Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (3 Viewers)

[cstu]

Regarding the injuries, Mark O Mara yesterday stated to the jury that there needn't be any injuries at all to justify self defense. While this is technically true.

There is nothing technical about it. If Martin was trying to suffocate Zimmerman to death, Zimmerman had every right to shoot Martin dead, without a ####### scratch anywhere on his head.

True, but since there is no evidence whatsoever that Martin was trying to suffocate Zimmerman to death, I think we can discount this notion as complete and total bull####.

When will people admit that zimmy has added whatever he could to his story to justify the shooting?

Exactly. I don't think lying in that situation means you're guilty, it just means you're scared of spending the rest of your life in prison. It doesn't excuse it, but trying to use those lies as a reason to find him guilty doesn't make sense to me.

It really depends on what those lies are. If he lied about leaving his car, about whom was following who, about the way the fight went down and especially about the extent of his injuries and exactly what his thoughts were regarding them, then these things lead me to think he is probably guilty of at least manslaughter.

It still doesn't mean anything - he was scared of life in prison and panicked, most people would do the same thing.

There are two things that matter to me:

- Was TM hitting GZ while on top of him?

- Was TM shot while on top of GZ?

If the answers are yes to both of those questions then GZ is legally innocent of manslaughter.

 

[T Bell]

Jurors won't be told the minimum sentence and it would be improper for them to try to find out.

What if the juror knows going in?

They'll be told to not take it into consideration. Just as good, right?

 

[timschochet]

Regarding the injuries, Mark O Mara yesterday stated to the jury that there needn't be any injuries at all to justify self defense. While this is technically true.

There is nothing technical about it. If Martin was trying to suffocate Zimmerman to death, Zimmerman had every right to shoot Martin dead, without a ####### scratch anywhere on his head.

True, but since there is no evidence whatsoever that Martin was trying to suffocate Zimmerman to death, I think we can discount this notion as complete and total bull####.

When will people admit that zimmy has added whatever he could to his story to justify the shooting?

Exactly. I don't think lying in that situation means you're guilty, it just means you're scared of spending the rest of your life in prison. It doesn't excuse it, but trying to use those lies as a reason to find him guilty doesn't make sense to me.

It really depends on what those lies are. If he lied about leaving his car, about whom was following who, about the way the fight went down and especially about the extent of his injuries and exactly what his thoughts were regarding them, then these things lead me to think he is probably guilty of at least manslaughter.

It still doesn't mean anything - he was scared of life in prison and panicked, most people would do the same thing.

There are two things that matter to me:

- Was TM hitting GZ while on top of him?

- Was TM shot while on top of GZ?

If the answers are yes to both of those questions then GZ is legally innocent of manslaughter.

I disagree. As Ramsay has pointed out several times, the test for pulling out a gun and killing someone should be substantially higher than this. Nothing but minor injuries = no reasonable fear of dying = manslaughter.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

If you believe that TM was going for the gun, then GZ had a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm. His injuries sustained during the beating that he took would then be irrelevant. It wouldn't take much for GZ to fear that TM was going for his gun, and it's a good example why the addition of a firearm to a confrontation is so dangerous.

TM didn't need to go for the gun for GZ to have reasonable fear or death or serious bodily harm, all he needed to do was be on top of GZ on the ground and hitting him with GZ's head on the concrete. TM made a huge mistake and it cost him his life.

Zimmerman in the tape at the very least implies that he has squirmed off the concrete before he holds the conversation about calling 911 or getting help, before Martin tells him he going to die that night, all before Zimmerman goes for his exposed gun. In his words. That particular threat seems to be gone.

I don't know about that but this is what the gunshot expert had to say:

A nationally renowned gunshot wound expert testified Tuesday that Trayvon Martin's gunshot wound was consistent with accused murderer George Zimmerman's story that the teen was on top of him and leaning over when he was shot.

Right. But while it can be done really quickly, Zimmerman needs to get to the gun and point it in Martin's chest without Martin getting in the way despite having a head start and superior positioning. I guess those drugs picked up and consumed at the 7-11 had slowed Martin's reflexes.

 

[financewonk]

When you can not escape and the aggressor shows no signs of stopping. For example, if you were on the ground, and he was straddled over on top of you punching you.

Link

In the video, Zimmerman, with bandages at the back of his head, recalls being punched by the teen, trying to run away, calling for help, and then being grabbed and pushed down, his head being slammed against the cement sidewalk as his body lay on the grass.

As he tried to move his head off the cement, he says, he saw a neighbor emerge from one of the homes. He remembers calling for help, with the person responding that he or she would call 911.

He then says his jacket shifted upward, revealing his gun. When Martin saw it, he continued, the teen informed him “you’re going to die tonight,” and attempted to take the firearm. That, Zimmerman says, is when he reached for the gun himself, eventually shooting Martin.

He didn’t think he had hit the teen, and then heard him say, “You got me.” He moved the teen and spread his arms apart, looking to see if he’d struck him with something.

I don't exactly know what was told the jury so this may not apply in the jury room, but since Zimmerman doesn't seem to claim that he felt fear from the beating, but from Martin going for the gun I don't why I should factor in the beating or no signs of stopping in determining Zimmerman's fear. In fact doesn't Martin need to stop at least momentarily to make the move for the gun?

So my belief as to whether or not Zimmerman had sufficient fear is based entirely on how credible the above is and not other things. Since it is unimaginable (there are no reasonable ideas to create doubts) that the above is possible it all depends on what I must consider. If I have to consider whether the above is reasonable Zimmerman is guilty. If I have to consider whether Zimmerman believed the above unreasonable scenario then he walks.

The fact that other people (even me) think the beating alone meets the standard seems irrelevant to me. I need to have heard Zimmerman say it. But again maybe the jury was told a different story by the witnesses. (I have watched only summaries and a few youtube clips.) They were certainly told a different story in the opening and closing arguments. ETA: But that is not evidence.

If you believe that TM was going for the gun, then GZ had a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm. His injuries sustained during the beating that he took would then be irrelevant. It wouldn't take much for GZ to fear that TM was going for his gun, and it's a good example why the addition of a firearm to a confrontation is so dangerous.

Can you present a scenario where Martin sees and goes for Zimmerman's gun and Zimmerman gets there first? And gets off a shot that hits Martin directly in the heart? I have stated for pages and days (weeks?) that I cannot imagine how this is possible. What reasonable possibility am I overlooking?

I suppose that I could construct such a scenario, but it's not what I believed happened. Since GZ was in possession of a loaded firearm, his fear that he would be killed would increase as he was losing the fight/ control over the outcome/ gun. Therefore, it probably wouldn't have taken much to cause GZ to reach for his gun. Indeed, all it might have taken was the fear that TM would reach for it first. Whether or not his actions were reasonable/ legal is open for debate. I just wanted to isolate the gun issue, and show that the addition of the gun made the incident many times more dangerous than it would have been otherwise.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Jurors won't be told the minimum sentence and it would be improper for them to try to find out.

What if the juror knows going in?

They'll be told to not take it into consideration. Just as good, right?

I have friends that say they "compartmentize" information in their heads. My mind doesn't seem to work that way so I'm not sure I could or would know if I was breaking the instruction. I don't know how you keep that info out of at least your subconscious (though I know some say they can and do all the time).

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Part of the issue here is that Florida just has one breed of manslaughter. In many states, there's a lesser form of manslaughter called "heat of passion" manslaughter, which I think would apply here. I also think that's it's improper for the Florida sentencing guidelines to double count the crime and the "outcome". If manslaughter is a Category Seven offense, it should be treated like other Category Seven offenses

I don't believe that Zimmerman is really criminally culpable to the extent that he should serve over a decade in prison. But I also don't think that this was a justifiable homicide (i.e., a homicide in which George Zimmerman possesses no culpability).

I won't be upset if it's acquitted, because I think that outcome is within the reasonable discretion of the jury. It's not how I'd come out, but I'm not on the jury.

 

[Bob Magaw]

legally, it zimmerman exercises his right to not testify, that can not be held against him.

does the converse hold true... since his testimony could have been self serving, and wasn't sworn, does that mean the jury can hold it to a lower standard, perhaps even ignoring it in part where it may seem questionable?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

When you can not escape and the aggressor shows no signs of stopping. For example, if you were on the ground, and he was straddled over on top of you punching you.

Link

In the video, Zimmerman, with bandages at the back of his head, recalls being punched by the teen, trying to run away, calling for help, and then being grabbed and pushed down, his head being slammed against the cement sidewalk as his body lay on the grass.

As he tried to move his head off the cement, he says, he saw a neighbor emerge from one of the homes. He remembers calling for help, with the person responding that he or she would call 911.

He then says his jacket shifted upward, revealing his gun. When Martin saw it, he continued, the teen informed him “you’re going to die tonight,” and attempted to take the firearm. That, Zimmerman says, is when he reached for the gun himself, eventually shooting Martin.

He didn’t think he had hit the teen, and then heard him say, “You got me.” He moved the teen and spread his arms apart, looking to see if he’d struck him with something.

I don't exactly know what was told the jury so this may not apply in the jury room, but since Zimmerman doesn't seem to claim that he felt fear from the beating, but from Martin going for the gun I don't why I should factor in the beating or no signs of stopping in determining Zimmerman's fear. In fact doesn't Martin need to stop at least momentarily to make the move for the gun?

So my belief as to whether or not Zimmerman had sufficient fear is based entirely on how credible the above is and not other things. Since it is unimaginable (there are no reasonable ideas to create doubts) that the above is possible it all depends on what I must consider. If I have to consider whether the above is reasonable Zimmerman is guilty. If I have to consider whether Zimmerman believed the above unreasonable scenario then he walks.

The fact that other people (even me) think the beating alone meets the standard seems irrelevant to me. I need to have heard Zimmerman say it. But again maybe the jury was told a different story by the witnesses. (I have watched only summaries and a few youtube clips.) They were certainly told a different story in the opening and closing arguments. ETA: But that is not evidence.

If you believe that TM was going for the gun, then GZ had a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm. His injuries sustained during the beating that he took would then be irrelevant. It wouldn't take much for GZ to fear that TM was going for his gun, and it's a good example why the addition of a firearm to a confrontation is so dangerous.

Can you present a scenario where Martin sees and goes for Zimmerman's gun and Zimmerman gets there first? And gets off a shot that hits Martin directly in the heart? I have stated for pages and days (weeks?) that I cannot imagine how this is possible. What reasonable possibility am I overlooking?

I suppose that I could construct such a scenario, but it's not what I believed happened. Since GZ was in possession of a loaded firearm, his fear that he would be killed would increase as he was losing the fight/ control over the outcome/ gun. Therefore, it probably wouldn't have taken much to cause GZ to reach for his gun. Indeed, all it might have taken was the fear that TM would reach for it first. Whether or not his actions were reasonable/ legal is open for debate. I just wanted to isolate the gun issue, and show that the addition of the gun made the incident many times more dangerous than it would have been otherwise.

Fair enough. I mostly agree.

 

[Christo]

Seems a lot of people think GZ ####ed up that night but the way our system works he goes free

I think so.

You have to know the stakes go up when you enter a situation with a gun. Negligent homicide, I don't know what you'd call it. You just can't shoot someone because you're getting your ### kicked. Where's the line? Someone punches you in the face and you can shoot him?

Why not? WTF are you to punch me in the face?

WTF are you to shoot me dead if I punch you in the face?

That would make me the winner.

Temporarily. But then your ### would be in prison.

I'd represent myself and the only guilty verdict would be my greatness.

I'd ask woz to second chair.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

legally, it zimmerman exercises his right to not testify, that can not be held against him.

does the converse hold true... since his testimony could have been self serving, and wasn't sworn, does that mean the jury can hold it to a lower standard, perhaps even ignoring it in part where it may seem questionable?

The jury can always disregard any testimony they find less than credible.

A tougher question, which I've struggled with, is whether the prosecution could characterize the evidence as "unsworn". The prosecution cannot suggest that there's anything wrong with Zimmerman's decision to not testimony. But I honestly don't know if the prosecution would be allowed to say something like:

"George Zimmerman is not obligated to testify before you, and you should not hold his decision to not testify against him. But that does not obligate you to afford unsworn testimony the same weight as sworn testimony."

I imagine there's caselaw on that, but I don't know the answer offhand. The State seems to have just focused on the idea that the statements were inconsistent and self-serving, but that might be because the State offered them into evidence themselves.

 

[Christo]

Seems a lot of people think GZ ####ed up that night but the way our system works he goes free

I think so.

You have to know the stakes go up when you enter a situation with a gun. Negligent homicide, I don't know what you'd call it. You just can't shoot someone because you're getting your ### kicked. Where's the line? Someone punches you in the face and you can shoot him?

Why not? WTF are you to punch me in the face?

Im the guy who just landed a crushing straight left right to your jaw and sent you unconscious to the ER to have that flapping jaw of yours wired shut...thats WTF i am hahaha

Sorry but I have an iron jaw and you have busted knuckles to go along with the bullet wound.

 

[Christo]

Seems a lot of people think GZ ####ed up that night but the way our system works he goes free

I think so.You have to know the stakes go up when you enter a situation with a gun. Negligent homicide, I don't know what you'd call it. You just can't shoot someone because you're getting your ### kicked. Where's the line? Someone punches you in the face and you can shoot him?

Why not? WTF are you to punch me in the face?

Come on. So all fights should just end with somebody getting shot? Teach our kids if they get bullied or beat up, get a gun and shoot to kill? Are we such ####### now, we can't fight like men? Or is it just 1870 and everybody is packing and allowed to shoot each other in bars and the streets?

Listen, chances are I could beat your ###. But I just don't want to be bothered with it. You don't want to get shot? Walk away.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

I keep harping on the lack of an instruction regarding aggressor/duty to retreat because I could foresee jurors arguing back and forth about reasonable fear for a long time, whereas it may be easier to find GZ as aggressor who didn't exhaust all forms of retreat before using deadly force.

Why not have both options for the jury? Was this simply not permitted for a reason I'm missing?

 

[Christo]

Regarding the injuries, Mark O Mara yesterday stated to the jury that there needn't be any injuries at all to justify self defense. While this is technically true, this statement, along with his mention of "a broken nose OR SOMETHING CLOSE TO IT" is basically an admission by the defense that all of these injuries we were hearing about for months were highly exaggerated. As in so many other parts of his narrative, Zimmerman was clearly lying about this. Guy was barely nicked. PERHAPS when Martin managed to get on top, for a few seconds, GZ scraped the back of his head against the sidewalk, but it was hardly a severe blow.

So I'll repeat again: it is very unlikely Zimmerman actually feared for his life or great bodily harm when he pulled our his gun and shot Trayvon Martin to death.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Seems a lot of people think GZ ####ed up that night but the way our system works he goes free

I think so.You have to know the stakes go up when you enter a situation with a gun. Negligent homicide, I don't know what you'd call it. You just can't shoot someone because you're getting your ### kicked. Where's the line? Someone punches you in the face and you can shoot him?

Why not? WTF are you to punch me in the face?

Come on. So all fights should just end with somebody getting shot? Teach our kids if they get bullied or beat up, get a gun and shoot to kill? Are we such ####### now, we can't fight like men? Or is it just 1870 and everybody is packing and allowed to shoot each other in bars and the streets?

Listen, chances are I could beat your ###. But I just don't want to be bothered with it. You don't want to get shot? Walk away.

Your threat now has me in fear of imminent bodily harm, so be careful.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I keep harping on the lack of an instruction regarding aggressor/duty to retreat because I could foresee jurors arguing back and forth about reasonable fear for a long time, whereas it may be easier to find GZ as aggressor who didn't exhaust all forms of retreat before using deadly force.

Why not have both options for the jury? Was this simply not permitted for a reason I'm missing?

I don't even know if it was raised. I know the State wanted an instruction that "following" could be considered "provocation" and lost on that (kind of weird because "provocation" isn't in the statute). And I know the defense wanted an instruction that "following" is legal.

But I don't know if the State tried to get 776.041 into the instructions and, if they didn't, I don't know why not.

 

[Christo]

Regarding the injuries, Mark O Mara yesterday stated to the jury that there needn't be any injuries at all to justify self defense. While this is technically true.

There is nothing technical about it. If Martin was trying to suffocate Zimmerman to death, Zimmerman had every right to shoot Martin dead, without a ####### scratch anywhere on his head.

True, but since there is no evidence whatsoever that Martin was trying to suffocate Zimmerman to death, I think we can discount this notion as complete and total bull####.

When will people admit that zimmy has added whatever he could to his story to justify the shooting?

Exactly. I don't think lying in that situation means you're guilty, it just means you're scared of spending the rest of your life in prison. It doesn't excuse it, but trying to use those lies as a reason to find him guilty doesn't make sense to me.

It really depends on what those lies are. If he lied about leaving his car, about whom was following who, about the way the fight went down and especially about the extent of his injuries and exactly what his thoughts were regarding them, then these things lead me to think he is probably guilty of at least manslaughter.

It still doesn't mean anything - he was scared of life in prison and panicked, most people would do the same thing.

There are two things that matter to me:

- Was TM hitting GZ while on top of him?

- Was TM shot while on top of GZ?

If the answers are yes to both of those questions then GZ is legally innocent of manslaughter.

I disagree. As Ramsay has pointed out several times, the test for pulling out a gun and killing someone should be substantially higher than this. Nothing but minor injuries = no reasonable fear of dying = manslaughter.

I shouldn't have to roll around on the ground with any jackass that comes along.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Part of the issue here is that Florida just has one breed of manslaughter. In many states, there's a lesser form of manslaughter called "heat of passion" manslaughter, which I think would apply here. I also think that's it's improper for the Florida sentencing guidelines to double count the crime and the "outcome". If manslaughter is a Category Seven offense, it should be treated like other Category Seven offenses

I don't believe that Zimmerman is really criminally culpable to the extent that he should serve over a decade in prison. But I also don't think that this was a justifiable homicide (i.e., a homicide in which George Zimmerman possesses no culpability).

I won't be upset if it's acquitted, because I think that outcome is within the reasonable discretion of the jury. It's not how I'd come out, but I'm not on the jury.

That's basically where I am. I think GZ feared for his life. I'm not sure it was reasonable. I think he was the aggressor and got in over his head. I think his story is mostly contrived to fit into a self defense claim, but I think he thought he was defending himself.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Regarding the injuries, Mark O Mara yesterday stated to the jury that there needn't be any injuries at all to justify self defense. While this is technically true, this statement, along with his mention of "a broken nose OR SOMETHING CLOSE TO IT" is basically an admission by the defense that all of these injuries we were hearing about for months were highly exaggerated.

Mark O'Mara also didn't use the "words creepy ### cracker" or the n-word, he did it out of respect, it however does not support your claim in bold above just because you want to believe the drivel you post.

I'm not saying I agree with Tim's point here, but you really don't see what point he is making and that there's some validity to it at all, do you?

I think the point you are making is highly exaggerated, see what I did there? You don't need to be a lawyer that has experience on murder trials to see that, do you?

 

[Christo]

Regarding the injuries, Mark O Mara yesterday stated to the jury that there needn't be any injuries at all to justify self defense. While this is technically true, this statement, along with his mention of "a broken nose OR SOMETHING CLOSE TO IT" is basically an admission by the defense that all of these injuries we were hearing about for months were highly exaggerated.

Mark O'Mara also didn't use the "words creepy ### cracker" or the n-word, he did it out of respect, it however does not support your claim in bold above just because you want to believe the drivel you post.

I'm not saying I agree with Tim's point here, but you really don't see what point he is making and that there's some validity to it at all, do you?

I think the point you are making is highly exaggerated, see what I did there? You don't need to be a lawyer that has experience on murder trials to see that, do you?

Honestly, if woz quit the law and opened a florists shop and you watched every televised murder trial from now until the end of time, I'd still give his opinion more credence than yours.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

and zimmerman claimed martin said "you're going to die tonight"...

really?

i actually did witness a fight in high school, where the person who got the better of it said, i'm going to kill you, but it was a party, a lot of people were around on both sides, and he was dragged off...

it just seems like zimmerman put bad comic book villian dialogue in martin's mouth... like, what is the worst possible thing i can say martin said as an alibi and to justify my actions?

If you guys are going to quote someone, do it right.

You are going to die tonight mother####er!

Zimmerman was right on the money, let's see he calls Trayvon out for being on drugs - Tox report shows there was THC in his system.

Trayvon's dad gets caught in court saying mother####er to a guy with a Zimmerman badge - "mother####er" appears to be a trademark of the Martin family and the fact that Zimmerman added that little "spice" to his quote gives it that much more credibility.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Regarding the injuries, Mark O Mara yesterday stated to the jury that there needn't be any injuries at all to justify self defense. While this is technically true, this statement, along with his mention of "a broken nose OR SOMETHING CLOSE TO IT" is basically an admission by the defense that all of these injuries we were hearing about for months were highly exaggerated.

Mark O'Mara also didn't use the "words creepy ### cracker" or the n-word, he did it out of respect, it however does not support your claim in bold above just because you want to believe the drivel you post.

I'm not saying I agree with Tim's point here, but you really don't see what point he is making and that there's some validity to it at all, do you?

I think the point you are making is highly exaggerated, see what I did there? You don't need to be a lawyer that has experience on murder trials to see that, do you?

Honestly, if woz quit the law and opened a florists shop and you watched every televised murder trial from now until the end of time, I'd still give his opinion more credence than yours.

Do you understand why Mark O'Mara made that remark? Before you go calling Woz a flower boy I think you at least owe me that.

 

[Christo]

Regarding the injuries, Mark O Mara yesterday stated to the jury that there needn't be any injuries at all to justify self defense. While this is technically true, this statement, along with his mention of "a broken nose OR SOMETHING CLOSE TO IT" is basically an admission by the defense that all of these injuries we were hearing about for months were highly exaggerated.

Mark O'Mara also didn't use the "words creepy ### cracker" or the n-word, he did it out of respect, it however does not support your claim in bold above just because you want to believe the drivel you post.

I'm not saying I agree with Tim's point here, but you really don't see what point he is making and that there's some validity to it at all, do you?

I think the point you are making is highly exaggerated, see what I did there? You don't need to be a lawyer that has experience on murder trials to see that, do you?

Honestly, if woz quit the law and opened a florists shop and you watched every televised murder trial from now until the end of time, I'd still give his opinion more credence than yours.

Do you understand why Mark O'Mara made that remark? Before you go calling Woz a flower boy I think you at least owe me that.

I owe you nothing.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Regarding the injuries, Mark O Mara yesterday stated to the jury that there needn't be any injuries at all to justify self defense. While this is technically true, this statement, along with his mention of "a broken nose OR SOMETHING CLOSE TO IT" is basically an admission by the defense that all of these injuries we were hearing about for months were highly exaggerated.

Mark O'Mara also didn't use the "words creepy ### cracker" or the n-word, he did it out of respect, it however does not support your claim in bold above just because you want to believe the drivel you post.

I'm not saying I agree with Tim's point here, but you really don't see what point he is making and that there's some validity to it at all, do you?

I think the point you are making is highly exaggerated, see what I did there? You don't need to be a lawyer that has experience on murder trials to see that, do you?

Honestly, if woz quit the law and opened a florists shop and you watched every televised murder trial from now until the end of time, I'd still give his opinion more credence than yours.

Do you understand why Mark O'Mara made that remark? Before you go calling Woz a flower boy I think you at least owe me that.

I owe you nothing.

How many murder trials have you served on? Since the lawyers are so quick to point fingers, let's see how you are qualified to point fingers.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

You just can't shoot someone because you're getting your ### kicked. Where's the line? Someone punches you in the face and you can shoot him?

Not to single you out jamny but this statement has been a recurring theme in this thread.

In other words, are you saying that, in some instances, an American citizen should be REQUIRED BY LAW to physically fight against their will even when making it clear they want to flee and stop?

Do you understand that it is pretty much a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT not to EVER for any reason be forced to engage in a physical fight against your will? If your arguments EVER violate this basic human right, then I say it will ALWAYS be wrong.

This isn't about what the law should be. It's about what the law is. The elements of a self defense claim were determined by the Florida legislature. If the legislature had wanted to create a presumption of the fear of death or great bodily harm in the case of any battery, they could have done so.

They did not. They drew the line at (a reasonable fear of) the standard for aggravated battery. For simple battery, the right to self defense is confined to a level below deadly force.

The jury is free to find that Zimmerman was being subjected to a aggravated battery. Or that he legitimately feared as such. But there is also plenty of evidence against that proposition, particularly if the jury finds Zimmerman's self-serving, unsworn statements lack credibility.

My example to Jamny and others is that the law does not state anywhere that if someone punches you, you are required to reciprocate. There are people in here picking fights and getting angry that AT SOME POINT, the law states the victim has a right to say stop and that he is justified in using deadly force. That point was clearly passed in this case based on the evidence, there is nothing to contradict John Good's eyewitness testimony. Martin did not give Zimmerman the opportunity to flee, John Good ID'd Martin on top, John Good ID'd Martin throwing down punches, John Good ID'd Zimmerman screaming.

Using Those meddling kids always get away as evidence is not good enough, Ramsay Hunt Experience.

I've never used those meddling kids as evidence. I've never bought the theory for 2nd degree murder, because I've always felt that even if I granted the State every factual inference (Zimmerman racially profiled Martin, followed him, got in a confrontation, and shot him), I couldn't find facts that rose to depraved mind murder.

Conversely, if I were to grant every single factual inference in favor of Zimmerman, he'd be acquitted, but that's true in just about every murder trial. If I had to grant every single factual inference in favor Aaron Hernandez, I'd have to acquit him. But I don't think his jury is going to do that, and Zimmerman's jury isn't obligated to do so here. The only evidence to support Zimmerman's head being "bashed into concrete" or that he was "being smothered" is his own inconsistent, self-serving, unsworn statements. I don't find that evidence credible, particularly when the only other witness is dead.

My contention has always been that even if I resolve a very large number of factual disputes in Zimmerman's favor, it is still manslaughter under the law. I don't care whether Zimmerman followed Martin. It doesn't matter. I don't care whether Zimmerman instigated the confrontation. It doesn't matter. I suppose I would care whether Zimmerman's head was being "slammed" into the concrete, but the physical evidence suggests it wasn't, just as it suggests that Martin was not "raining down blows" on Zimmerman (or at least was not connecting on such blows).

So I assume, for Zimmerman's benefit, that Trayvon Martin hit George Zimmerman. The physical evidence suggests that if the police had then come around, broken up that fight, and arrested Trayvon Martin, he would have been arrested for simple battery. A jury is free to disagree, but that's my impression. And I haven't seen credible evidence that a reasonable person would have believed that he was being subjected to anything more than that. Good's testimony supports simple battery. Not aggravated battery, IMO. Those circumstances do not rise to such as to justify a homicide, IMO. Not under the statute as written.

Wow. Once again you have gotten to the heart of the matter, with great clarity and simplicity. Why couldn't the prosecution have made this argument? Because they were so invested in murder 2 that they had to talk about "hate in his heart"?

Acts most often defined under aggravated battery are:

• use of a deadly weapon
• battery in which serious bodily injury occurs, and
• battery against a child or police officer

Aggravated battery does not need to be proven to have already occurred in order to justify the use of deadly force.Great clarity and simplicity indeed, Fred and Daphne would be impressed.

 

[cstu]

Part of the issue here is that Florida just has one breed of manslaughter. In many states, there's a lesser form of manslaughter called "heat of passion" manslaughter, which I think would apply here. I also think that's it's improper for the Florida sentencing guidelines to double count the crime and the "outcome". If manslaughter is a Category Seven offense, it should be treated like other Category Seven offenses

I don't believe that Zimmerman is really criminally culpable to the extent that he should serve over a decade in prison. But I also don't think that this was a justifiable homicide (i.e., a homicide in which George Zimmerman possesses no culpability).

I won't be upset if it's acquitted, because I think that outcome is within the reasonable discretion of the jury. It's not how I'd come out, but I'm not on the jury.

That's basically where I am. I think GZ feared for his life. I'm not sure it was reasonable. I think he was the aggressor and got in over his head. I think his story is mostly contrived to fit into a self defense claim, but I think he thought he was defending himself.

My thoughts as well. GZ was an aggressor, but without a violent response from TM I don't see how GZ ends up on his back with TM beating him. Both of them are at fault and I think illustrates two things:

- Before you go around with a loaded gun pretending to be a cop, you better be prepared to spend the rest of your life in prison if things go wrong.

- If someone is following you don't need engage in a confrontation. If you do, make sure not to put them in a defenseless position if they are armed.

 

[Unlucky]

Part of the issue here is that Florida just has one breed of manslaughter. In many states, there's a lesser form of manslaughter called "heat of passion" manslaughter, which I think would apply here. I also think that's it's improper for the Florida sentencing guidelines to double count the crime and the "outcome". If manslaughter is a Category Seven offense, it should be treated like other Category Seven offenses

I don't believe that Zimmerman is really criminally culpable to the extent that he should serve over a decade in prison. But I also don't think that this was a justifiable homicide (i.e., a homicide in which George Zimmerman possesses no culpability).

I won't be upset if it's acquitted, because I think that outcome is within the reasonable discretion of the jury. It's not how I'd come out, but I'm not on the jury.

That's basically where I am. I think GZ feared for his life. I'm not sure it was reasonable. I think he was the aggressor and got in over his head. I think his story is mostly contrived to fit into a self defense claim, but I think he thought he was defending himself.

I'm with Leeroy here, but I haven't followed this as in depth as you guys. Am I wrong to think that Zimmerman made assumptions, initiated things when told not too by dispatch, then got in over his head, got scared, and shot and killed TM? I have a hard time letting GZ walk due to "self defense" when he initiated things by following and confronting TM. I can't rationalize self defense when GZ was the one packing and TM was unarmed.

 

[squistion]

Honestly, if woz quit the law and opened a florists shop and you watched every televised murder trial from now until the end of time, I'd still give his opinion more credence than yours.

Do you understand why Mark O'Mara made that remark? Before you go calling Woz a flower boy I think you at least owe me that.

I owe you nothing.

 

[Soonerman]

Part of the issue here is that Florida just has one breed of manslaughter. In many states, there's a lesser form of manslaughter called "heat of passion" manslaughter, which I think would apply here. I also think that's it's improper for the Florida sentencing guidelines to double count the crime and the "outcome". If manslaughter is a Category Seven offense, it should be treated like other Category Seven offenses

I don't believe that Zimmerman is really criminally culpable to the extent that he should serve over a decade in prison. But I also don't think that this was a justifiable homicide (i.e., a homicide in which George Zimmerman possesses no culpability).

I won't be upset if it's acquitted, because I think that outcome is within the reasonable discretion of the jury. It's not how I'd come out, but I'm not on the jury.

That's basically where I am. I think GZ feared for his life. I'm not sure it was reasonable. I think he was the aggressor and got in over his head. I think his story is mostly contrived to fit into a self defense claim, but I think he thought he was defending himself.

My thoughts as well. GZ was an aggressor, but without a violent response from TM I don't see how GZ ends up on his back with TM beating him. Both of them are at fault and I think illustrates two things:

- Before you go around with a loaded gun pretending to be a cop, you better be prepared to spend the rest of your life in prison if things go wrong.

- If someone is following you don't need engage in a confrontation. If you do, make sure not to put them in a defenseless position if they are armed.

This. If you don't want to end up dead or on trial, don't act like either of these stellar citizens.

http://spectator.org/archives/2013/07/12/two-males-no-men

 

[Rayderr]

If he is found guilty does he go to jail immediately?

Yes. And he doesn't pass Go or collect $200.

 

[3C's]

and zimmerman claimed martin said "you're going to die tonight"...

really?

i actually did witness a fight in high school, where the person who got the better of it said, i'm going to kill you, but it was a party, a lot of people were around on both sides, and he was dragged off...

it just seems like zimmerman put bad comic book villian dialogue in martin's mouth... like, what is the worst possible thing i can say martin said as an alibi and to justify my actions?

If you guys are going to quote someone, do it right.

You are going to die tonight mother####er!

Zimmerman was right on the money, let's see he calls Trayvon out for being on drugs - Tox report shows there was THC in his system.

Trayvon's dad gets caught in court saying mother####er to a guy with a Zimmerman badge - "mother####er" appears to be a trademark of the Martin family and the fact that Zimmerman added that little "spice" to his quote gives it that much more credibility.

 

[jamny]

Part of the issue here is that Florida just has one breed of manslaughter. In many states, there's a lesser form of manslaughter called "heat of passion" manslaughter, which I think would apply here. I also think that's it's improper for the Florida sentencing guidelines to double count the crime and the "outcome". If manslaughter is a Category Seven offense, it should be treated like other Category Seven offenses

I don't believe that Zimmerman is really criminally culpable to the extent that he should serve over a decade in prison. But I also don't think that this was a justifiable homicide (i.e., a homicide in which George Zimmerman possesses no culpability).

I won't be upset if it's acquitted, because I think that outcome is within the reasonable discretion of the jury. It's not how I'd come out, but I'm not on the jury.

That's basically where I am. I think GZ feared for his life. I'm not sure it was reasonable. I think he was the aggressor and got in over his head. I think his story is mostly contrived to fit into a self defense claim, but I think he thought he was defending himself.

I'm with Leeroy here, but I haven't followed this as in depth as you guys. Am I wrong to think that Zimmerman made assumptions, initiated things when told not too by dispatch, then got in over his head, got scared, and shot and killed TM? I have a hard time letting GZ walk due to "self defense" when he initiated things by following and confronting TM. I can't rationalize self defense when GZ was the one packing and TM was unarmed.

The issue in your scenario is the confrontation. No one knows how that happened except GZ and he says TM started the confrontation. He was within his rights to follow so it's irrelevant imo.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Do you understand why Mark O'Mara made that remark?

Can you explain nervous laugh when he was trying to say that you have to find self defense? From watching the 200 hours is a nervous laugh what O'Mara does when he doesn't believe what he is peddling?

 

[cstu]

If he is found guilty does he go to jail immediately?

Regarding the injuries, Mark O Mara yesterday stated to the jury that there needn't be any injuries at all to justify self defense. While this is technically true.

There is nothing technical about it. If Martin was trying to suffocate Zimmerman to death, Zimmerman had every right to shoot Martin dead, without a ####### scratch anywhere on his head.

True, but since there is no evidence whatsoever that Martin was trying to suffocate Zimmerman to death, I think we can discount this notion as complete and total bull####.

When will people admit that zimmy has added whatever he could to his story to justify the shooting?

Exactly. I don't think lying in that situation means you're guilty, it just means you're scared of spending the rest of your life in prison. It doesn't excuse it, but trying to use those lies as a reason to find him guilty doesn't make sense to me.

It really depends on what those lies are. If he lied about leaving his car, about whom was following who, about the way the fight went down and especially about the extent of his injuries and exactly what his thoughts were regarding them, then these things lead me to think he is probably guilty of at least manslaughter.

It still doesn't mean anything - he was scared of life in prison and panicked, most people would do the same thing.

There are two things that matter to me:

- Was TM hitting GZ while on top of him?

- Was TM shot while on top of GZ?

If the answers are yes to both of those questions then GZ is legally innocent of manslaughter.

I disagree. As Ramsay has pointed out several times, the test for pulling out a gun and killing someone should be substantially higher than this. Nothing but minor injuries = no reasonable fear of dying = manslaughter.

Serious question Tim - have you ever been in a fist fight? If you have then you know your adrenaline is pumping and you aren't thinking clearly. I've never been under someone while they were punching me but I guarantee you if I was that my body would be telling me that I'm in serious danger. If you've watched MMA you'd know fights gets called very quickly due to how much damage could be done in short amount of time from someone hitting a person while on top of them.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Acts most often defined under aggravated battery are:

• use of a deadly weapon
• battery in which serious bodily injury occurs, and
• battery against a child or police officer

Aggravated battery does not need to be proven to have already occurred in order to justify the use of deadly force.Great clarity and simplicity indeed, Fred and Daphne would be impressed.

So Zimmerman already committed an "aggravated battery" putting his hands on Martin? That a felony. Thanks for clarifying and making things simple.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Regarding the injuries, Mark O Mara yesterday stated to the jury that there needn't be any injuries at all to justify self defense. While this is technically true.

There is nothing technical about it. If Martin was trying to suffocate Zimmerman to death, Zimmerman had every right to shoot Martin dead, without a ####### scratch anywhere on his head.

True, but since there is no evidence whatsoever that Martin was trying to suffocate Zimmerman to death, I think we can discount this notion as complete and total bull####.

Do you understand what evidence is?

Page 3 of Zimmerman's written statement.

 

[Joe McGee]

If he is found guilty does he go to jail immediately?

Yes. And he doesn't pass Go or collect $200.

I couldn't imagine being in this situation. He could be hours away from making friends with Bubba in the showers.

He would have to enter into some sort of protective custody. I doubt he'd survive long in gen pop.

 

[jon_mx]

Regarding the injuries, Mark O Mara yesterday stated to the jury that there needn't be any injuries at all to justify self defense. While this is technically true.

There is nothing technical about it. If Martin was trying to suffocate Zimmerman to death, Zimmerman had every right to shoot Martin dead, without a ####### scratch anywhere on his head.

True, but since there is no evidence whatsoever that Martin was trying to suffocate Zimmerman to death, I think we can discount this notion as complete and total bull####.

When will people admit that zimmy has added whatever he could to his story to justify the shooting?

Exactly. I don't think lying in that situation means you're guilty, it just means you're scared of spending the rest of your life in prison. It doesn't excuse it, but trying to use those lies as a reason to find him guilty doesn't make sense to me.

It really depends on what those lies are. If he lied about leaving his car, about whom was following who, about the way the fight went down and especially about the extent of his injuries and exactly what his thoughts were regarding them, then these things lead me to think he is probably guilty of at least manslaughter.

You never needed evidence to think he was guilty

 

[Rayderr]

If he is found guilty does he go to jail immediately?

Yes. And he doesn't pass Go or collect $200.

I couldn't imagine being in this situation. He could be hours away from making friends with Bubba in the showers.

He won't go to prison immediately. Just jail. If found guilty, he gets taken away to a jail cell while he awaits sentencing.

 

[Unlucky]

Part of the issue here is that Florida just has one breed of manslaughter. In many states, there's a lesser form of manslaughter called "heat of passion" manslaughter, which I think would apply here. I also think that's it's improper for the Florida sentencing guidelines to double count the crime and the "outcome". If manslaughter is a Category Seven offense, it should be treated like other Category Seven offenses

I don't believe that Zimmerman is really criminally culpable to the extent that he should serve over a decade in prison. But I also don't think that this was a justifiable homicide (i.e., a homicide in which George Zimmerman possesses no culpability).

I won't be upset if it's acquitted, because I think that outcome is within the reasonable discretion of the jury. It's not how I'd come out, but I'm not on the jury.

That's basically where I am. I think GZ feared for his life. I'm not sure it was reasonable. I think he was the aggressor and got in over his head. I think his story is mostly contrived to fit into a self defense claim, but I think he thought he was defending himself.

I'm with Leeroy here, but I haven't followed this as in depth as you guys. Am I wrong to think that Zimmerman made assumptions, initiated things when told not too by dispatch, then got in over his head, got scared, and shot and killed TM? I have a hard time letting GZ walk due to "self defense" when he initiated things by following and confronting TM. I can't rationalize self defense when GZ was the one packing and TM was unarmed.

The issue in your scenario is the confrontation. No one knows how that happened except GZ and he says TM started the confrontation. He was within his rights to follow so it's irrelevant imo.

Understood. However, I have a hard time following any logic that suggests TM started the confrontation when GZ was in a vehicle and was the only armed one. The unknowns are what makes this case so intriguing. I usually don't give a crap about these nationally recognized murder cases.

 

[3C's]

If he is found guilty does he go to jail immediately?

Yes. And he doesn't pass Go or collect $200.

I couldn't imagine being in this situation. He could be hours away from making friends with Bubba in the showers.

He won't go to prison immediately. Just jail. If found guilty, he gets taken away to a jail cell while he awaits sentencing.

And the inevitable appeal.

 

[Christo]

Regarding the injuries, Mark O Mara yesterday stated to the jury that there needn't be any injuries at all to justify self defense. While this is technically true.

There is nothing technical about it. If Martin was trying to suffocate Zimmerman to death, Zimmerman had every right to shoot Martin dead, without a ####### scratch anywhere on his head.

True, but since there is no evidence whatsoever that Martin was trying to suffocate Zimmerman to death, I think we can discount this notion as complete and total bull####.

Do you understand what evidence is?

Page 3 of Zimmerman's written statement.

How did the defense get that into evidence?

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Regarding the injuries, Mark O Mara yesterday stated to the jury that there needn't be any injuries at all to justify self defense. While this is technically true.

There is nothing technical about it. If Martin was trying to suffocate Zimmerman to death, Zimmerman had every right to shoot Martin dead, without a ####### scratch anywhere on his head.

True, but since there is no evidence whatsoever that Martin was trying to suffocate Zimmerman to death, I think we can discount this notion as complete and total bull####.

Do you understand what evidence is?

Page 3 of Zimmerman's written statement.

How did the defense get that into evidence?

The prosecution entered it. It's weird.

 

[Rayderr]

Acts most often defined under aggravated battery are:

• use of a deadly weapon
• battery in which serious bodily injury occurs, and
• battery against a child or police officer

Aggravated battery does not need to be proven to have already occurred in order to justify the use of deadly force.Great clarity and simplicity indeed, Fred and Daphne would be impressed.

So Zimmerman already committed an "aggravated battery" putting his hands on Martin? That a felony. Thanks for clarifying and making things simple.

Assuming we had proof that Zimmerman was the first one to do so. But, we do not.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Regarding the injuries, Mark O Mara yesterday stated to the jury that there needn't be any injuries at all to justify self defense. While this is technically true.

There is nothing technical about it. If Martin was trying to suffocate Zimmerman to death, Zimmerman had every right to shoot Martin dead, without a ####### scratch anywhere on his head.

True, but since there is no evidence whatsoever that Martin was trying to suffocate Zimmerman to death, I think we can discount this notion as complete and total bull####.

Do you understand what evidence is?

Page 3 of Zimmerman's written statement.

How did the defense get that into evidence?

There are some things that help when you actually watch the trial instead of act like a dbag and just insult people for not having a law degree.

 

[3C's]

Regarding the injuries, Mark O Mara yesterday stated to the jury that there needn't be any injuries at all to justify self defense. While this is technically true.

There is nothing technical about it. If Martin was trying to suffocate Zimmerman to death, Zimmerman had every right to shoot Martin dead, without a ####### scratch anywhere on his head.

True, but since there is no evidence whatsoever that Martin was trying to suffocate Zimmerman to death, I think we can discount this notion as complete and total bull####.

Do you understand what evidence is?

Page 3 of Zimmerman's written statement.

While a statement is evidence in a trial I believe you know what he meant by using evidence in this context.

 

[T Bell]

Regarding the injuries, Mark O Mara yesterday stated to the jury that there needn't be any injuries at all to justify self defense. While this is technically true.

There is nothing technical about it. If Martin was trying to suffocate Zimmerman to death, Zimmerman had every right to shoot Martin dead, without a ####### scratch anywhere on his head.

True, but since there is no evidence whatsoever that Martin was trying to suffocate Zimmerman to death, I think we can discount this notion as complete and total bull####.

When will people admit that zimmy has added whatever he could to his story to justify the shooting?

Exactly. I don't think lying in that situation means you're guilty, it just means you're scared of spending the rest of your life in prison. It doesn't excuse it, but trying to use those lies as a reason to find him guilty doesn't make sense to me.

It really depends on what those lies are. If he lied about leaving his car, about whom was following who, about the way the fight went down and especially about the extent of his injuries and exactly what his thoughts were regarding them, then these things lead me to think he is probably guilty of at least manslaughter.

It still doesn't mean anything - he was scared of life in prison and panicked, most people would do the same thing.

There are two things that matter to me:

- Was TM hitting GZ while on top of him?

- Was TM shot while on top of GZ?

If the answers are yes to both of those questions then GZ is legally innocent of manslaughter.

I disagree. As Ramsay has pointed out several times, the test for pulling out a gun and killing someone should be substantially higher than this. Nothing but minor injuries = no reasonable fear of dying = manslaughter.

And yet you'd be too afraid to run over to help GZ despite these merely "minor injuries" he was sustaining, huh?

 

[T Bell]

Jurors won't be told the minimum sentence and it would be improper for them to try to find out.

What if the juror knows going in?

They'll be told to not take it into consideration. Just as good, right?

I have friends that say they "compartmentize" information in their heads. My mind doesn't seem to work that way so I'm not sure I could or would know if I was breaking the instruction. I don't know how you keep that info out of at least your subconscious (though I know some say they can and do all the time).

I was being sarcastic. Of course you can't compartmentalize.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Part of the issue here is that Florida just has one breed of manslaughter. In many states, there's a lesser form of manslaughter called "heat of passion" manslaughter, which I think would apply here. I also think that's it's improper for the Florida sentencing guidelines to double count the crime and the "outcome". If manslaughter is a Category Seven offense, it should be treated like other Category Seven offenses

I don't believe that Zimmerman is really criminally culpable to the extent that he should serve over a decade in prison. But I also don't think that this was a justifiable homicide (i.e., a homicide in which George Zimmerman possesses no culpability).

I won't be upset if it's acquitted, because I think that outcome is within the reasonable discretion of the jury. It's not how I'd come out, but I'm not on the jury.

That's basically where I am. I think GZ feared for his life. I'm not sure it was reasonable. I think he was the aggressor and got in over his head. I think his story is mostly contrived to fit into a self defense claim, but I think he thought he was defending himself.

I'm with Leeroy here, but I haven't followed this as in depth as you guys. Am I wrong to think that Zimmerman made assumptions, initiated things when told not too by dispatch, then got in over his head, got scared, and shot and killed TM? I have a hard time letting GZ walk due to "self defense" when he initiated things by following and confronting TM. I can't rationalize self defense when GZ was the one packing and TM was unarmed.

The issue in your scenario is the confrontation. No one knows how that happened except GZ and he says TM started the confrontation. He was within his rights to follow so it's irrelevant imo.

The unknowns are what makes this case so intriguing. I usually don't give a crap about these nationally recognized murder cases.

I think this case has far fewer unknowns than most murder cases. It's not a whodunnit. We know exactly who killed Trayvon Martin.

And while we might have some questions about how the events that led to Zimmerman's act went down, I'd submit that this case is interestingly primarily because of a host of legal (and not factual) questions. It's about the legal significance of those events.