Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (3 Viewers)

[Yankee23Fan]

Christo you are right, why should the court allow anything as evidence since everything could potentially be a lie.

Treyvon isnt around to dispute or explain said text messages.Maybe someone else was using his phone.Its hearsay at this point.

Hearsay

It's an out of court statement, not made under oath, and you want it admitted into evidence. That's textbook hearsay, idiot.

Yeah, this is the type of stuff that makes this thread so painful for lawyers. Listen, I get that it's kind of douchey to pull rank on stuff like this. But when you confidently make assertions about stuff you know absolutely nothing about, it's really frustrating to read. There are all kinds of subjects in this trial where JoJo's opinion matters every bit as much as Christo's. The credibility of witnesses, for instance. But on questions about the rules of evidence, a lay opinion based upon what you regard as "fair" is completely useless. .

I actually had a post written where I basically said the same thing, but I hate to pull rank too and frankly I hate to do it in practice. I'm a best practices kind of guy with adversaries for example. But in many ways this thread makes me fear having any jury decide my cases. And I was already someone who didn't have a lot of faith in the jury system to begin with.

And did you answer my question - where do you practice?

 

[jon_mx]

I stand by what I said before, Zimmerman was acting on behalf of his neighborhood.

It was Martin's actions that ultimately caused his demise. All signs point towards Martin being the aggressor, he had ample opportunity to walk back to Brandy Green's house, he might have actually made it most of the way there and decided to return to the T to confront Zimmerman given the amount of time Zimmerman stayed on the phone with NEN.

Just because the HOA settled with Martin's parents does not mean Zimmerman is guilty of anything, it means the HOA should have had better lighting, better security, etc...whatever else they had liability regarding the incident.

You have no right transferring that liability towards Zimmerman.

Now Martin's parents are getting greedy, they already got one check and they feel they are deserved more even though they know the truth about their son and his proclivities towards violence, they know Trayvon was no saint.

I find it repulsive that people think Zimmerman should serve 30 years in jail for preventing Trayvon Martin from murdering him, Trayvon ignored two neighbors interjections to stop the beating he was putting on George and he ignored both of them, George was unable to physically defend himself and had no reason to assume the beating would stop.

Here is your problem with Z acting as part of his neighborhood. Martin was a member of that neighborhood since his parents lived there. So unless M was doing something illegal which he was not, Z had no business of getting out of his car and attempting to confront M. We will never know who started the fight you think it was M, but I equally think it was Z. And guess what there is no proof either way to say who started the fight. Was Z getting his ### kicked and then shot M, yes. And that is why he will most likely get away with killing M.

And who is to say TM heard the neighbors, why did they not try to go and break up the fight? IF TM was scared for his life, he has the same rights to defend his self.

But here is a question for you JoJo. Would you be supporting TM if he had killed Z and claimed self defense? Both parties had reason to believe that they were in danger. IMO

Most analysts I have heard agreed that both could use the self-defense if Zimmerman would have been beaten to death before he shot TM. I agree with them, works both ways.

I think those analysts are full of it. For one thing, the jury would have to find someone to be the aggressor, and that person would have a duty to retreat if at all feasible. But secondly, Martin would face the same hurdle as Zimmerman. There has to be a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. I don't think being followed or even being confronted would meet that standard unless the weapon was unholstered or something.

Here is an interesting link that lists all the 'stand your ground' cases in Florida. I am not sure that they differentiated between stand your ground/self-defense. When the Defendant is black, he gets off 69% of the time (24 guilty/immunity/no charge and 11 guillty). When the Defendant is white, he gets off 62% of the time (40 - 25). There does seem to be some favoritism towards white victims though as far as getting a guilty verdict. Hispanic victims only see 22% of their assailants convicted, while black victims see 23% of their assailants convicted and whites see 43% of their assailants convicted. You would need to study the details to really come to a conclusion. The race of the assailant seems to make little difference, but on the surface there is some favoritism towards white victims if we assumed all cases are equivalent. I think that assumption is a bit of a leap and needs to be evaluated though.

But it is simply NOT TRUE that most people who claim self-defense get convicted. The fact is most of them get off, as should Zimmerman who has a stronger case than most of the examples.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

No one, except Zimmerman himself, knows who initiated the confrontation.

"You have a problem?"

Is that slang for "Hi Sir, how can I help you?"

There were no injuries to Martin outside of the bullet wound, None, Zilch, Nada - and yet people here still want to hold on to dear life that Zimmerman threw the first punch?

You do know that you can hit someone and not leave any injuries - or throw a punch and miss. Right? I mean, you do know that?

Sure if Zimmerman was a Ninja since not only did he not leave any marks, but was so stealthy that not a single eye witness can testify they witnessed Zimmerman attempting to throw a punch. Absent evidence you can't just go wildly speculating that you think Zimmerman started the altercation with nothing but your narrative to back it up. This "unkown" is what the traybots have been reduced to at this point.

Zimmerman's own trainer called him soft, all fat, no muscle - ranked him a 1 out of 10 on the fighting scale. Martin was certainly higher up on the fight food chain.

 

[kentric]

I find ti hard to believe that there will be riots. It seems to me that CNN and like 6 posters in here care about this trial.

So you think the average rioter watches CNN and is a regular at FBG? lol

 

[spreagle]

So essentially bad decisions by each led to an altercation where with the evidence we have been presented (no eyewtinesses), both should be able to use self-defense as written by Florida law. So GZ will walk away not guilty, and if TM would have killed GZ, I believe he could have used self-defense if charges were pressed (which I really doubt they would have, especially if GZ has gun on him).

And Martin would have been arrested. There would have been no media circus around the event providing Martin the opportunity to solicit funding from the general public for better lawyers. Thus Martin, like most everyone else that claims self defense very likely gets convicted. Maybe Woz plea bargains to a lesser charge. (Then again per Wikipedia conviction rates in Florida are only 59% so maybe my beliefs on prosecution dominant success rate is skewed here.)

Exactly right. And if for some reason the case WAS publicized, how many of the conservatives in this thread currently going out of their way to defend George Zimmerman would defend Trayvon Martin?

The only way Trayvon would escape charges would be if he stayed put after killing Zimmerman which would never happen. Trayvon would have run off if he killed Zimmerman and there is a good possibility he would never have been found and arrested. If caught, he would have to overcome the big issue of running away then would have to sell the same bogus story about Zimmmerman stalking (actually watching, then disrespecting by asking why he was there) him. Trayvon initiated the physical confrontation in both instances so I would still side with Zimmerman. Running away + initiating the violence for stupid reasons = manslaughter for Trayvon.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

So essentially bad decisions by each led to an altercation where with the evidence we have been presented (no eyewtinesses), both should be able to use self-defense as written by Florida law. So GZ will walk away not guilty, and if TM would have killed GZ, I believe he could have used self-defense if charges were pressed (which I really doubt they would have, especially if GZ has gun on him).

And Martin would have been arrested. There would have been no media circus around the event providing Martin the opportunity to solicit funding from the general public for better lawyers. Thus Martin, like most everyone else that claims self defense very likely gets convicted. Maybe Woz plea bargains to a lesser charge. (Then again per Wikipedia conviction rates in Florida are only 59% so maybe my beliefs on prosecution dominant success rate is skewed here.)

Exactly right. And if for some reason the case WAS publicized, how many of the conservatives in this thread currently going out of their way to defend George Zimmerman would defend Trayvon Martin?

The only way Trayvon would escape charges would be if he stayed put after killing Zimmerman which would never happen. Trayvon would have run off if he killed Zimmerman and there is a good possibility he would never have been found and arrested. If caught, he would have to overcome the big issue of running away then would have to sell the same bogus story about Zimmmerman stalking (actually watching, then disrespecting by asking why he was there) him. Trayvon initiated the physical confrontation in both instances so I would still side with Zimmerman. Running away + initiating the violence for stupid reasons = manslaughter for Trayvon.

Trayvon has a much uglier recent history that would damage his character a helluva lot more than what happened to Zimmerman during this trial. Remember none of Trayvon's history was allowed in court.

The stolen merchandise incident, State would have called the owner of the stolen merchandise, the arresting officer that didn't make the arrest would take the stand, the bus driver that Trayvon allegedly pushed would be on the stand. Any kid that allegedly got into a fight with Trayvon would take the stand etc...

 

[timschochet]

So essentially bad decisions by each led to an altercation where with the evidence we have been presented (no eyewtinesses), both should be able to use self-defense as written by Florida law. So GZ will walk away not guilty, and if TM would have killed GZ, I believe he could have used self-defense if charges were pressed (which I really doubt they would have, especially if GZ has gun on him).

And Martin would have been arrested. There would have been no media circus around the event providing Martin the opportunity to solicit funding from the general public for better lawyers. Thus Martin, like most everyone else that claims self defense very likely gets convicted. Maybe Woz plea bargains to a lesser charge. (Then again per Wikipedia conviction rates in Florida are only 59% so maybe my beliefs on prosecution dominant success rate is skewed here.)

Exactly right. And if for some reason the case WAS publicized, how many of the conservatives in this thread currently going out of their way to defend George Zimmerman would defend Trayvon Martin?

Can't you ask the flip too? Why does it matter? Hypocrisy knows no bounds so why in the end does your question really matter? Why even ask it? For a gotcha moment? It doesn't bring TM back to life and it doesn't do anything for GZ. Lest anyone in this thread forget, nothing that happens in this trial has anything to do with you - a boy is dead and a man ruined his own life one way or the other, most likely. Does i-winning an internet debate about who is more guilty and why someone who has a certain political slant really matter?

I really don't mean to go after you personally, I really don't, but your question is a hollier than thou, I'm better than you type of question.

I don't mean to come off as holier than thou. That's something that I ascribe to the other side of the debate in this thread.

But it does bother me that so many people in this thread are willing to afford every civil liberty to George Zimmerman while at the same time ignoring the fact that so many people in our judicial system are convicted every day on far less evidence- especially young black teens like Trayvon Martin.

 

[jon_mx]

Here is an interesting link that lists all the 'stand your ground' cases in Florida. I am not sure that they differentiated between stand your ground/self-defense. When the Defendant is black, he gets off 69% of the time (24 guilty/immunity/no charge and 11 guillty). When the Defendant is white, he gets off 62% of the time (40 - 25). There does seem to be some favoritism towards white victims though as far as getting a guilty verdict. Hispanic victims only see 22% of their assailants convicted, while black victims see 23% of their assailants convicted and whites see 43% of their assailants convicted. You would need to study the details to really come to a conclusion. The race of the assailant seems to make little difference, but on the surface there is some favoritism towards white victims if we assumed all cases are equivalent. I think that assumption is a bit of a leap and needs to be evaluated though.

But it is simply NOT TRUE that most people who claim self-defense get convicted. The fact is most of them get off, as should Zimmerman who has a stronger case than most of the examples.

 

[jamny]

No one, except Zimmerman himself, knows who initiated the confrontation.

On the remote outside chance that Zimmerman pushed Martin first

This is the only point I was making. No one knows for sure except Zimmerman.

Do you reject that statement?

 

[The Commish]

So let me get this straight, the judge forced Zimmerman to go under oath and testify that he wasn't going to testify and worded it in a way that could have produced testimony that the jury could have used against him? And then flipped out on his lawyer when the lawyer objected?

Is it possible that she's actually biased enough to TRY to create a mistrial because she knows how badly the prosecution is doing? Or is she just that incompetent? Seems like something she should possibly be removed from the bench for.

This is the discussion that everyone's up in arms about. I don't get it. She was asking if he had made a decision or if he needed more time. I'm not sure of the wording you are talking about either.

 

[kentric]

I stand by what I said before, Zimmerman was acting on behalf of his neighborhood.

It was Martin's actions that ultimately caused his demise. All signs point towards Martin being the aggressor, he had ample opportunity to walk back to Brandy Green's house, he might have actually made it most of the way there and decided to return to the T to confront Zimmerman given the amount of time Zimmerman stayed on the phone with NEN.

Just because the HOA settled with Martin's parents does not mean Zimmerman is guilty of anything, it means the HOA should have had better lighting, better security, etc...whatever else they had liability regarding the incident.

You have no right transferring that liability towards Zimmerman.

Now Martin's parents are getting greedy, they already got one check and they feel they are deserved more even though they know the truth about their son and his proclivities towards violence, they know Trayvon was no saint.

I find it repulsive that people think Zimmerman should serve 30 years in jail for preventing Trayvon Martin from murdering him, Trayvon ignored two neighbors interjections to stop the beating he was putting on George and he ignored both of them, George was unable to physically defend himself and had no reason to assume the beating would stop.

Here is your problem with Z acting as part of his neighborhood. Martin was a member of that neighborhood since his parents lived there. So unless M was doing something illegal which he was not, Z had no business of getting out of his car and attempting to confront M. We will never know who started the fight you think it was M, but I equally think it was Z. And guess what there is no proof either way to say who started the fight. Was Z getting his ### kicked and then shot M, yes. And that is why he will most likely get away with killing M.

And who is to say TM heard the neighbors, why did they not try to go and break up the fight? IF TM was scared for his life, he has the same rights to defend his self.

But here is a question for you JoJo. Would you be supporting TM if he had killed Z and claimed self defense? Both parties had reason to believe that they were in danger. IMO

Most analysts I have heard agreed that both could use the self-defense if Zimmerman would have been beaten to death before he shot TM. I agree with them, works both ways.

Sadly, 2 bad decisions were made. GZ following TM, and then TM engaging GZ with the punch to the nose to start the altercation (both the "follow" and the punch to start the fight may not be 100% factual, so partly my opinion).

So essentially bad decisions by each led to an altercation where with the evidence we have been presented (no eyewtinesses), both should be able to use self-defense as written by Florida law. So GZ will walk away not guilty, and if TM would have killed GZ, I believe he could have used self-defense if charges were pressed (which I really doubt they would have, especially if GZ has gun on him).

So TM beats Z to death and you doubt charges would be pressed? Come on man.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

...while at the same time ignoring the fact that so many people in our judicial system are convicted every day on far less evidence- especially young black teens like Trayvon Martin.

This is a central running theme in your posts that you blame the MSM for feeding you on the radio. This trial isn't about every young black teen in America, it is about George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. Go start a new thread and stand on your soap box if you want to preach about the injustices in America on black teens, we've seen enough of it from you in this thread.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

No one, except Zimmerman himself, knows who initiated the confrontation.

"You have a problem?"

Is that slang for "Hi Sir, how can I help you?"

There were no injuries to Martin outside of the bullet wound, None, Zilch, Nada - and yet people here still want to hold on to dear life that Zimmerman threw the first punch?

You do know that you can hit someone and not leave any injuries - or throw a punch and miss. Right? I mean, you do know that?

Sure if Zimmerman was a Ninja since not only did he not leave any marks, but was so stealthy that not a single eye witness can testify witnessing attempting to throw a punch. Absent evidence you can't just go wildly speculating that you think Zimmerman started the altercation with nothing but your narrative to back it up. This "unkown" is what the traybots have been reduced to at this point.

I took an evidence class in law school with a judge who was appointed to our appellate division shortly after I took the class. He will be on the State Supreme Court one day and will most likely be one of the more celebrated jurists we have in our state because at the end of the day the guy is crazy smart and not a single practicing attorney I know can come up with one shred of complaint about him. He knows the law he is dealing with cold, is massively professional and is pretty much the very definition of what a good judge should be. In other words, he my I wanna be like Mike guy in my profession.

He came into class the first day in a room of probably 70 of us. Walked down the isle to the podium, and began making himself a bowl of cereal. And he went through the whole process and ate it in front of us. When he was done he cleaned up after himself and then without ever looking at a single sheet of paper started making us stand up one at a time calling us by full name (he has a photographic memory) and making us testify as a witness to the crime of killing the cereal. Not a single one of us had the same story, saw the same thing, described it the same way or anything. Many were unable to even come up with the words for what they saw. It was one of the more mindbending things I witnessed in law school.

It led to an entire evidence class based on that one act and how evidence rules are what they are, how layman understand or don't understand them, how they trip you up in court, how witnesses can be unreliable, how the story can always change and so on and so on. Our final for the class? Usual evidence rule stuff and then an essay on what we saw 15 weeks earlier in the murder of the bowl of cereal. It might have been the hardest thing I ever did that meant really nothing outside of a grade.

All this to say, evidence rules are massively complicated, and witness testimony is as well. Seconds after seeing something, people see different things. Months to years later, it's even worse. Basing your i-existence on the witness testimony of a criminal trial in Florida in a venue which you clearly have no understanding for (and that's not a dig, I don't understand all the rules in Florida) and posting like you have sense of validity behind your opinion more than just the right to have an opinion comes off as massively childish. Your hyperbole about ninjas, witnesses not having the same story and calling people that disagree with you traybots when their opinions seem to be pretty much the equal of yours only coming to different conclusions, is remarkably short sighted. The reason people are morons for representing themselves in court when there is any serious matter of any serious consequence is for the very reason your post is ridiculous. Without understanding of the rules of evidence and the nuances in each rule, not to mention the statutory and common law of the criminal code of Florida, you might as well be having a debate about the merits of masturbation with a fungo bat.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

No one, except Zimmerman himself, knows who initiated the confrontation.

On the remote outside chance that Zimmerman pushed Martin first

This is the only point I was making. No one knows for sure except Zimmerman.Do you reject that statement?

No I do not, it is also not the focus of this trial. WAY too much weight has been given to this unknown in this thread. It's an unknown, wanting to believe the fight started one way to support your narrative as the brass ring to put Zimmerman away for 30 years is selfish given the mountain of evidence we do know.

 

[timschochet]

...while at the same time ignoring the fact that so many people in our judicial system are convicted every day on far less evidence- especially young black teens like Trayvon Martin.

This is a central running theme in your posts that you blame the MSM for feeding you on the radio. This trial isn't about every young black teen in America, it is about George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. Go start a new thread and stand on your soap box if you want to preach about the injustices in America on black teens, we've seen enough of it from you in this thread.

No thanks. With the trial winding down, I prefer to write about it in here, because it's in relation to this issue that its relevant.

 

[kentric]

So essentially bad decisions by each led to an altercation where with the evidence we have been presented (no eyewtinesses), both should be able to use self-defense as written by Florida law. So GZ will walk away not guilty, and if TM would have killed GZ, I believe he could have used self-defense if charges were pressed (which I really doubt they would have, especially if GZ has gun on him).

And Martin would have been arrested. There would have been no media circus around the event providing Martin the opportunity to solicit funding from the general public for better lawyers. Thus Martin, like most everyone else that claims self defense very likely gets convicted. Maybe Woz plea bargains to a lesser charge. (Then again per Wikipedia conviction rates in Florida are only 59% so maybe my beliefs on prosecution dominant success rate is skewed here.)

Exactly right. And if for some reason the case WAS publicized, how many of the conservatives in this thread currently going out of their way to defend George Zimmerman would defend Trayvon Martin?

I doubt that anyone (other than several extreme pro-TM individuals) would be firmly behind someone who beat someone to death, had ample opportunity to go to his home and didn't have a scratch on him. I would hope you wouldn't either. There's a big difference in the two self-defense claims - even if the end result would be the same.

 

[Todem]

What is mind boggling to me is how can you even think it was or was not self defense. Not a single person knows this!!!!!Again passing judgement without one iota of any kind of real proof. Just speculation. You and I don't really know.

All I know is what has been presented in court.

Cases with similar evidence to this seem to return guilty verdicts all the time.

Well if that precedence I has been set over and over and over.....then GZ will be convicted right?

I really don't think there has been any concrete evidence to help either side.

that = a not guilty verdict 99.99% of the time. All they have to do as a defense team is get reasonable doubt into the minds of the jurors.

I think that has been there since the eyewitness who saw TM on top of GZ. That was truly when the case ended for the State.

 

[The Commish]

Christo you are right, why should the court allow anything as evidence since everything could potentially be a lie.

Treyvon isnt around to dispute or explain said text messages.Maybe someone else was using his phone.Its hearsay at this point.

Hearsay

It's an out of court statement, not made under oath, and you want it admitted into evidence. That's textbook hearsay, idiot.

Yeah, this is the type of stuff that makes this thread so painful for lawyers. Listen, I get that it's kind of douchey to pull rank on stuff like this. But when you confidently make assertions about stuff you know absolutely nothing about, it's really frustrating to read. There are all kinds of subjects in this trial where JoJo's opinion matters every bit as much as Christo's. The credibility of witnesses, for instance. But on questions about the rules of evidence, a lay opinion based upon what you regard as "fair" is completely useless. .

You've been very helpful in understanding the law side of these things and I appreciate your effort in trying to keep things on track. Sometimes you just can't. This thread is really a trainwreck and devolved into people doing whatever necessary to win an iFight (as YF suggested earlier). We are so far beyond dealing with the case and the evidence it's comical.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

So let me get this straight, the judge forced Zimmerman to go under oath and testify that he wasn't going to testify and worded it in a way that could have produced testimony that the jury could have used against him? And then flipped out on his lawyer when the lawyer objected?

Is it possible that she's actually biased enough to TRY to create a mistrial because she knows how badly the prosecution is doing? Or is she just that incompetent? Seems like something she should possibly be removed from the bench for.

This is the discussion that everyone's up in arms about. I don't get it. She was asking if he had made a decision or if he needed more time. I'm not sure of the wording you are talking about either.

I find the reaction a little mystifying too. Perhaps the timing was a bit weird (although I know of no rule that the Defendant must be allowed to make a decision to testify at any time during the defense's case in chief), but there was literally no "testimony that the jury could have used against him." And in fact, before swearing him in, she clearly instructed Zimmerman that the jury would (properly) be instructed that they could not draw an inference based upon his decision to decline to testify.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

So essentially bad decisions by each led to an altercation where with the evidence we have been presented (no eyewtinesses), both should be able to use self-defense as written by Florida law. So GZ will walk away not guilty, and if TM would have killed GZ, I believe he could have used self-defense if charges were pressed (which I really doubt they would have, especially if GZ has gun on him).

And Martin would have been arrested. There would have been no media circus around the event providing Martin the opportunity to solicit funding from the general public for better lawyers. Thus Martin, like most everyone else that claims self defense very likely gets convicted. Maybe Woz plea bargains to a lesser charge. (Then again per Wikipedia conviction rates in Florida are only 59% so maybe my beliefs on prosecution dominant success rate is skewed here.)

Exactly right. And if for some reason the case WAS publicized, how many of the conservatives in this thread currently going out of their way to defend George Zimmerman would defend Trayvon Martin?

Can't you ask the flip too? Why does it matter? Hypocrisy knows no bounds so why in the end does your question really matter? Why even ask it? For a gotcha moment? It doesn't bring TM back to life and it doesn't do anything for GZ. Lest anyone in this thread forget, nothing that happens in this trial has anything to do with you - a boy is dead and a man ruined his own life one way or the other, most likely. Does i-winning an internet debate about who is more guilty and why someone who has a certain political slant really matter?

I really don't mean to go after you personally, I really don't, but your question is a hollier than thou, I'm better than you type of question.

I don't mean to come off as holier than thou. That's something that I ascribe to the other side of the debate in this thread.

But it does bother me that so many people in this thread are willing to afford every civil liberty to George Zimmerman while at the same time ignoring the fact that so many people in our judicial system are convicted every day on far less evidence- especially young black teens like Trayvon Martin.

But that isn't a question that matters in this case. In this court of law, with these facts, with this relevant evidence as allowed by the court, the civil liberties of this defendant matter more than anything else. The state has the burden of proof for a reason. Taking the liberty away from a citizen is the most powerful and destructive power the government has, and we have designed a system that makes damn sure they cross every t dot every I and do every single thing they can without allowing reasonable doubt to set in before we give them the power to do what they want to do. Everyone, in every court case, in every state, with every defendant, every single day should champion, cherish and protect in their actions, words, or thoughts the civil liberties of every criminal defendant, whether their name is George Zimmerman, Jodi Arias, Joe Schmo, whoever.

If you want to make sure that more young black men have "better days" in court, the solution should never come remotely close to, well, let's make sure to take a little away from the next white or Hispanic guy, just to even the scales a little. That might just be the most damaging thing possible to the very people you are trying to help.

 

[The Commish]

No one, except Zimmerman himself, knows who initiated the confrontation.

"You have a problem?"

Is that slang for "Hi Sir, how can I help you?"

There were no injuries to Martin outside of the bullet wound, None, Zilch, Nada - and yet people here still want to hold on to dear life that Zimmerman threw the first punch?

You do know that you can hit someone and not leave any injuries - or throw a punch and miss. Right? I mean, you do know that?

What's bizarre to me is the requirement that things have to be started with a punch...could have been a push, could have been a swipe of his arm, could have been one of those aggressive flinches (we've all seen countless fights start that way), coulda, coulda, coulda.........scenarios are many. You should be reminded (or informed) that this guy has had his mind made up since before the trial even started.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

[...cool story bro...]

All this to say, evidence rules are massively complicated, and witness testimony is as well. Seconds after seeing something, people see different things. Months to years later, it's even worse. Basing your i-existence on the witness testimony of a criminal trial in Florida in a venue which you clearly have no understanding for (and that's not a dig, I don't understand all the rules in Florida) and posting like you have sense of validity behind your opinion more than just the right to have an opinion comes off as massively childish. Your hyperbole about ninjas, witnesses not having the same story and calling people that disagree with you traybots when their opinions seem to be pretty much the equal of yours only coming to different conclusions, is remarkably short sighted. The reason people are morons for representing themselves in court when there is any serious matter of any serious consequence is for the very reason your post is ridiculous. Without understanding of the rules of evidence and the nuances in each rule, not to mention the statutory and common law of the criminal code of Florida, you might as well be having a debate about the merits of masturbation with a fungo bat.

Have you watched this trial at all?

Do you understand what I meant when I said not one single witness said they saw Zimmerman throw any punches at Martin? Why are you lecturing me on people seeing different things about a guy "murdering" a bowl of cereal. Did I say all of the witnesses should have seen the exact same thing? No. I said NONE of them saw Zimmerman punching Martin, do you understand the difference?

 

[jamny]

No one, except Zimmerman himself, knows who initiated the confrontation.

On the remote outside chance that Zimmerman pushed Martin first

This is the only point I was making. No one knows for sure except Zimmerman.Do you reject that statement?

No I do not, it is also not the focus of this trial. WAY too much weight has been given to this unknown in this thread. It's an unknown, wanting to believe the fight started one way to support your narrative as the brass ring to put Zimmerman away for 30 years is selfish given the mountain of evidence we do know.

I agree.

But to me the two things that matter most are who started the confrontation and why did Zimmerman shoot. All these other things like why did Zimmerman get out of his car and why did he follow are minor points. We will never know who started the confrontation. All evidence presented seems to support that Zimmerman was getting his ### kicked. To me, it doesn't justify shooting Trayvon, UNLESS Trayvon went for the gun. Zimmerman says he did, we can't know if that is true. We can't know if GZ feared for his life. There just isn't enough proof to say he didn't. Maybe he's getting away with manslaughter but I think he should be aquitted.

 

[Todem]

You think he is guilty......based on what.

Speaking to Manslaughter-

His statement. He confesses to kill Martin. Depending on the jury instructions and how believable Zimmerman's belief that "Martin was going for the gun" equates to a reasonable fear pretty much determines if self defense was applicable. Zimmerman's statement being 100% not a lie doesn't mean he still isn't guilty or his story is 100% factual. Acting in self defense isn't a form of evidence, but a conclusion and the jury can come to different conclusion than Zimmerman.

Zimmerman's account of how Martin discovered the gun is unimaginable to me. Zimmerman beating Martin to the gun is unimaginable to me. I don't believe Zimmerman's account of the key moments where he asserts he became fearful for his life so I don't find the necessity to use the gun reasonable. However, if all that is required is a reasonable belief that Zimmerman believed this unreasonable nonsense then I have to accept his defense. So, how this decision would be made would depend entirely on the jury instructions.

Based on what I think will be the jury instructions, with Ramsey throwing some doubt on that I think the jury will conclude that self defense applies under the "spirit of the law". But while this is the likely outcome it seems to be complete nonsense that it is a slam dunk! I probably would not fight for a guilty verdict either way, but I wouldn't hold out either.

Speaking to Murder 2-

From manslaughter to Murder 2 is a short ride. All that needs to be in place in my mind is that Zimmerman wasn't "letting this one get away". Circumstantial evidence certainly supports this position, but there are there also lots of doubts and they all seem reasonable to me. I would probably hold out if the majority of the jury wanted a murder 2 conviction, but again maybe I could be persuaded.

Hey I can see that reasoning. Your post is well written.

When I see posts about Zimmermans state of mind...intent to kill....malicous thinking like that? Give me a break. How do you really know....we don't. and proving that in court is very difficult. But it is proven many times....with far better evidence.

The lack of evidence in this case really put the State in a corner. And they knew this before charges were brought.

My biggest gripe is the media, social and most of all political pressure that was rained down on the State of Florida to bring charges against GZ when they knew.....they really had no shot for a conviction. This just makes things so much worse.

 

[parasaurolophus]

No one, except Zimmerman himself, knows who initiated the confrontation.

"You have a problem?"

Is that slang for "Hi Sir, how can I help you?"

There were no injuries to Martin outside of the bullet wound, None, Zilch, Nada - and yet people here still want to hold on to dear life that Zimmerman threw the first punch?

You do know that you can hit someone and not leave any injuries - or throw a punch and miss. Right? I mean, you do know that?

Sure if Zimmerman was a Ninja since not only did he not leave any marks, but was so stealthy that not a single eye witness can testify witnessing attempting to throw a punch. Absent evidence you can't just go wildly speculating that you think Zimmerman started the altercation with nothing but your narrative to back it up. This "unkown" is what the traybots have been reduced to at this point.

I took an evidence class in law school with a judge who was appointed to our appellate division shortly after I took the class. He will be on the State Supreme Court one day and will most likely be one of the more celebrated jurists we have in our state because at the end of the day the guy is crazy smart and not a single practicing attorney I know can come up with one shred of complaint about him. He knows the law he is dealing with cold, is massively professional and is pretty much the very definition of what a good judge should be. In other words, he my I wanna be like Mike guy in my profession.

He came into class the first day in a room of probably 70 of us. Walked down the isle to the podium, and began making himself a bowl of cereal. And he went through the whole process and ate it in front of us. When he was done he cleaned up after himself and then without ever looking at a single sheet of paper started making us stand up one at a time calling us by full name (he has a photographic memory) and making us testify as a witness to the crime of killing the cereal. Not a single one of us had the same story, saw the same thing, described it the same way or anything. Many were unable to even come up with the words for what they saw. It was one of the more mindbending things I witnessed in law school.

It led to an entire evidence class based on that one act and how evidence rules are what they are, how layman understand or don't understand them, how they trip you up in court, how witnesses can be unreliable, how the story can always change and so on and so on. Our final for the class? Usual evidence rule stuff and then an essay on what we saw 15 weeks earlier in the murder of the bowl of cereal. It might have been the hardest thing I ever did that meant really nothing outside of a grade.

All this to say, evidence rules are massively complicated, and witness testimony is as well. Seconds after seeing something, people see different things. Months to years later, it's even worse. Basing your i-existence on the witness testimony of a criminal trial in Florida in a venue which you clearly have no understanding for (and that's not a dig, I don't understand all the rules in Florida) and posting like you have sense of validity behind your opinion more than just the right to have an opinion comes off as massively childish. Your hyperbole about ninjas, witnesses not having the same story and calling people that disagree with you traybots when their opinions seem to be pretty much the equal of yours only coming to different conclusions, is remarkably short sighted. The reason people are morons for representing themselves in court when there is any serious matter of any serious consequence is for the very reason your post is ridiculous. Without understanding of the rules of evidence and the nuances in each rule, not to mention the statutory and common law of the criminal code of Florida, you might as well be having a debate about the merits of masturbation with a fungo bat.

now imagine the cereal was black

 

[Yankee23Fan]

[...cool story bro...]

All this to say, evidence rules are massively complicated, and witness testimony is as well. Seconds after seeing something, people see different things. Months to years later, it's even worse. Basing your i-existence on the witness testimony of a criminal trial in Florida in a venue which you clearly have no understanding for (and that's not a dig, I don't understand all the rules in Florida) and posting like you have sense of validity behind your opinion more than just the right to have an opinion comes off as massively childish. Your hyperbole about ninjas, witnesses not having the same story and calling people that disagree with you traybots when their opinions seem to be pretty much the equal of yours only coming to different conclusions, is remarkably short sighted. The reason people are morons for representing themselves in court when there is any serious matter of any serious consequence is for the very reason your post is ridiculous. Without understanding of the rules of evidence and the nuances in each rule, not to mention the statutory and common law of the criminal code of Florida, you might as well be having a debate about the merits of masturbation with a fungo bat.

Have you watched this trial at all?

Do you understand what I meant when I said not one single witness said they saw Zimmerman throw any punches at Martin? Why are you lecturing me on people seeing different things about a guy "murdering" a bowl of cereal. Did I say all of the witnesses should have seen the exact same thing? No. I said NONE of them saw Zimmerman punching Martin, do you understand the difference?

Define throw a punch.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

No one, except Zimmerman himself, knows who initiated the confrontation.

"You have a problem?"

Is that slang for "Hi Sir, how can I help you?"

There were no injuries to Martin outside of the bullet wound, None, Zilch, Nada - and yet people here still want to hold on to dear life that Zimmerman threw the first punch?

You do know that you can hit someone and not leave any injuries - or throw a punch and miss. Right? I mean, you do know that?

Sure if Zimmerman was a Ninja since not only did he not leave any marks, but was so stealthy that not a single eye witness can testify witnessing attempting to throw a punch. Absent evidence you can't just go wildly speculating that you think Zimmerman started the altercation with nothing but your narrative to back it up. This "unkown" is what the traybots have been reduced to at this point.

I took an evidence class in law school with a judge who was appointed to our appellate division shortly after I took the class. He will be on the State Supreme Court one day and will most likely be one of the more celebrated jurists we have in our state because at the end of the day the guy is crazy smart and not a single practicing attorney I know can come up with one shred of complaint about him. He knows the law he is dealing with cold, is massively professional and is pretty much the very definition of what a good judge should be. In other words, he my I wanna be like Mike guy in my profession.

He came into class the first day in a room of probably 70 of us. Walked down the isle to the podium, and began making himself a bowl of cereal. And he went through the whole process and ate it in front of us. When he was done he cleaned up after himself and then without ever looking at a single sheet of paper started making us stand up one at a time calling us by full name (he has a photographic memory) and making us testify as a witness to the crime of killing the cereal. Not a single one of us had the same story, saw the same thing, described it the same way or anything. Many were unable to even come up with the words for what they saw. It was one of the more mindbending things I witnessed in law school.

It led to an entire evidence class based on that one act and how evidence rules are what they are, how layman understand or don't understand them, how they trip you up in court, how witnesses can be unreliable, how the story can always change and so on and so on. Our final for the class? Usual evidence rule stuff and then an essay on what we saw 15 weeks earlier in the murder of the bowl of cereal. It might have been the hardest thing I ever did that meant really nothing outside of a grade.

All this to say, evidence rules are massively complicated, and witness testimony is as well. Seconds after seeing something, people see different things. Months to years later, it's even worse. Basing your i-existence on the witness testimony of a criminal trial in Florida in a venue which you clearly have no understanding for (and that's not a dig, I don't understand all the rules in Florida) and posting like you have sense of validity behind your opinion more than just the right to have an opinion comes off as massively childish. Your hyperbole about ninjas, witnesses not having the same story and calling people that disagree with you traybots when their opinions seem to be pretty much the equal of yours only coming to different conclusions, is remarkably short sighted. The reason people are morons for representing themselves in court when there is any serious matter of any serious consequence is for the very reason your post is ridiculous. Without understanding of the rules of evidence and the nuances in each rule, not to mention the statutory and common law of the criminal code of Florida, you might as well be having a debate about the merits of masturbation with a fungo bat.

now imagine the cereal was black

Cocoa puffs?

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

[...cool story bro...]

All this to say, evidence rules are massively complicated, and witness testimony is as well. Seconds after seeing something, people see different things. Months to years later, it's even worse. Basing your i-existence on the witness testimony of a criminal trial in Florida in a venue which you clearly have no understanding for (and that's not a dig, I don't understand all the rules in Florida) and posting like you have sense of validity behind your opinion more than just the right to have an opinion comes off as massively childish. Your hyperbole about ninjas, witnesses not having the same story and calling people that disagree with you traybots when their opinions seem to be pretty much the equal of yours only coming to different conclusions, is remarkably short sighted. The reason people are morons for representing themselves in court when there is any serious matter of any serious consequence is for the very reason your post is ridiculous. Without understanding of the rules of evidence and the nuances in each rule, not to mention the statutory and common law of the criminal code of Florida, you might as well be having a debate about the merits of masturbation with a fungo bat.

Have you watched this trial at all?

Do you understand what I meant when I said not one single witness said they saw Zimmerman throw any punches at Martin? Why are you lecturing me on people seeing different things about a guy "murdering" a bowl of cereal. Did I say all of the witnesses should have seen the exact same thing? No. I said NONE of them saw Zimmerman punching Martin, do you understand the difference?

Define throw a punch.

So you haven't watched the trial at all?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Basing your i-existence on the witness testimony of a criminal trial in Florida in a venue which you clearly have no understanding for (and that's not a dig, I don't understand all the rules in Florida) and posting like you have sense of validity behind your opinion more than just the right to have an opinion comes off as massively childish.

Sorry to say this struck a chord with me, and I'd like to apologize for my part in helping make the thread a cesspool -- especially to Christo.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

My biggest gripe is the media, social and most of all political pressure that was rained down on the State of Florida to bring charges against GZ when they knew.....they really had no shot for a conviction. This just makes things so much worse.

Not to go off on a huge tangent, but this very reason is why I changed my stance and now firmly detest the death penalty.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Manslaughter is in

 

[Yankee23Fan]

[...cool story bro...]

All this to say, evidence rules are massively complicated, and witness testimony is as well. Seconds after seeing something, people see different things. Months to years later, it's even worse. Basing your i-existence on the witness testimony of a criminal trial in Florida in a venue which you clearly have no understanding for (and that's not a dig, I don't understand all the rules in Florida) and posting like you have sense of validity behind your opinion more than just the right to have an opinion comes off as massively childish. Your hyperbole about ninjas, witnesses not having the same story and calling people that disagree with you traybots when their opinions seem to be pretty much the equal of yours only coming to different conclusions, is remarkably short sighted. The reason people are morons for representing themselves in court when there is any serious matter of any serious consequence is for the very reason your post is ridiculous. Without understanding of the rules of evidence and the nuances in each rule, not to mention the statutory and common law of the criminal code of Florida, you might as well be having a debate about the merits of masturbation with a fungo bat.

Have you watched this trial at all?

Do you understand what I meant when I said not one single witness said they saw Zimmerman throw any punches at Martin? Why are you lecturing me on people seeing different things about a guy "murdering" a bowl of cereal. Did I say all of the witnesses should have seen the exact same thing? No. I said NONE of them saw Zimmerman punching Martin, do you understand the difference?

Define throw a punch.

So you haven't watched the trial at all?

Live no, but that doesn't answer my question. We can do this like it's a direct exam or a cross if you would like. I'm making a simple point and you and others like you on the other side are so blinded by your opinions that its frightening.

 

[jon_mx]

...while at the same time ignoring the fact that so many people in our judicial system are convicted every day on far less evidence- especially young black teens like Trayvon Martin.

This is a central running theme in your posts that you blame the MSM for feeding you on the radio. This trial isn't about every young black teen in America, it is about George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. Go start a new thread and stand on your soap box if you want to preach about the injustices in America on black teens, we've seen enough of it from you in this thread.

There is also no truth to it. Blacks are less likely to get convicted in self-defense cases in Florida.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

No eyewitness saw the beginning of the confrontation. What we have is indirect evidence from which a jury may draw different inferences.

If the jury believes that Martin was screaming on the 911 call, as some witnesses have testified. They may draw an inference (supported by the fact that Zimmerman set out to follow Martin) that Zimmerman instigated the confrontation.

The jury may draw a contrary inference from the witnesses testifying it was Zimmerman's voice, that Martin at least at one point had the upper hand, etc.

The credibility of witnesses and the weight of relevant evidence is the province of the jury. And they are entitled to come to either conclusion.

 

[timschochet]

So essentially bad decisions by each led to an altercation where with the evidence we have been presented (no eyewtinesses), both should be able to use self-defense as written by Florida law. So GZ will walk away not guilty, and if TM would have killed GZ, I believe he could have used self-defense if charges were pressed (which I really doubt they would have, especially if GZ has gun on him).

And Martin would have been arrested. There would have been no media circus around the event providing Martin the opportunity to solicit funding from the general public for better lawyers. Thus Martin, like most everyone else that claims self defense very likely gets convicted. Maybe Woz plea bargains to a lesser charge. (Then again per Wikipedia conviction rates in Florida are only 59% so maybe my beliefs on prosecution dominant success rate is skewed here.)

Exactly right. And if for some reason the case WAS publicized, how many of the conservatives in this thread currently going out of their way to defend George Zimmerman would defend Trayvon Martin?

Can't you ask the flip too? Why does it matter? Hypocrisy knows no bounds so why in the end does your question really matter? Why even ask it? For a gotcha moment? It doesn't bring TM back to life and it doesn't do anything for GZ. Lest anyone in this thread forget, nothing that happens in this trial has anything to do with you - a boy is dead and a man ruined his own life one way or the other, most likely. Does i-winning an internet debate about who is more guilty and why someone who has a certain political slant really matter?

I really don't mean to go after you personally, I really don't, but your question is a hollier than thou, I'm better than you type of question.

I don't mean to come off as holier than thou. That's something that I ascribe to the other side of the debate in this thread.

But it does bother me that so many people in this thread are willing to afford every civil liberty to George Zimmerman while at the same time ignoring the fact that so many people in our judicial system are convicted every day on far less evidence- especially young black teens like Trayvon Martin.

But that isn't a question that matters in this case. In this court of law, with these facts, with this relevant evidence as allowed by the court, the civil liberties of this defendant matter more than anything else. The state has the burden of proof for a reason. Taking the liberty away from a citizen is the most powerful and destructive power the government has, and we have designed a system that makes damn sure they cross every t dot every I and do every single thing they can without allowing reasonable doubt to set in before we give them the power to do what they want to do. Everyone, in every court case, in every state, with every defendant, every single day should champion, cherish and protect in their actions, words, or thoughts the civil liberties of every criminal defendant, whether their name is George Zimmerman, Jodi Arias, Joe Schmo, whoever.

If you want to make sure that more young black men have "better days" in court, the solution should never come remotely close to, well, let's make sure to take a little away from the next white or Hispanic guy, just to even the scales a little. That might just be the most damaging thing possible to the very people you are trying to help.

Good post, as usual. You make me rethink my position, which is always a good thing. Much appreciated.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

...while at the same time ignoring the fact that so many people in our judicial system are convicted every day on far less evidence- especially young black teens like Trayvon Martin.

This is a central running theme in your posts that you blame the MSM for feeding you on the radio. This trial isn't about every young black teen in America, it is about George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. Go start a new thread and stand on your soap box if you want to preach about the injustices in America on black teens, we've seen enough of it from you in this thread.

There is also no truth to it. Blacks are less likely to get convicted in self-defense cases in Florida.

Most likely because they disproportionaly kill other blacks. Your data also showed that someone is twice as likely to be convicted if the deceased is white than they are if they killed a black or Hispanic.

 

[timschochet]

...while at the same time ignoring the fact that so many people in our judicial system are convicted every day on far less evidence- especially young black teens like Trayvon Martin.

This is a central running theme in your posts that you blame the MSM for feeding you on the radio. This trial isn't about every young black teen in America, it is about George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. Go start a new thread and stand on your soap box if you want to preach about the injustices in America on black teens, we've seen enough of it from you in this thread.

There is also no truth to it. Blacks are less likely to get convicted in self-defense cases in Florida.

Your analysis is limited to stand your ground cases in the state of Florida. That's a pretty small sample and has nothing to do with what I wrote above.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

No eyewitness saw the beginning of the confrontation. What we have is indirect evidence from which a jury may draw different inferences.

If the jury believes that Martin was screaming on the 911 call, as some witnesses have testified. They may draw an inference (supported by the fact that Zimmerman set out to follow Martin) that Zimmerman instigated the confrontation.

The jury may draw a contrary inference from the witnesses testifying it was Zimmerman's voice, that Martin at least at one point had the upper hand, etc.

The credibility of witnesses and the weight of relevant evidence is the province of the jury. And they are entitled to come to either conclusion.

Of course.

One would think an eyewitness testimony who has shown no bias would be given considerably more weight than all of the people claiming one way or the other based on listening to a crappy audio recording with plenty of cross talk.

 

[timschochet]

Manslaughter is in

Dammit. I should have offered you odds.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

wow State is arguing child abuse as part of their third degree murder motion

 

[jon_mx]

...while at the same time ignoring the fact that so many people in our judicial system are convicted every day on far less evidence- especially young black teens like Trayvon Martin.

This is a central running theme in your posts that you blame the MSM for feeding you on the radio. This trial isn't about every young black teen in America, it is about George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. Go start a new thread and stand on your soap box if you want to preach about the injustices in America on black teens, we've seen enough of it from you in this thread.

There is also no truth to it. Blacks are less likely to get convicted in self-defense cases in Florida.

Most likely because they disproportionaly kill other blacks. Your data also showed that someone is twice as likely to be convicted if the deceased is white than they are if they killed a black or Hispanic.

You could look up the cases of black on white and black on white killings and show it instead of just assuming it. It is possible.

 

[jon_mx]

...while at the same time ignoring the fact that so many people in our judicial system are convicted every day on far less evidence- especially young black teens like Trayvon Martin.

This is a central running theme in your posts that you blame the MSM for feeding you on the radio. This trial isn't about every young black teen in America, it is about George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. Go start a new thread and stand on your soap box if you want to preach about the injustices in America on black teens, we've seen enough of it from you in this thread.

There is also no truth to it. Blacks are less likely to get convicted in self-defense cases in Florida.

Your analysis is limited to stand your ground cases in the state of Florida. That's a pretty small sample and has nothing to do with what I wrote above.

Good God Tim, you throw out facts on Talk Radio which is not supported by any data, then you nitpick my data. At least I have a real basis for what I said, you have none.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Manslaughter is in

Dammit. I should have offered you odds.

State is going to get whatever they want in at this point from this Judge.The Judge wasted no time in making her ruling after hearing arguments, citing 1 piece of case law she had at the ready.

 

[Todem]

No eyewitness saw the beginning of the confrontation. What we have is indirect evidence from which a jury may draw different inferences.

If the jury believes that Martin was screaming on the 911 call, as some witnesses have testified. They may draw an inference (supported by the fact that Zimmerman set out to follow Martin) that Zimmerman instigated the confrontation.

The jury may draw a contrary inference from the witnesses testifying it was Zimmerman's voice, that Martin at least at one point had the upper hand, etc.

The credibility of witnesses and the weight of relevant evidence is the province of the jury. And they are entitled to come to either conclusion.

That is the wild card. What is the jury buying? GZ's mother or Trayvons Mother. It could be as simple as that.

Scary.

I happen to think....the impartial witness of seeing TM on top of GZ nailed the coffin shut for a conviction.

 

[jon_mx]

Manslaughter is in

Dammit. I should have offered you odds.

There was never even a question with this judge.

 

[Todem]

wow State is arguing child abuse as part of their third degree murder motion

I think it is obvious how desperate the State is today.

They really must feel....they are toast.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Standard instructions on state's requested lesser offenses, manslaughter:

http://twitdoc.com/view.asp?id=101416&sid=2694&ext=RTF&lcl=Manslaughter.rtf&usr=JeffWeinerOS&doc=153148407&key=key-mquwtvynbe5exwxj956

 

[timschochet]

No eyewitness saw the beginning of the confrontation. What we have is indirect evidence from which a jury may draw different inferences.

If the jury believes that Martin was screaming on the 911 call, as some witnesses have testified. They may draw an inference (supported by the fact that Zimmerman set out to follow Martin) that Zimmerman instigated the confrontation.

The jury may draw a contrary inference from the witnesses testifying it was Zimmerman's voice, that Martin at least at one point had the upper hand, etc.

The credibility of witnesses and the weight of relevant evidence is the province of the jury. And they are entitled to come to either conclusion.

It's pretty rare that I disagree with you on a legal matter (I don't typically know enough to do so) but I have to question this. Under the law as I understand it, I can't see how any reasonable juror could convict George Zimmerman, because there is no way to eliminate reasonable doubt in this case. Even if I believed that Martin was the one screaming, even if I believed that Zimmerman was guilty (actually I do believe that BTW) I couldn't vote to convict him, because the state has failed to remove the possibility that he is not guilty.

This is not to say that juries always follow the law- I recognize that in many cases they don't, and if they think someone is guilty they vote to convict without worrying about reasonable doubt. But they're not supposed to do this, right?

 

[Rayderr]

Trying for murder 3 because Trayvon died as a result of Child abuse????

 

[jon_mx]

No eyewitness saw the beginning of the confrontation. What we have is indirect evidence from which a jury may draw different inferences.

If the jury believes that Martin was screaming on the 911 call, as some witnesses have testified. They may draw an inference (supported by the fact that Zimmerman set out to follow Martin) that Zimmerman instigated the confrontation.

The jury may draw a contrary inference from the witnesses testifying it was Zimmerman's voice, that Martin at least at one point had the upper hand, etc.

The credibility of witnesses and the weight of relevant evidence is the province of the jury. And they are entitled to come to either conclusion.

That is the wild card. What is jury buying? GZ's mother or Trayvons Mother. It could be as simple as that.

Scary.

You think the jury is going to believe what mothers say over a crappy recording versus what the best eye-witness saw and throw out all logic about why Martin would be screaming for so long. Why are people even debating this point? There is no logic to the Martin-screaming arguement.