State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ordinary marijuana use may be no big deal, and may be unlikely to contribute to violent behavior but, in this case, Martin's 'blunt' habit has far more significant implications.

One of the things the prosecution has proffered and is attempting to prove is that Zimmerman profiled Martin because of his race.

Zimmerman claimed on the nonemergency call that Martin appeared to be high on drugs. That was a primary factor in Zimmerman considering Martin suspicious. But the jury been denied access to the toxicology report because the judge deemed it irrelevant early on.

Then comes the medical examiner a couple of days ago saying that he reverses his previous opinion as to whether the THC in Martin's system was sufficient to have a physical and mental effect. The medical examiner now believes it was. Nevertheless, the judge again refused to make the toxicology report admissible, and double down on stupidity when she denied a new motion to let it in.

This, in the opinion of some legal experts, is a reversible error on appeal.

But we will see that the degree of Martin's drug use was much worse before it's all over. There is a popular street mixture of over the counter cough medicine, Arizona watermelon drink, and you guessed it, Skittles that Martin repeatedly posted about using on facebook. The autopsy shows evidence in his liver consistent with long term use. And there is strong circumstancial video evidence of Martin's drug use that very night. See: http://theconservativetreehouse.com...-drug-use-culminates-in-predictable-violence/
 
In a possible civil suit against Zimmerman and/or his home owners association the defense would be allowed a far wider scope of evidence that could be presented.
Martin's drug abuse, firearms posturing, school records etc. could all be used as evidence.
A civil suit, I believe, could gain no ground.
 
The Influence of Gun Issues on Juries

I will share my evolving reviews on how the gun type influences juries and perhaps this one. It is not an argument about stopping power but how presentation of gun issues can influence juries as seen in jury simulations.

We have seen in past posts folks saying if it is a good shoot then this doesn't matter as compared to trials where ammo types, training, timing of shots, etc. have been brought up to convince the jury that the defendant was guilty. Frank Ettin has posted a series of trials about these issues. I have a pretty good handle on the simulation literature and that's what I'm basing some of my opinions on. Thus, the quote blocks indicate my evolving views.

It is not a stopping power debate or whether the gun is a good gun - it is jury perception and strategies about discussing the gun.

Before the gun testimony:
I don't know about him testifying. It's a double edged sword.

Not being Perry Mason, I might as a DA ask:

1. Why did you carry a gun when the neighborhood watch instructions weren't to do so?

2. Why did you get out of the car when instructed not to?

3. Have you any formal training in how to use a firearm? Do you know that most practical courses teach avoidance? Why didn't you take such a course if you wanted to carry a gun.

4. Please explain your comments about those kind of people getting away with it, etc.?

5. You carried a gun without a safety, why? Ans: So it would be ready to use. Att. So you had the mindset that you were ready to use the gun when you got out of the car (which you were told by the dispatcher not to).

6. You carried a 9mm semi - why. Ans: That is the type of gun and ammo that the police use (a common defense that an expert like Mas might testify to). DA - so you see yourself as a police type ready to intervene?

7. What did you say to him when you confronted Martin? That would be a tricky answer - if he says he was forceful - looks like a commando. If he sounds disingenuous - bad too.

I also think and we can't tell that George (being a hot head from other interactions) might have flashed the gun at Martin. In that case, Martin, IMHO would be justified in using necessary force against him to neutralize the gun.

Here's another point - while one person can keep him from conviction, another can hang the jury and they have to go through this again (if the state wants).

Thus, I opine, Judge Judy - that he shouldn't testify as he can blow away reasonable doubt by screwing up on the stand.

I wonder if they are going to discuss how the gun was concealed.
Click to expand...

I watched the gun expert interchange and it was weird.

The prosecution was attempting to hint at the gun was ready to go. The defense tried to make it a nice gun and present that the Kel-tec had myriad safety features (sound like a Glock debate). However, they kept on emphasizing how Martin was shot and the gun was up against him. Is that a good idea given the shooting is being portrayed as illegitimate?

Too much exposure of the gun in my view. They also wandered into the trigger pull, the police carry chambered, SA vs DA/SA. I don't know if that makes Zim a good guy because of the gun's characteristics.
Click to expand...

This is what I said previously. Watching the presentations - and comparing it to the literature on weapons effects on juries - my evaluation is that:

1. The 9mm was not specifically emphasized as an evil round. Unless the term 9mm in general primes some negative attitudes, this seems a wash.

2. The safety issue and chambered issue. The prosecution seemed to want to mention 'safety' quite a bit. There was a discussion of a thumb safety on other guns. One can take this as implying that a gun with a safety is better and/or protects against impulsive usage. You have to make a deliberate removal of it. Using one without a safety, might mean mindset of read to shoot. The idea of a chambered round is the same concept. The gun is hot and ready to go.

The defense wanted to play up that the trigger pull weight and distance were such that the Kel-tec is a safe gun and that it was well thought out choice to avoid impulsive shooting. Contrasting it to SA/DA or DA guns was the point. There was some implication that those guns were less safe than the Kel-tec and that made it a nice gun. Some suggestion that cop guns were not so nice. The expert dismissed this.

In reality, the Kel-tec appeal is that it is a cheap gun.

The literature suggests that increased presentation of the gun primes negative attitudes towards the user. Thus, having the expert hold the gun, dry fire it repeatedly - may give just give a negative attitude - it just reminds one that it was fired into a minor. That might wash away a techy discussion of DA/SA, trigger pull, etc.

Similarly, the discussion of how the gun was either pressed into the body or just touching the clothes has a macro negative. It goes over and over pressing the gun or firing closely into the body of a minor. If you are sympathetic to Martin - that's the take away. They were trying to make a micro point which may not be worth it.

Decisions are made on two levels - emotional and quick or slow and rational. Jury research sometimes suggests the emotional has more power. Based on my professional knowledge, research, and experience - I think the gun debate is 60/40 negative for Zim.
Click to expand...

On decision processes - do the minute details count:
If George gets convicted, I think the micro level issue of self-defense will be swamped by the macro issue of George starting the incident. That's what the jury may key on. Yeah, you were getting beat but it might have been an educational beat down. I read that term in a book Kathy recommended. It's when you do something stupid and the BG decides to educate you.
Click to expand...

I wonder if the gun type will surface in summation. Frank Ettin says that sometimes the 'inside baseball' details, that sound so good to the choir, don't have the same impact on the jury.

We will see.

Certainly, the good shoot fans should take away something. If the shoot is ambiguous, all these issues can come up.

Glenn
 
I'd go further than that. The judge is blatantly biased against the defendant.

The errors are so out of whack with a supposedly impartial trial judge, that they are glaring. Should Zimmerman not be acquitted, a court of appeals will have a field day with this judge (remembering the 7th circuit panels Ezell opinion of that trial judge).
Click to expand...
I'd agree. Clearly this is a judge with a verdict in mind. For Zimmerman this means that come hell or high water, this case is going to the jury.
 
One thing that seems obvious to me in this case is that the prosecution is not only arguing for a conviction in this case, they're arguing as best they can circumstances to bolster the civil suit the Martin family is very obviously planning to file against not merely Zimmerman but Kel Tec. Clearly they wish to demonstrate the possibility of an accidental discharge or firearm malfunction in order to have some cause of action against Kel Tec.
 
First of all, just because you own a home in a HOA controlled subdivision doesn't give you a right to "stop and confront" folks that are on the "Common Ground" or "Public right of Way" areas...

And neighborhood watch is called that for a reason... It is not "Neighborhood Stop and Interrogate"...

In this case Zimmerman, fully an adult, planned to confront a minor child to ask what he was doing in a subdivision of many families, of which Zimmerman didn't likely know everyone and should have known there were black families who may have kids...

Just because he was man size, don't make him less of a minor...

As for the Aggressor/defender roles as we see it...
An adult man gets out of his car with intentions of stopping and interrogating a minor child... Any minor has a reasonable fear immediately if they were taught well by their parents...

Since this was not on Zimmerman's own yard and it appears Martin began on public right of way sidewalk... It appears to me that Zimmerman would have been the aggressor had he gotten to Martin and told him to stop to talk...

Where we have to take the word of Zimmerman, or not, to take the initial Aggressor role and reverse it is whether Martin seen him coming and hid in the bushes and jumped him...

If he did this, than it is likely the jury would see Zimmerman as the defender since contact hadn't yet been made and neither knew the intent of the other...

Does this uneducated redneck opinion make any sense???

Brent
 
I don't think an accidental discharge is in the cards. Zimmerman clearly states that he shot Martin.

He did not say the classic - the gun just went off. Surprise!

BTW - I like Brent's analysis.
 
As for the "character" of both I have mixed emotions but emotions make for a lousy lawyer or juror...

Zimmerman did have aspirations to be in law enforcement at least once...
Does this automatically make him a cop wannabe? Not necessarily, I once considered it as a career but found the uniform (right when vest wear became mandatory in my town/county) to be too hot for the pay and the danger outweighed the benefits...

Martin was obviously showing typical "thug life" tendencies according to his own social media postings... But did he have reasons to fear a contact with cops or neighborhood watch??? We will never know but I do assure you that you do not need to be a black youth to question authority or even thumb your nose at it...

For me, i was very interested in one set of classes i took in school... these were the civics type classes... I liked learning what my rights were and what they afforded me...

I was taught by my folks that law enforcement and officers were not the same sort my parents grew up knowing of...

In my younger days, they were beginning to take on the paramilitary look and tactics...

They were now lying to citizens much more in the name of investigation...

I avoided contact with cops as best I could including changing course on bike or afoot before reaching the squad car that just pulled into a parking lot to await my approach to question what I was doing at that time in that place... NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS if i am doing nothing wrong...

And I had less respect for neighborhood watch groups... I was no criminal so I didn't feel compelled to entertain their time wasting efforts...

brent
 
WFTV.com ME report.....

The ABC-TV station, www.wftv.com has posted the entire ME(medical examiners) report of Trevon Martin. It's 21 pages long.

The local TV stations; WESH, Fox35, Central Florida News 13, WKMG, and WFTV are doing full gavel to gavel coverage of the legal case. It's interesting to watch.
I spoke briefly to Fox News's Alex Ferrar. He was eating lunch at a local Wendy's. Ferrar is on the syndicated TV series; Judge Alex.
I asked him if Massad Ayoob would be involved in the trial.
Alex Ferrar, who was a sworn LE in Florida, said he was unaware of Ayoob & didn't know if he'd be in the court case.

Clyde
 
Just because he was man size, don't make him less of a minor...
Click to expand...

And, just because he is a minor, does not negate the fact that he is "man sized" or, the fact that there could have been a "disparity of force".
 
Isn't this a major-flares-going-off-holy-oh-chips as to why you / "we" really need to be sure we really-really want to pull that trigger?

Wow, writing a check for $$$,000+ for a defense and potentially $M's for a civil action and having your life screwed up tends to make me rethink my personal rules of engagement for many situations.
 
If Zimmerman is found not guilty of this as a justified self defense shooting then he is free from threat of civil suit IIRC...

Brent
 
It seems to me the point of using the "wanna-be cop phrase instead of 'aspiring police officer' or something like it, is to disparage such an aspiration. Every time I see that it gives me pause.

Is it an ignoble aspiration until it is actually attained? And if it's not noble, then isn't the attainment of it to be disparaged as well? I think not.
 
The media shows pictures of Martin when he was a lot younger, why not show pictures of him the way he was around the time of the shooting ? It seems to me that the media is doing all it can to portray him as a very young innocent boy. The way the media shows this case Zimmerman doesn't stand a chance of being not guilty or acquitted, does he ? I don't know if he is guilty or not because I am not on the jury and I don't know all the facts. But the way the news plays it out he is already guilty. How can he get a fair trial with all the media coverage making him out to be a wannabe cop etc., and Martin as an innocent child. The man is being tried by one sided media coverage.
It also seems to me that the judge and others in power want a guilty verdict and are doing all they can to get one. Then this will turn into another matter of why the law abiding citizen should not be allowed to carry a gun. Another Sandy Hook but on a smaller scale. A guilty verdict would be another point for the anti gun groups.
 
Last edited:
There is exactly zero evidence in the record that Zimmerman did anything like this:

Hogdogs:
And neighborhood watch is called that for a reason... It is not "Neighborhood Stop and Interrogate"...
Click to expand...

As I understand it, there is absolutely no law against peacefully approaching anyone in public for any reason to ask a question. Nevertheless there is no evidence that Zimmerman ever attempted to make even verbal contact with Martin. None.

Neither is there any evidence that, on his previous neighborhood watch calls to police, he ever attempted to make the verbal contact with any of those individuals.
 
Last edited:
Outcast, Zimmerman is no small guy, he is in good health and he is an adult... Martin, being a minor, automatically has a certain level of fear of adults, does he not? We teach that kids are abducted by adults and that adults often use a position of authority to get a hold of the minor to begin with...

Disparity of force isn't really going to be easy to prove is it???

That said, we circle back to whether Zimmerman began a confrontation or was he still looking for Martin or retreating to his car and was jumped unexpectedly...

I have had two violent interactions with neighborhood watch guys... Once as a minor and once as an adult... Neither time was I charged with assault even though I threw the first punch both times... Both times the cops on scene basically told the NWG that they had over stepped their NW parameters and "had it coming"...

The first time, the guy was old enuff to claim assault on the elderly and the officer told him he would suggest I demand the NWG be charged with, iirc, "unlawful detention" or some such wording... both times, I just did my best to ignore them and was shining them on and continuing my walking until a hand was laid on me...

Brent
 
First of all, just because you own a home in a HOA controlled subdivision doesn't give you a right to "stop and confront" folks that are on the "Common Ground" or "Public right of Way" areas...

And neighborhood watch is called that for a reason... It is not "Neighborhood Stop and Interrogate"...

In this case Zimmerman, fully an adult, planned to confront a minor child to ask what he was doing in a subdivision of many families, of which Zimmerman didn't likely know everyone and should have known there were black families who may have kids...
Click to expand...

If Zimmerman is telling the truth, he was not trying to stop or confront Martin. He followed him in the car for a while and when Martin ran off, he got out the car to try and determine the direction he went as the police requested. To nit pick it they did not tell him to get out of the car, but he thought that is what they wanted him to do. In order to do this and to tell the police where he was he walked up to the next street to try and get the address and was returning to his car when Martin confronted him and struck him. According to Martin's friend who was on the phone with him, he at some point had reached the back door of the place he was staying. The residence is a long way from where the final fight took place and there is no evidence that Zimmerman ever went down the path to the residence. So Martin after reaching safety, even if he thought Zimmerman was up to no good, he returned several hundred feet to confront him. My guess is that his friend on the phone suggested he go back and beat him up, no evidence of that presented of course but her later actions suggest to me she felt guilty of contributing to Martin's death.

If that is true, Martin started the fight and was at a minimum trying to beat Zimmerman severely. Even after Mr. Good yelled and them and told him he was calling the cops Martin continued to beat Zimmerman. By this time Zimmerman was very afraid he was going to be killed and was screaming for help. So even if he had started the fight at this point he was clearly suing for peace. After he thought Martin had spotted the pistol and was trying to take it he got control of hit and shot Martin.

His story has some minor variations through the various retellings, but it is consistent that he was not trying to confront Martin, he was not the aggressor and he was in fear of his life. The police and local prosecutors all agreed that there was no case for manslaughter let a lone 2nd degree murder.

Given the evidence I have seen, I have watched some of the proceedings but mostly summaries of the events and tweets, he certainly looks to have been justified in shooting Martin. Yes, he may have been able to other things to have not had to shoot Martin, but hindsight is 20-20.
 
I found interesting the defense's assertion that Martin was "armed" with a deadly weapon: the sidewalk. Although it was stationary, it was being used to inflict damage on Zimmerman.

Are there any cases where this argument has been used successfully?
 
There is plenty of proof he planned to follow or he wouldn't have left his vehicle... There is further evidence he planned to stop and confront him since he didn't continue following from the vehicle and left on foot...

I think Zimmerman once stated he planned to ask where he was going or some such...

While there is no law that says you cannot have a chat with someone in public, there are equally no laws compelling the otherone to entertain this interaction...

Me I would just tell the guy to bug off and if they chose to make it a confrontation, they had that option...

Basically, had this happened to me, I would likely have been the dead kid...

Brent
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top