Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (4 Viewers)

[timschochet]

My initial impression here is that John has provided reasonable doubt for the defense, and just secured an acquittal for George Zimmerman. I have no idea why the prosecution would call him to the stand.

I hope I'm wrong about this, as you guys know what I think about this story. But rationally I can't see how the prosecution can possibly convince the jury at this point.

And you have the gall to call me "close minded."

You mean narrow-minded. And you are. But what does that have to do with what I just wrote?

 

[StrikeS2k]

So at this point, we've established that Martin was on top for a period of time. What does that mean? Do we know if Martin had the gun pulled on him by that time? Had he even seen the gun?

I think what we learn from this is that it's reasonable to believe GZ was in fear for his life. He was being pounded ground and pound style.

Devil's advocate here....what if what this guy saw was Martin's reaction to seeing the gun?

I'll stick to the facts that are known and avoid speculating, as I've done throughout this thread.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Wait- is this "John"? I thought he was going to be a defense witness?

That's what I thought as well - but the comments appear to help the defense (just said Martin was on top).

Did he? What exactly did he say to indicate that?

I admit to being pretty confused here. I've been told over and over in this thread that this was the defense's key witness in this trial. Why would the prosecution call him? And what exactly is he saying here?

Lighter skinned person wearing the lighter jacket was on the bottom. Darker skinned person wearing the darker clothes was on top straddling (MMA style) and punching down.

Martin must have been a pansy then....the "wounds" on Zimmerman's face (even with a broken nose) were weak. This is the 'worst' photo I've seen, though there may be others. Wasn't aware of the hyperbole around all his "injuries"

They showed a number of photos of Zimmermans head the first day - aside from the injuries to the front of the head, he had lumps on both sides of his head and the injuries on the back of his head (along with the blood running down the sides of his head from the back of the head).

Yeah, I saw the scratches and nicks on the back of his head as well, but folks here were suggesting Zimmerman's face had been "smashed in". From what I've seen, the injuries he sustained happen in the first minute of an MMA fight. Not suggesting they weren't a bad, but not nearly as bad as portrayed here.

I've seen people walk away from ### whippings without blood of any sort... I don't see how you can judge how bad he was losing by those pictures..

 

[timschochet]

So at this point, we've established that Martin was on top for a period of time. What does that mean? Do we know if Martin had the gun pulled on him by that time? Had he even seen the gun?

I think what we learn from this is that it's reasonable to believe GZ was in fear for his life. He was being pounded ground and pound style.

Devil's advocate here....what if what this guy saw was Martin's reaction to seeing the gun?

Even if this were true, how can you prove it? That's what reasonable doubt is all about. This witness provides reasonable doubt.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Defense scoring major points here.

Another strong defense witness put up by the State.

 

[The Commish]

So at this point, we've established that Martin was on top for a period of time. What does that mean? Do we know if Martin had the gun pulled on him by that time? Had he even seen the gun?

According to George, he twisted his body from the bottom position, his shirt lifted exposing his gun, Trayvon saw it, threatened to kill him, George felt Martin's hand crossing his body going for the gun, George unholstered and fired. Unfortunately there is no other witness closer to this than John but George.

Is there a way to get George's account without putting him on the stand like an admittance of his statement or something?

 

[avoiding injuries]

Even the CNN subtitles on the screen are biased.

After all this testimony, it says "Witness not sure who was yelling for help"

Earlier, they incorrectly had "Lighter skin person was the one throwing punches".

When will they stop?

 

[kentric]

My initial impression here is that John has provided reasonable doubt for the defense, and just secured an acquittal for George Zimmerman. I have no idea why the prosecution would call him to the stand.

I hope I'm wrong about this, as you guys know what I think about this story. But rationally I can't see how the prosecution can possibly convince the jury at this point.

See 17608 for some potential reasons.

 

[The Commish]

So at this point, we've established that Martin was on top for a period of time. What does that mean? Do we know if Martin had the gun pulled on him by that time? Had he even seen the gun?

I think what we learn from this is that it's reasonable to believe GZ was in fear for his life. He was being pounded ground and pound style.

Devil's advocate here....what if what this guy saw was Martin's reaction to seeing the gun?

I'll stick to the facts that are known and avoid speculating, as I've done throughout this thread.

The fact here is that there was a period of time where Martin was on top trying to hit Zimmerman. I'm not sure how you get to "fear for his life" from that narrow point in time

 

[StrikeS2k]

My initial impression here is that John has provided reasonable doubt for the defense, and just secured an acquittal for George Zimmerman. I have no idea why the prosecution would call him to the stand.

I hope I'm wrong about this, as you guys know what I think about this story. But rationally I can't see how the prosecution can possibly convince the jury at this point.

And you have the gall to call me "close minded."

You mean narrow-minded. And you are. But what does that have to do with what I just wrote?

You refuse to acknowledge that this might just have been a tragic set of circumstances and that GZ might actually have felt his life was in danger despite the evidence. You are willing to believe a proven liar as a witness. You have formed your opinion and are going to stick to it regardless of the evidence to the contrary. That's pretty much the definition of narrow/close minded thought. I find the irony amusing.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

John didn't notice the banging of Z's head on concrete. Some discrepancy there. I forgot what Z said about this. Did he say he was being choked and his head pounded or, just head pounded. If the later, defense could claim hits/punches from Trayvon forced Z's head to hit the ground.

I believe, M was trying to suffocate Z and in so doing pound his head against the pavement.

 

[kentric]

John Good coming across as very impartial one way or the other to Prosecution or Defense. Works well for Defense that he's not showing any give to Defense questions.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Wait- is this "John"? I thought he was going to be a defense witness?

That's what I thought as well - but the comments appear to help the defense (just said Martin was on top).

Did he? What exactly did he say to indicate that?

I admit to being pretty confused here. I've been told over and over in this thread that this was the defense's key witness in this trial. Why would the prosecution call him? And what exactly is he saying here?

He is the Defense's key witness. The Prosecution calling him may just be as simple as putting the thought in the jury's head that he is for the prosecution and that is why he was called by the Prosecution. Or, they're just trying to steal the Defense's thunder. Alternatively, by calling him first, they get the first and last chances to question him.

This is how I took it, to be able to take first crack at him, set the stage for this witness. First impressions and all...

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

What is the antonym of TOAST?

soggy bread?

Limp Biscuit

 

[kentric]

John didn't notice the banging of Z's head on concrete. Some discrepancy there. I forgot what Z said about this. Did he say he was being choked and his head pounded or, just head pounded. If the later, defense could claim hits/punches from Trayvon forced Z's head to hit the ground.

I believe, M was trying to suffocate Z and in so doing pound his head against the pavement.

Based on the screams, Martin did a terrible job of smothering Z.

 

[Witz]

So at this point, we've established that Martin was on top for a period of time. What does that mean? Do we know if Martin had the gun pulled on him by that time? Had he even seen the gun?

I think what we learn from this is that it's reasonable to believe GZ was in fear for his life. He was being pounded ground and pound style.

Devil's advocate here....what if what this guy saw was Martin's reaction to seeing the gun?

I'll stick to the facts that are known and avoid speculating, as I've done throughout this thread.

The fact here is that there was a period of time where Martin was on top trying to hit Zimmerman. I'm not sure how you get to "fear for his life" from that narrow point in time

Someone who I have no idea is, who is bigger than me and is beating me - sorry but to say you wouldn't be fearful is an odd statement

 

[Carolina Hustler]

So at this point, we've established that Martin was on top for a period of time. What does that mean? Do we know if Martin had the gun pulled on him by that time? Had he even seen the gun?

I think what we learn from this is that it's reasonable to believe GZ was in fear for his life. He was being pounded ground and pound style.

Devil's advocate here....what if what this guy saw was Martin's reaction to seeing the gun?

It could very well be, but we don't know that one way or the other.. So all we can do is speculate as to why Martin was on top of Zimmerman "ground and Pounding" him..

 

[Sinn Fein]

So at this point, we've established that Martin was on top for a period of time. What does that mean? Do we know if Martin had the gun pulled on him by that time? Had he even seen the gun?

I think what we learn from this is that it's reasonable to believe GZ was in fear for his life. He was being pounded ground and pound style.

Devil's advocate here....what if what this guy saw was Martin's reaction to seeing the gun?

Probably does not matter. It just establishes that Zimmerman did not shoot him until he feared for his life. If anything it really drives home the point that Zimmerman did not go into the confrontation looking to kill.

 

[The Commish]

Wait- is this "John"? I thought he was going to be a defense witness?

That's what I thought as well - but the comments appear to help the defense (just said Martin was on top).

Did he? What exactly did he say to indicate that?

I admit to being pretty confused here. I've been told over and over in this thread that this was the defense's key witness in this trial. Why would the prosecution call him? And what exactly is he saying here?

Lighter skinned person wearing the lighter jacket was on the bottom. Darker skinned person wearing the darker clothes was on top straddling (MMA style) and punching down.

Martin must have been a pansy then....the "wounds" on Zimmerman's face (even with a broken nose) were weak. This is the 'worst' photo I've seen, though there may be others. Wasn't aware of the hyperbole around all his "injuries"

They showed a number of photos of Zimmermans head the first day - aside from the injuries to the front of the head, he had lumps on both sides of his head and the injuries on the back of his head (along with the blood running down the sides of his head from the back of the head).

Yeah, I saw the scratches and nicks on the back of his head as well, but folks here were suggesting Zimmerman's face had been "smashed in". From what I've seen, the injuries he sustained happen in the first minute of an MMA fight. Not suggesting they weren't a bad, but not nearly as bad as portrayed here.

I've seen people walk away from ### whippings without blood of any sort... I don't see how you can judge how bad he was losing by those pictures..

Again....it's not a comment on the actual injuries....it's a comment on the hyperbole in this thread about the injuries. I agree we can't judge how bad he was "losing" or if he was losing at all by injuries. But I also don't see how someone is "losing" just by being on the bottom either. I've seen many who stayed on their backs until the fight was broken up and they looked fine compared to the person on top of them. That's why I'm a bit skeptical of the "since he was on bottom he was fearful for his life" routine. However, it was mentioned above that Zimmerman's statement indicated that Martin saw the gun and said he was going to kill Zimmerman....that's plenty to be fearful for his life.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Wait- is this "John"? I thought he was going to be a defense witness?

That's what I thought as well - but the comments appear to help the defense (just said Martin was on top).

Did he? What exactly did he say to indicate that?

I admit to being pretty confused here. I've been told over and over in this thread that this was the defense's key witness in this trial. Why would the prosecution call him? And what exactly is he saying here?

Lighter skinned person wearing the lighter jacket was on the bottom. Darker skinned person wearing the darker clothes was on top straddling (MMA style) and punching down.

Martin must have been a pansy then....the "wounds" on Zimmerman's face (even with a broken nose) were weak. This is the 'worst' photo I've seen, though there may be others. Wasn't aware of the hyperbole around all his "injuries"

that photo looks to be cutoff, many bumps on the head not visible in this pic

 

[kentric]

Defense needs to move this along. I think he's gotten everything he can out of John. Plus, he can call him back later. Now its just redundancy. Going to result in lost focus for the jury.

 

[StrikeS2k]

So at this point, we've established that Martin was on top for a period of time. What does that mean? Do we know if Martin had the gun pulled on him by that time? Had he even seen the gun?

I think what we learn from this is that it's reasonable to believe GZ was in fear for his life. He was being pounded ground and pound style.

Devil's advocate here....what if what this guy saw was Martin's reaction to seeing the gun?

I'll stick to the facts that are known and avoid speculating, as I've done throughout this thread.

The fact here is that there was a period of time where Martin was on top trying to hit Zimmerman. I'm not sure how you get to "fear for his life" from that narrow point in time

I said it's a reasonable conclusion. The term "ground and pound" is a pretty strong term in MMA and suggests someone getting a serious #### kicking. If I were on a jury and was told that a person was getting "ground and pounded" I would believe they were in fear of serious physical harm, including death.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

So at this point, we've established that Martin was on top for a period of time. What does that mean? Do we know if Martin had the gun pulled on him by that time? Had he even seen the gun?

John was asked by State if he saw a gun, John said no.

 

[timschochet]

My initial impression here is that John has provided reasonable doubt for the defense, and just secured an acquittal for George Zimmerman. I have no idea why the prosecution would call him to the stand.

I hope I'm wrong about this, as you guys know what I think about this story. But rationally I can't see how the prosecution can possibly convince the jury at this point.

And you have the gall to call me "close minded."

You mean narrow-minded. And you are. But what does that have to do with what I just wrote?

You refuse to acknowledge that this might just have been a tragic set of circumstances and that GZ might actually have felt his life was in danger despite the evidence. You are willing to believe a proven liar as a witness. You have formed your opinion and are going to stick to it regardless of the evidence to the contrary. That's pretty much the definition of narrow/close minded thought. I find the irony amusing.

What I find ironic is that you would bring this up in response to a post in which I just basically stated that the defense has won.

And as usual, you are wrong. I HAVE acknowledged, several times, that this might have been a tragic set of circumstances, and that Zimmerman may have felt his life was in danger. I have stated that as a possibility from the beginning of this thread. I don't THINK that's what happened, but I always acknowledged I could never prove it one way or another. Now I have acknowledged that I don't think the prosecution can either, thanks to this witness. The definition of a narrow-minded person is someone who refuses to accept facts that might alter his previously held perceptions. For you to accuse me of that in this instance only shows your own bias and doesn't reflect at all on me.

 

[StrikeS2k]

My initial impression here is that John has provided reasonable doubt for the defense, and just secured an acquittal for George Zimmerman. I have no idea why the prosecution would call him to the stand.

I hope I'm wrong about this, as you guys know what I think about this story. But rationally I can't see how the prosecution can possibly convince the jury at this point.

And you have the gall to call me "close minded."

You mean narrow-minded. And you are. But what does that have to do with what I just wrote?

You refuse to acknowledge that this might just have been a tragic set of circumstances and that GZ might actually have felt his life was in danger despite the evidence. You are willing to believe a proven liar as a witness. You have formed your opinion and are going to stick to it regardless of the evidence to the contrary. That's pretty much the definition of narrow/close minded thought. I find the irony amusing.

What I find ironic is that you would bring this up in response to a post in which I just basically stated that the defense has won.

And as usual, you are wrong. I HAVE acknowledged, several times, that this might have been a tragic set of circumstances, and that Zimmerman may have felt his life was in danger. I have stated that as a possibility from the beginning of this thread. I don't THINK that's what happened, but I always acknowledged I could never prove it one way or another. Now I have acknowledged that I don't think the prosecution can either, thanks to this witness. The definition of a narrow-minded person is someone who refuses to accept facts that might alter his previously held perceptions. For you to accuse me of that in this instance only shows your own bias and doesn't reflect at all on me.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

My initial impression here is that John has provided reasonable doubt for the defense, and just secured an acquittal for George Zimmerman. I have no idea why the prosecution would call him to the stand.

I hope I'm wrong about this, as you guys know what I think about this story. But rationally I can't see how the prosecution can possibly convince the jury at this point.

Does it change your previous views on this case (prior to trial)?

 

[kentric]

Wait- is this "John"? I thought he was going to be a defense witness?

That's what I thought as well - but the comments appear to help the defense (just said Martin was on top).

Did he? What exactly did he say to indicate that?

I admit to being pretty confused here. I've been told over and over in this thread that this was the defense's key witness in this trial. Why would the prosecution call him? And what exactly is he saying here?

Lighter skinned person wearing the lighter jacket was on the bottom. Darker skinned person wearing the darker clothes was on top straddling (MMA style) and punching down.

Martin must have been a pansy then....the "wounds" on Zimmerman's face (even with a broken nose) were weak. This is the 'worst' photo I've seen, though there may be others. Wasn't aware of the hyperbole around all his "injuries"

They showed a number of photos of Zimmermans head the first day - aside from the injuries to the front of the head, he had lumps on both sides of his head and the injuries on the back of his head (along with the blood running down the sides of his head from the back of the head).

Yeah, I saw the scratches and nicks on the back of his head as well, but folks here were suggesting Zimmerman's face had been "smashed in". From what I've seen, the injuries he sustained happen in the first minute of an MMA fight. Not suggesting they weren't a bad, but not nearly as bad as portrayed here.

I've seen people walk away from ### whippings without blood of any sort... I don't see how you can judge how bad he was losing by those pictures..

Again....it's not a comment on the actual injuries....it's a comment on the hyperbole in this thread about the injuries. I agree we can't judge how bad he was "losing" or if he was losing at all by injuries. But I also don't see how someone is "losing" just by being on the bottom either. I've seen many who stayed on their backs until the fight was broken up and they looked fine compared to the person on top of them. That's why I'm a bit skeptical of the "since he was on bottom he was fearful for his life" routine. However, it was mentioned above that Zimmerman's statement indicated that Martin saw the gun and said he was going to kill Zimmerman....that's plenty to be fearful for his life.

Z claims he saw John and asked for help and John went back inside. He was yelling for a good 15 seconds it seems. Perhaps he figured the cavalry wasn't coming.

 

[Rayderr]

My initial impression here is that John has provided reasonable doubt for the defense, and just secured an acquittal for George Zimmerman. I have no idea why the prosecution would call him to the stand.

I hope I'm wrong about this, as you guys know what I think about this story. But rationally I can't see how the prosecution can possibly convince the jury at this point.

See 17608 for some potential reasons.

Still seems like a bad move. With the prosecution already having one witness flaming out on them, the jury is probably thinking right now that the prosecution has nothing. I wouldn't be surprised if they started zoning out a bit.

 

[The Commish]

So at this point, we've established that Martin was on top for a period of time. What does that mean? Do we know if Martin had the gun pulled on him by that time? Had he even seen the gun?

John was asked by State if he saw a gun, John said no.

That's great....what does that have to do with whether or not Martin had seen a gun?

 

[StrikeS2k]

Tim,

Does GZ still have to testify?

 

[avoiding injuries]

After hearing a witness like John Good testify, can we all finally agree that Rachel was a horrible witness that demonstrated no credibility?

Could you imagine if she stayed consistent like John and spoke so matter of fact?

 

[StrikeS2k]

After hearing a witness like John Good testify, can we all finally agree that Rachel was a horrible witness that demonstrated no credibility?

Could you imagine if she stayed consistent like John and spoke so matter of fact?

Yes Sir.

 

[The Commish]

So at this point, we've established that Martin was on top for a period of time. What does that mean? Do we know if Martin had the gun pulled on him by that time? Had he even seen the gun?

I think what we learn from this is that it's reasonable to believe GZ was in fear for his life. He was being pounded ground and pound style.

Devil's advocate here....what if what this guy saw was Martin's reaction to seeing the gun?

I'll stick to the facts that are known and avoid speculating, as I've done throughout this thread.

The fact here is that there was a period of time where Martin was on top trying to hit Zimmerman. I'm not sure how you get to "fear for his life" from that narrow point in time

I said it's a reasonable conclusion. The term "ground and pound" is a pretty strong term in MMA and suggests someone getting a serious #### kicking. If I were on a jury and was told that a person was getting "ground and pounded" I would believe they were in fear of serious physical harm, including death.

Interesting....fair enough.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

So at this point, we've established that Martin was on top for a period of time. What does that mean? Do we know if Martin had the gun pulled on him by that time? Had he even seen the gun?

I think what we learn from this is that it's reasonable to believe GZ was in fear for his life. He was being pounded ground and pound style.

Devil's advocate here....what if what this guy saw was Martin's reaction to seeing the gun?

I'll stick to the facts that are known and avoid speculating, as I've done throughout this thread.

The fact here is that there was a period of time where Martin was on top trying to hit Zimmerman. I'm not sure how you get to "fear for his life" from that narrow point in time

Zimmerman was obviously taking damage from a person he didn't know, who he thought was suspicious, in the middle of the night, that person is on top of him, he can't get away, the person keeps hitting hi, smacking his head on the concrete.. Not sure how you can't understand how the person on the bottom would be afraid and panicking..

And you don't have to be in fear for your life to use deadly force in self defense.. The criteria is in fear for your life or great bodily harm.... It all has to do with what is going through your mind..

You don't have to get hit by a car to actually fear being hit by a car..

 

[timschochet]

Question: If I'm the judge, I'm thinking to myself, "OK, reasonable doubt has clearly been established here." Can the judge stop the trial at this point?

Or am I overreacting here? I've been trying to watch this as objectively as possible (despite my own strongly subjective bias) and it seems to me as if this witness has provided a reasonable doubt that will be impossible for the prosecution to eliminate. Does anyone disagree with this? If so, please explain.

 

[avoiding injuries]

CNN reminding viewers that this is the ONLY witness that says TM was on top of GZ.

Sheesh

 

[The Commish]

So at this point, we've established that Martin was on top for a period of time. What does that mean? Do we know if Martin had the gun pulled on him by that time? Had he even seen the gun?

According to George, he twisted his body from the bottom position, his shirt lifted exposing his gun, Trayvon saw it, threatened to kill him, George felt Martin's hand crossing his body going for the gun, George unholstered and fired. Unfortunately there is no other witness closer to this than John but George.

Is there a way to get George's account without putting him on the stand like an admittance of his statement or something?

bump

 

[jamny]

Wait- is this "John"? I thought he was going to be a defense witness?

That's what I thought as well - but the comments appear to help the defense (just said Martin was on top).

Did he? What exactly did he say to indicate that?

I admit to being pretty confused here. I've been told over and over in this thread that this was the defense's key witness in this trial. Why would the prosecution call him? And what exactly is he saying here?

Lighter skinned person wearing the lighter jacket was on the bottom. Darker skinned person wearing the darker clothes was on top straddling (MMA style) and punching down.

Martin must have been a pansy then....the "wounds" on Zimmerman's face (even with a broken nose) were weak. This is the 'worst' photo I've seen, though there may be others. Wasn't aware of the hyperbole around all his "injuries"

They showed a number of photos of Zimmermans head the first day - aside from the injuries to the front of the head, he had lumps on both sides of his head and the injuries on the back of his head (along with the blood running down the sides of his head from the back of the head).

Yeah, I saw the scratches and nicks on the back of his head as well, but folks here were suggesting Zimmerman's face had been "smashed in". From what I've seen, the injuries he sustained happen in the first minute of an MMA fight. Not suggesting they weren't a bad, but not nearly as bad as portrayed here.

I've seen people walk away from ### whippings without blood of any sort... I don't see how you can judge how bad he was losing by those pictures..

Again....it's not a comment on the actual injuries....it's a comment on the hyperbole in this thread about the injuries. I agree we can't judge how bad he was "losing" or if he was losing at all by injuries. But I also don't see how someone is "losing" just by being on the bottom either. I've seen many who stayed on their backs until the fight was broken up and they looked fine compared to the person on top of them. That's why I'm a bit skeptical of the "since he was on bottom he was fearful for his life" routine. However, it was mentioned above that Zimmerman's statement indicated that Martin saw the gun and said he was going to kill Zimmerman....that's plenty to be fearful for his life.

I think this is what it boils down to at this point. If he shot Martin because he was getting his ### kicked, I think that's manslaughter. If Martin was going for Z's gun, then that's self-defense.

Zimmerman is going to have to take the stand to make that clear to the jury, imo.

 

[The Commish]

Wait- is this "John"? I thought he was going to be a defense witness?

That's what I thought as well - but the comments appear to help the defense (just said Martin was on top).

Did he? What exactly did he say to indicate that?

I admit to being pretty confused here. I've been told over and over in this thread that this was the defense's key witness in this trial. Why would the prosecution call him? And what exactly is he saying here?

Lighter skinned person wearing the lighter jacket was on the bottom. Darker skinned person wearing the darker clothes was on top straddling (MMA style) and punching down.

Martin must have been a pansy then....the "wounds" on Zimmerman's face (even with a broken nose) were weak. This is the 'worst' photo I've seen, though there may be others. Wasn't aware of the hyperbole around all his "injuries"

They showed a number of photos of Zimmermans head the first day - aside from the injuries to the front of the head, he had lumps on both sides of his head and the injuries on the back of his head (along with the blood running down the sides of his head from the back of the head).

Yeah, I saw the scratches and nicks on the back of his head as well, but folks here were suggesting Zimmerman's face had been "smashed in". From what I've seen, the injuries he sustained happen in the first minute of an MMA fight. Not suggesting they weren't a bad, but not nearly as bad as portrayed here.

I've seen people walk away from ### whippings without blood of any sort... I don't see how you can judge how bad he was losing by those pictures..

Again....it's not a comment on the actual injuries....it's a comment on the hyperbole in this thread about the injuries. I agree we can't judge how bad he was "losing" or if he was losing at all by injuries. But I also don't see how someone is "losing" just by being on the bottom either. I've seen many who stayed on their backs until the fight was broken up and they looked fine compared to the person on top of them. That's why I'm a bit skeptical of the "since he was on bottom he was fearful for his life" routine. However, it was mentioned above that Zimmerman's statement indicated that Martin saw the gun and said he was going to kill Zimmerman....that's plenty to be fearful for his life.

I think this is what it boils down to at this point. If he shot Martin because he was getting his ### kicked, I think that's manslaughter. If Martin was going for Z's gun, then that's self-defense.

Zimmerman is going to have to take the stand to make that clear to the jury, imo.

This is where I'm at and why I asked if Zimmerman's statement could be introduced into the trial in lieu of him taking the stand.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Question: If I'm the judge, I'm thinking to myself, "OK, reasonable doubt has clearly been established here." Can the judge stop the trial at this point?

Or am I overreacting here? I've been trying to watch this as objectively as possible (despite my own strongly subjective bias) and it seems to me as if this witness has provided a reasonable doubt that will be impossible for the prosecution to eliminate. Does anyone disagree with this? If so, please explain.

You are the most fickle easily convinced person I have ever seen here.

 

[jamny]

Question: If I'm the judge, I'm thinking to myself, "OK, reasonable doubt has clearly been established here." Can the judge stop the trial at this point?

Or am I overreacting here? I've been trying to watch this as objectively as possible (despite my own strongly subjective bias) and it seems to me as if this witness has provided a reasonable doubt that will be impossible for the prosecution to eliminate. Does anyone disagree with this? If so, please explain.

You are the most fickle easily convinced person I have ever seen here.

 

[Slapdash]

CNN reminding viewers that this is the ONLY witness that says TM was on top of GZ.

Sheesh

There was one yesterday saying Zimmerman was on top.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

John didn't notice the banging of Z's head on concrete. Some discrepancy there. I forgot what Z said about this. Did he say he was being choked and his head pounded or, just head pounded. If the later, defense could claim hits/punches from Trayvon forced Z's head to hit the ground.

I believe, M was trying to suffocate Z and in so doing pound his head against the pavement.

Based on the screams, Martin did a terrible job of smothering Z.

Well, considering he was applying pressure Z's broken nose he was very effective in apply a lot of pain to Z. Z did say he had to shimmy to his side in order to try to breathe (and yell I assume). If M was very effective in smothering Z then Z would not be able to yell nor breathe and could be dead today.

 

[jon_mx]

Eyewitnes says Trayvon Martin was pounding GZ ala MMA ground and pound and that GZ was screaming. Is there really any need to continue this charade?

There was never a need for this trial. It is a joke. Purely a railroad job by the race-bating media/mob. I think I am about 100 for 100 on my conclusions that I have stated.

 

[Slapdash]

Question: If I'm the judge, I'm thinking to myself, "OK, reasonable doubt has clearly been established here." Can the judge stop the trial at this point?

Or am I overreacting here? I've been trying to watch this as objectively as possible (despite my own strongly subjective bias) and it seems to me as if this witness has provided a reasonable doubt that will be impossible for the prosecution to eliminate. Does anyone disagree with this? If so, please explain.

You are the most fickle easily convinced person I have ever seen here.

New to Tim?

 

[avoiding injuries]

Question: If I'm the judge, I'm thinking to myself, "OK, reasonable doubt has clearly been established here." Can the judge stop the trial at this point?

Or am I overreacting here? I've been trying to watch this as objectively as possible (despite my own strongly subjective bias) and it seems to me as if this witness has provided a reasonable doubt that will be impossible for the prosecution to eliminate. Does anyone disagree with this? If so, please explain.

You are the most fickle easily convinced person I have ever seen here.

In his defense, after hearing this witness, how could anyone not wonder if this trial will be stopped soon?

 

[jon_mx]

CNN reminding viewers that this is the ONLY witness that says TM was on top of GZ.

Sheesh

There was one yesterday saying Zimmerman was on top.

She testified it was dark and she could not see. I don't think she actually got a good view of the event until after the gun shot. But I did not see her entire testimony, so i am not aware if or when she heard a gun shot.

 

[jamny]

Question: If I'm the judge, I'm thinking to myself, "OK, reasonable doubt has clearly been established here." Can the judge stop the trial at this point?

Or am I overreacting here? I've been trying to watch this as objectively as possible (despite my own strongly subjective bias) and it seems to me as if this witness has provided a reasonable doubt that will be impossible for the prosecution to eliminate. Does anyone disagree with this? If so, please explain.

You are the most fickle easily convinced person I have ever seen here.

In his defense, after hearing this witness, how could anyone not wonder if this trial will be stopped soon?

Do you think someone has the right to shoot someone because they're getting beat up?

 

[timschochet]

My initial impression here is that John has provided reasonable doubt for the defense, and just secured an acquittal for George Zimmerman. I have no idea why the prosecution would call him to the stand.

I hope I'm wrong about this, as you guys know what I think about this story. But rationally I can't see how the prosecution can possibly convince the jury at this point.

Does it change your previous views on this case (prior to trial)?

Some of them.

I was skeptical of the authenticity of John as a witness. I was wrong about that.

I believed that Zimmerman would have to testify. I think I was wrong about that.

I believed, as late as this morning, that Rachel's testimony of "Get off me" would be found credible by the jury. I don't believe that after this witness.

I believed that the prosecution believed that they would have a reasonable chance to secure a conviction, otherwise they never would have charged him. That appears to be wrong. I rejected jon mx and others when they claimed this was only done for political reasons, and I HATE to believe that. But I can't fathom that they could know about this witness and not think it would be impossible to convict him.

However, if you're asking me whether I still think Zimmerman is guilty of a crime here, probably manslaughter- I do. But that's neither here nor there. Unless there's something I'm missing or some evidence that is still out there and unrevealed, it's impossible to prove.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

So at this point, we've established that Martin was on top for a period of time. What does that mean? Do we know if Martin had the gun pulled on him by that time? Had he even seen the gun?

John was asked by State if he saw a gun, John said no.

That's great....what does that have to do with whether or not Martin had seen a gun?

I'm just stating what is in evidence, would you rather we discuss your hypothetical scenarios with no evidence supporting it?