State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman

Status
Not open for further replies.
The judge and the state had their chance to bow out gracefully Friday and declined. Politically, I believe they had no choice. Now I predict that the state will suffer complete and utter humiliation at the hands of the defense team.

Perhaps it is better that the entire case is rolled out so that everyone can have the knowledge that the process was followed and hopefully, that justice was served.

I really feel for those jurors. Unless they can remain anonymous post trial, If they acquit, their lives will not be the same for some time, if ever. They would need a security detail for the foreseeable future.
 
Last edited:
Tom Servo said:
It seems likely given the circumstances, more likely than the idea that Martin just turned into a violent ball of rage without provocation. Thing is, we've only got one side of the story, and that's potentially a huge problem for us.
Click to expand...

You're talking about a young man with a history of drug abuse, fighting, and multiple suspensions from school. If you think he would punch Zimmerman and then jump on him and start beating him for just being asked what he was doing there is it really that much of a stretch to think he might do the same just for being followed?

In some ways this reminds me of the Harold Fish case where the jury didn't believe that the victim could really have seemed that crazy and weren't allowed to hear from witnesses who had seen the same behavior from him in the past.
 
Post 100, Rachel Jenteel...

Post #100 brings up a valid point.
The Florida state's witnesses seem to be more in support of GZ's legal defense than helping Corey & the prosecutors.
Rachel Jenteel, the young woman from Miami Florida(who was speaking to Martin by phone) was a huge mess.
She was rude, crass, aggressive, and looked foolish to the all female jury.

Jenteel & her remarks under oath won't help the civil rights case against Zimmerman.

ClydeFrog
 
Both parties have speckled histories of behavior.

Your pre-existing view of the case determines that one is better than the other. Let's be frank here.

However, denouncing either based on such vague innuendo isn't really worthwhile.

Also, unless you are telepath of the strength of a second-stage Lensman, you have NO idea how the jury reads a witness. Get real on that.
 
Last edited:
you have NO idea how the jury reads a witness.
Click to expand...

For some reason I’ve fallen into a pool of people who are frequently summed for jury duty. I‘ve served on four juries and even when cases seemed open & shut there is often dissent on the jury. While attorneys try their best to profile jurors and strike the ones that would be most inclined to take an opposing view sometimes people slip through. Also, I’ve heard of people who wanted to be picked and tried to game the system so they would be selected. While we can speculate what a jury might do we may very well be surprised.
 
One who would presume to judge the outcome at a time like this is making some big assumptions:
  • That one has some undertanding of how each of the several jurors feels about the subject of the use of force and justified self defense….
  • ...of how each reacted to the testimony of each witness.
  • ...of what each of them thought about the ways in shich the attorneys questioned the witness.
  • ...and of any other biases or preconceived notions that the jurors may have had.

Not for me to guess.
 
As a gun ower, concealed carrier, and 2A activist, I am not thrilled with Zimmerman's choices that night.

That said, Glenn speculates that maybe "Zim" flashed his gun.

Others speculate that Zimmerman aggressively approached Martin.

Still others say that Zimmerman initiated the fight.

The thing is, and this is not my speculation but fact introduced into evidence in the case, Martin's ONLY injuries, aside from the fatal GSW, were abrasions to his knuckles consistent with beating Zimmerman.

So, if Zimmerman initiated a physical confrontation, he was horribly ineffective up until the point the gun was fired.

To me, that, plus the testimony of Good, indicate that Martin was most likely the initial physical aggressor.

And, as others have noted, asking somebody what they are doing - if that even happened - is not tantamount to assault.

Last, Brent maintains that teens have an innate fear of adults, and Glenn says we can't make assumptions about Martin's attitudes or the influence "gansta culture" may have had on Martin's thinking.

To that:

Brent, Martin at time of his death was the same size and weight I was as a high school junior, and of similar build. I was a wrestler in high school, and would not have feared a soft looking type like Zimmerman - which in this case could well have got me shot.

Glenn, have you not read any of the accounts of Martin's online photos, record of fighting and drug use, etc? He may not have been a real gangsta, but he certainly seemed to admire and aspire to the lifestyle.
 
By aggressor I am not implying that Zimmerman initiated the contact aggressively...

I am saying that once it became an altercation, in this case, Zimmerman is the Aggressor for initiating contact that, had he lived, Martin could have tried to articulate that he was, in fact, in fear of his life or GBH... As a minor he could portray the role of scared child had he ended up surviving and Zimmerman not...

Brent
 
I read the accounts and find them useless as the Zim's wanabee analyses, phone calls to the law, his past record of violence and his financial lies.

All we have is Zim's self-serving account as to the initiation of the incident.

Zim's best defense is the guy who says he saw Martin on top of Zim.

Even if in the worst case, Martin was Hannibal Lecter walking down the street with a bottle of Chianti and a take out container of Fava beans, we don't know if Zim started it and then started to lose the fight.

Zim had taken martial arts - that makes him obviously aggressive and wanting to fight a gansta. Oh - maybe that analysis is baloney. He was carrying a gun and studies show that exposure to guns make you aggressive. Thus Zim must have started the fight. Or that's baloney and no way to say. But it has as much validity from research as the gangsta posts.

I do know Zim should have stayed in his truck. Objectively, without real knowledge of the fight start - it is projection on to how it started. I don't value Zim's testimony on that.

If he gets off, it is because of a hold your noise reasonable doubt as compared to him being a poor, soft victim.
 
I find it odd that a lot of people make a big to do about being a minor.

Zimmerman didn't have time to check Martin's age when he was being attacked. He didn't say "Let me see your ID" when he was being straddled. There was no way to know if a large male at dark was 16 or 25. I find it hard to believe that the trial should be handled differently if he was 17 and 364 days vs. 18 and a day.

I'm a 17 year old and I know my peers doing things that maybe should've gotten them shot. I knew a kid who confessed to breaking into 30 homes in my neighborhood over the course of a summer. And this is a "nice" neighborhood with a big community pool and 40 foot water slide and landscaping and a security force with a gated community where we have a small town "look out for each other" mentality. Looking back I wonder if this kid knew he could be forfeiting his life by stealing peoples' garage door openers and getting in when he thought they weren't home.

Let me tell you, at 5'6" and 110 lbs., if I straddle somebody and start ground and pounding them I'll not be surprised if they shoot me. When I was practicing I could hold top mount on somebody 50 pounds heavier than me who was also training in Jiu-Jitsu. They also don't even allow strikes to the top of the head in ground and pound attacks in UFC. In a street fight there's no referee to say "OK, you can mount him, but no hitting the top or back of the head and no slamming it into concrete".

That's not to say that some members here don't have good points about questioning the fact that Zimmerman is a shining hero of self defense, but the "unarmed minor" line confuses me.
 
Tom Servo said:
Zimmerman's not innocent, per se. He's admitted to shooting Martin. What he's maintaining is immunity from prosecution.
Click to expand...
No, he's not claiming immunity from prosecution. To do that he would have had to invoke Florida's "stand your ground" law, which he declined to do.

He is charged with murder. He admits that he shot Martin, but he does not admit that it was "murder." His plea was that he is innocent of murder because he shot in self defense.

There's a difference between homicide (the taking of a human life) and murder. Zimmerman has admitted to homicide, but not to criminal homicide.
 
ClydeFrog said:
Soreno agreed that while not illegal to ask questions or speak to someone, it could be considered inappropriate or unethical.
Click to expand...
And what are Officer Soreno's qualifications to be offering expert testimony on what is or is not ethical for a non-police officer to do? Has he taken ANY training or coursework relating to ethics, other than whatever training he has received on ethics for police officers?

ClydeFrog said:
I don't think GZ had a valid reason to contact LE just based on Martin walking in the rain using a cell phone.
Click to expand...
The whole premise of block or neighborhood watch is to prevent crime by reporting any and all activity you consider to be suspicious.
 
hogdogs said:
I am saying that once it became an altercation, in this case, Zimmerman is the Aggressor for initiating contact ...
Click to expand...
But that's not valid (and we don't need to capitalize "Aggressor," it's not a professional title like Doctor or Reverend). If I walk up to you on the street and ask you what time it is, I have "initiated contact." If your response to "Excuse me, can you tell me what time it is?" is to sucker punch me and try to slam my head through a concrete sidewalk, YOU are the aggressor, regardless of who initiated the contact.
 
All we have is Zim's self-serving account as to the initiation of the incident.
Click to expand...
That, and a whole bunch of ear/eye/audio/timeline evidence supporting his story almost 100%.

Between the state's 30-some witnesses and the defense's half a dozen or so. one would think a pattern of deception would begin to emerge if there was one. The only version of events I have seen so far that is antithetical to common sense is the one espoused by the state.

The state would have us believe, and continues to argue against all common sense, that it was Martin screaming for his life on the 911 call for whole minute while sustaining no injuries whatsoever save the single GS wound and the scraped-up knuckles. How on earth is a jury to trust the state when it is asking them to swallow this whopper?

If George had told but one lie of such gigantic proportions, the state would properly suggest we should disregard his entire story. But it is the state, not Zimmerman, who are the richly deserving recipients of this Pinnocchio award.

By the way, one plausible explanation of why Zimmerman's account is self-serving is that it seems to be true.
 
Judge in the Zimmerman case today reversed her position on allowing the toxicology report indicating Martin's elevated THC levels into evidence. She twice previously declined to admit the evidence, but now cites case law that would indicate the exclusion of that evidence would be a 'reversible error'.

Good move. The prosecution has attempted to paint Zimmerman as a racist profiler. One of Zimmerman's stated reasons for finding him suspicious was that he appear to be 'on drugs'. The ME, just late last week, reversed his earlier opinion on whether the amount of residual THC in Martin's system could have had a physical and mental affect; the ME now believe it WAS.
 
Good call by the judge. IMHO the jury deserves and needs to have that information.

Maybe the judge is finally getting a wake-up call that she is not part of the prosecution team here.
 
Let me preface this by saying that I'm not as well versed in Florida law or even the particulars of the trial as many here. My perspective on this is that of a layman:

It seems to me that only two people know for sure exactly what happened between Zimmerman and Martin, and one of those two people is dead. Given Zimmerman's current situation, we obviously cannot take his story at face value due to his obvious motivation to lie if he is indeed guilty of what he's been accused of. Because of this, I tend to give the most credence to the physical evidence as I believe that is probably the most unbiased kind.

The nature of both Zimmerman and Martin's injuries suggest to me that it was Martin who was the aggressor in the physical altercation rather than Zimmerman. Had Zimmerman started a physical altercation with Martin, I would think that Martin would've had more injuries than abraded knuckles and a single fatal gunshot wound. Therefore, it seems to me that the physical evidence corroborates Zimmerman's side of the story.

Now, it is certainly true that Zimmerman may have initiated the altercation with Martin in a non-physical way and that Martin escalated that altercation to a physical one. That being said, I would think that Zimmerman would have had to confronted Martin in such a way that Martin had imminent fear for his own physical safety in order for escalation to the physical level to be legally permissible. Simply demanding to know who Martin was, where he was going, or what he was doing does not seem to me that it would justify physically attacking Zimmerman. About the only non-physical method of confrontation that I can think of which would justify Martin attacking Zimmerman would be a threat of physical harm, and there's no evidence that I've seen that Zimmerman made any such threats.

Now, please don't misunderstand me. I certainly feel that Zimmerman made several poor decisions hence his current situation. However, I've seen no compelling evidence that Zimmerman's actions, while obviously unwise, were in fact criminal.
 
Inv Soreno, the investigation, GZ, ....

There are a few points to get straight here on TFL...
I, for one, never stated GZ was "aggressive" or "started to fight with" Martin.
I think Zimmerman said or did something that made Martin acknowledge him.
As posted, I think Martin's documented THC/drug content may have affected his judgement & rational thinking skills. It seems strange that he'd circle back around in the light rain to engage GZ again rather than return to the condo(house).
GZ's injuries & the witness testimony of the HOA residents who called 911 seem to support the account of Martin on top of GZ in a "ground & pound" rage, raining blows onto him.
Zimmerman told LE his red jacket came up in the fight which exposed his Kel-Tec PF9 9x19mm(ammunition unknown). By GZ's account, Trevon Martin saw the pistol in a Unkle Mikes IWB nylon holster & snarled; "Im going to kill you, mother ____!"
That's when GZ drew the 9mm, fired one round into the center of Martin's hoodie type pullover.
Zimmerman also claims Martin rolled off him, sat up & said; "okay, you got me" then fell over & died.

Id add that Inv Soreno(who at first wanted to put criminal charges on GZ) made a valid point about GZ's actions. He, as a trained criminal investigator, can make those remarks if questioned about it by a lawyer.
As for GZ being a "representative" or "poster-boy" for 2A supporters/concealed license holders, I disagree. Nationwide, there are events or use-of-force cases, where a armed citizen or security officer is convicted. Some, like the Harold Fish incident in AZ are worth scrutiny but many others are just armed citizens who displayed poor judgement or bad choices.
I'm not in their camp or supporting them if convicted in open court.
Massad Ayoob & his monthly columns document legal cases from all over the US, showing how or why a armed citizen gets a guilty conviction.

As posted, there are no "winners" in this tragic event. If GZ is cleared, it will show the jury agreed it was a self-defense shooting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top