking to her out back and then walked BACK to where Zimmerman was to confront him. She did not have a valid reason not to contact anyone including authorities when this boy whom she was talking non-stop with for 7+ hours a day fell off the face of the earth. I can understand she may not be smart, but why in the world would she not bother to tell anyone? She said it was just a fight so she didn't bother to tell anyone. Even if she heard rumors the next day at school, wouldn't it click that since she was on the phone with him the night before that she was probably the last person to talk to him and that maybe she was wrong that it was "just a fight"? You are putting an awful lot of stock in this young lady's changed testimony.

You want a preponderance of evidence that the State needs to overcome? You got it..

You make some excellent points here JoJo. I don't agree with everything you've written, but there is enough there that would cause me reasonable doubt- for now.

But part of it is because I already know what Zimmerman's story is. If I didn't know his story (as the jury does not) I would have a very different analysis, and likely lean more toward the prosecution. In analyzing this case so far, I have tried to act as if I didn't know anything about this except what I have learned in this trial.

 

[timschochet]

btw for Tim or anyone else, please don't watch or listen to any experts until at least after you have watched the court proceedings yourself - it makes a huge difference what you can see with your own eyes and ears vs. whatever outlet you choose from the MSM to get your (usually) biased information, regardless of which side of the courtroom you sit.

I agree with you, and I've tried to watch as much as I can. But I enjoy watching the news as well.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Christo, can you or anyone else provide an example of the following case?

1. A defendant is accused of murder.

2. The defendant claims self-defense.

3. The defendant admits to starting a fight with the victim, but explains that in the middle of the fight, the defendant feared for his life, and so killed the victim in self-defense.

4. The defendant was acquitted.

See, I get this is theoretically possible, and the law, but I'm pretty skeptical this sort of defense would ever fly with a jury.

It can happen, but normally the instigator had to have first retreated, or something happened to escalate the situation.

Like being knocked to the ground, jumped on and having your head slammed into the pavement?

Maybe. Punched in the face and hitting the ground with the back of your head is different than grabbing and slamming a head into the ground though. I just don't think losing a fist fight necessarily justifies deadly force.Murder 2 though? No. Manslaughter or negligence. Yes.

An all woman jury would see such an act as life threatening.

Possibly. I'm not sure how they got this jury either. All middle aged white women with more than half gun owners, right?Florida is a joke.

How so?

Stand your ground law, murder 2 charge, Rodney king jury, the Florida pan handle, Jacksonville jags, Tim tebow, bush v gore, Rubio, voting lines, etc

 

[Bayhawks]

Just to clarify: Zimmerman does NOT admit to starting the fight in this case. Christo and jon seem to be arguing that even if Zimmerman DID admit to starting the fight, he could still be acquitted for self-defense. I find that highly implausible, even if it is legal, and that's why I asked for an example.

I think they are saying it doesn't matter who started the fight so there is no need to even touch it with their defense. They just need to focus on proving that Zimmerman was afraid for his life.

The prosecution can focus all they want on what some girl thinks she did or did not hear on the phone. The defense will focus on the fight itself. If they can create enough of a picture of Martin beating up zimmerman, it wont matter what the girl said.

Thanks for getting to the core of things. But I don't agree with you. I believe that if the jury comes to believe that Zimmerman started the fight, then Zimmerman will be found guilty of manslaughter at least. The defense has to at least provide reasonable doubt that Zimmerman started the fight.

I'm pretty sure this can't happen. If he's not being charged with manslaughter, the jury can't come back and find him guilty of that. And the defense does not have to provide reasonable doubt that Zimmerman started the fight. According to the law, if Zimmerman feared for his life, regardless of whether he initiated the fight or not, using deadly force is legal. You may think the jury will decide otherwise, but if they do, the defense would have done their job; it's the jury who would have failed at theirs.

All that being said, I think the stand your ground law is stupid.

 

[Christo]

Christo, can you or anyone else provide an example of the following case?

1. A defendant is accused of murder.

2. The defendant claims self-defense.

3. The defendant admits to starting a fight with the victim, but explains that in the middle of the fight, the defendant feared for his life, and so killed the victim in self-defense.

4. The defendant was acquitted.

See, I get this is theoretically possible, and the law, but I'm pretty skeptical this sort of defense would ever fly with a jury.

It can happen, but normally the instigator had to have first retreated, or something happened to escalate the situation.

Like being knocked to the ground, jumped on and having your head slammed into the pavement?

Maybe. Punched in the face and hitting the ground with the back of your head is different than grabbing and slamming a head into the ground though. I just don't think losing a fist fight necessarily justifies deadly force.Murder 2 though? No. Manslaughter or negligence. Yes.

An all woman jury would see such an act as life threatening.

Possibly. I'm not sure how they got this jury either. All middle aged white women with more than half gun owners, right?Florida is a joke.

How so?

Stand your ground law, murder 2 charge, Rodney king jury, the Florida pan handle, Jacksonville jags, Tim tebow, bush v gore, Rubio, voting lines, etc

Many states have SYG. Proescutors throughout the nation overcharge all of the time. Rodney King was Cali. Tebow was a great college QB. I saw long lines at polling stations across the nation.

 

[jamny]

OK, so someone explain this to me: thanks to Rachel, the prosecution has established a narrative of what they believed happened. Zimmerman was the aggressor, Martin said "get off me", indicating that Zimmerman did not fear for his life and therefore is guilty of murder or at least manslaughter.

How does the defense come up with their own narrative? They will have John, who will testify that at least one point Martin was on top of Zimmerman (maybe). They have photos of injuries suffered by Zimmerman (somewhat minor.) But without Zimmerman's testimony,, they have nothing to tie this together, nothing for the jury to assume self-defense. So again, can the defense get away with not putting GZ on the stand?

You put way more weight on Didi's testimony than most people and none of her testimony really matters. The physical evidence along with the 911 voice recording indicates Martin was on top of Zimmerman, beating him up, and Martin was screaming for help. How they got in that position really does not matter. Zimmerman was in fear for his life yelling for help. It was not Martin.

Besides, in order for a second degree conviction, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the following:

• A "person of ordinary judgment" would know the act, or series of acts, "is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another";
• The act is "done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent"; and
• The act is "of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life."

There is no way with the evidence the defense is presenting, a fair jury would rule that the state has met those elements. The case is deficient even without the defense doing one thing.

The bolded statements are unbelievable. Where do you get this?

Zimmerman's face was beaten in. He had injuries on the back of his head. He had grass stains on his back. Martin had a bullet hole and hurt knuckles. Zimmerman was losing the fight. Zimmerman was on the ground getting his ### kicked. Nothing else makes a bit of sense. Zimmerman may be lying about details such as a struggle over the gun. He probably just pulled it out and shot him. But I do believe Zimmerman was scared for his life, rightly or wrongly.

Just to pile on...Martin had grass stains on his knees, there was screaming that sounded like yelps (as if one person had their hands over the other person's mouth) that turned into screams for help, Zimmerman stated he was screaming for help that night before knowing of any recording, a witness confirmed the screams sounded like they were life threatening screams, the screaming when on for 40 seconds, perhaps as long as a minute, another witness will confirm Martin was on top, Zimmerman has no grass stains on his knees, but did have a wet back (no pun intended) and grass on his back (not stains due to surface area). The forensics show a contact shot with the muzzle making contact with the clothing.

Crazy cat lady had a number of evident inconsistencies in her story, her cat Leo would have made for a better witness.

DiDi was even less credible than Crazy cat lady (if that is possible), if you don't believe her general demeanor in the trial did not change the more you saw her then you'll never believe she was coached. She outright lied in court about saying "you want that too", the bald-headed-dude fought tooth and nail to make sure the jury never heard the truth straight from the tape since it points to coaching about what to say during her deposition. Even if you are to believe everything she has said, then you will believe that Martin said he was right in the back of his dad's GF's house which would indicate he went home, was talking to her out back and then walked BACK to where Zimmerman was to confront him. She did not have a valid reason not to contact anyone including authorities when this boy whom she was talking non-stop with for 7+ hours a day fell off the face of the earth. I can understand she may not be smart, but why in the world would she not bother to tell anyone? She said it was just a fight so she didn't bother to tell anyone. Even if she heard rumors the next day at school, wouldn't it click that since she was on the phone with him the night before that she was probably the last person to talk to him and that maybe she was wrong that it was "just a fight"? You are putting an awful lot of stock in this young lady's changed testimony.

You want a preponderance of evidence that the State needs to overcome? You got it..

You make some excellent points here JoJo. I don't agree with everything you've written, but there is enough there that would cause me reasonable doubt- for now.

But part of it is because I already know what Zimmerman's story is. If I didn't know his story (as the jury does not) I would have a very different analysis, and likely lean more toward the prosecution. In analyzing this case so far, I have tried to act as if I didn't know anything about this except what I have learned in this trial.

I haven't followed this case that closely so I can think a little more like what a juror might think. So far I haven't seen anything that would indicate that Zimmerman instigated this outside of the questionable testimony of DiDi. More than reasonable doubt at this point to me.

eta: I just watch the trial. I don't watch any other talking heads give their opinions.