State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's hard to avoid the media coverage on this, but the impression I'm taking away is that there's simply too much doubt for a Murder 2 conviction.
 
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 ____!"
Click to expand...

So, to go wild eyed speculative. You are walking down the street, minding your own business - a brave TFL'er. A stranger stalks you and then gets out of his truck and gets in your face. A fight starts (who knows how) but the stranger did start the confrontation. In the fight, you see he has a gun.

So if this were T and T and we didn't know the case - I'd bet dollars to donuts that many would go for clobbering him or if you were armed - shooting him first. We shut down blood lust all the time. We would say that if the guy got out of the truck, you should run for your life. Then one of you would say - stand your ground, I don't take crap, blah,blah.

BTW, about getting on top of someone with dojo-fu. Take a knife class that teaches escapes with blades. You will be surprised. Watch all the trainers and folks through such with knives on both sides. What are they for? Much easier escapes than the twisting happy dragon move.

Now we have testimony that Zim is physical dough-boy. Huh, flabby man - stay in the truck.
 
Glenn, I normally respect your word or at least that it is you sharing your opinion and let that carry weight on its own.

In this thread you seem to have something of a vendetta against Zimmerman. I'm not sure if I'm reading you right or if you're just going really strong devil's advocate throughout the whole thing.

I'm confident most of us would tell the person "If somebody stalking you gets out of a truck, leave". There are some people who would say "I don't have to do that, I'll stand my ground" but I've seen those people get shut down by the majority of TFL'ers here. In fact, these posts are rarely ever entertained past "Know your state's laws, and even if you can shoot, do everything you can not to"

Most of us would have also said not to leave the truck, but most of us aren't neighborhood watch members in a neighborhood where there have been many break ins and home invasions.

I think tactically he never should have left the truck, but once you've made a bad decision and things go bad fast (as most people seem to expect won't happen to them), what are you to do? Swallow your mistake while somebody beats you to death?
 
When I was a teenager I know I would not have walked or run away from someone that was following me. In all honesty, I probably would have ended up just like Martin. That does not mean I believe Zimmerman violated the laws of the state of Florida.
 
Mistakes where made on both sides alright but who made the major mistake that ended up with himself getting shot?

When violence occurred. When the physical assault began.

Up until that point of physical assault there was nothing criminal about any of it and the result of all those mistakes before the physical assault could have still resulted in no one being harmed. It turned criminal when the physical assault began and all the physical evidence and eyewitness testimony shows who threw punches and who received punches.

Anyone here believe you could be on the ground being punched in the face and nose and have your head banged on concrete all the while not being able to get up or defend yourself in any physical way and have it not cross your mind you could be seriously hurt or killed?

Martin's attack was the main cause of the physical aspect of this conflict and the main cause of his own death.

Yes many choices from both sides lead there but until the physical attack began it didn't have to lead to anyone, not a single soul, being harmed.

The defense should have no problem driving that fact home to the jurors. All the evidence points to it and has been shown.
 
Last edited:
hogdogs said:
I am saying that once it became an altercation, in this case, Zimmerman is the Aggressor for initiating contact ...
Click to expand...
Aguila Blanca said:
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.
Click to expand...

I have seen a lot of discussion of who was the "aggressor" or "initially provoked" the ""difficulty" (as Florida court decisions quaintly term such situations). I suspect those differing views reflect personal perceptions more than the law. In that regard, here is an article, Legally, Who Was the First Aggressor, written by a Flordia criminal defense attorney, that discusses the relevant factors in Florida law.
 
Martin's attack was the main cause of the physical aspect of this conflict and the main cause of his own death.
Click to expand...
We don't know that.

What we have is testimony delivered by the defendant and witnesses who did not see the initial interaction. We have forensic evidence. Those things can be manipulated by both sides of a criminal proceeding to prove a conclusion.

What we do not have, and may never have, is the truth of what happened. As such, we're down to speculation.
 
Speculation; evidence...

I agree that many aspects of the GZ case are open to opinion or general speculation but to me, evidence does not lie.
The case evidence like GZ's broken nose, cuts, grass on his jacket(back), the ME report of Martin, the PF9 9x19mm, the date/time stamped 911 calls etc are not faked or an "opinion".
The truth doesn't take sides or show bias.
The jury can decide what to take & what they feel isn't a part of their verdict.

If GZ gets any conviction in this case, he'll have a strong chance at appeal.
ClydeFrog
 
Dakota - let me be blunt, I'm using my analytic powers. If you think I have some vendetta, you are so wrong and you lose my respect. I am trained to analyze and not jump to the feel good answer.

Then you say:

Swallow your mistake while somebody beats you to death?
Click to expand...

So if you make a mistake and provoke someone. They see you have a gun. Should that person not fight for his life? If you got into a fight, started by someone else and you see they have a gun - do you fight for your life?

We don't know how it started physically and when the gun was flashed. But reasonable doubt makes us think Zim will walk.

Some moral philosophers and legal experts feel that if you start the lethal interaction and you are losing - you have no right to respond lethally. In fact, you do swallow it. Or you don't and go to jail.
 
Not a lawyer, but they will chime in. You can only appeal on some kind of misconduct or legal mistake - not that you were convicted.

There has to be reversible error.
 
Jayster said:
It turned criminal when the physical assault began and all the physical evidence and eyewitness testimony shows who threw punches and who received punches.
Click to expand...

The only evidence of when the situation turned criminal is the defendant's statement.

In post #45, Glenn asked us to consider if Zimmerman had flashed the gun at Martin. As I read Florida law, flashing a gun at someone might well constitute felony aggravated assault, which would be a criminal act before any blows were exchanged.
 
Glenn, perhaps vendetta was too strong a word. You just seemed oddly focused on your viewpoint and less, shall we say, flexible than I've seen you be in previous interactions.

I didn't mean any offense, I was really trying to root out the reason for this rigidness. I think the problem is you and I are both very firmly rooted in our beliefs, which is fine given that the evidence has been presented in a logical fashion and we're then allowed to form our own opinion.

I do apologize for any insinuations I may have made about your reasoning ability, it really was a poor choice of words. You have an almost drastically different interpretation of the events that I do and it is frustrating to wrap my head about that. I am not trained although I do think I analyze things as well as I can and I've gone on record here opposing several "feel good" stances since I've joined so I hope that much does speak for itself.

As far as defending yourself once you've been attacked, I just don't see how anything paints Zimmerman as the aggressor. The one who initiated conversation, yes, but in my mind, that does not equal aggressor. This is what I mean. If Zimmerman had taken a swing at Martin and missed, I would agree with your viewpoint. But when he gets tackled and he realizes "I shouldn't have left the truck/I should have said something different" (If words were exchanged), what is a person to do at that point?

Frankly I see no evidence supporting nothing criminal or inflammatory regarding Zimmerman's actions. I would however, be open to evidence that I missed. I've changed my mind already on this case due to a lot of new information coming out.
 
The coroners report stated no marks to Martin's body consistent with landed blows.

Only one person had any injuries consistent with blows to their person and that was Zimmerman. Only one person had injuries to their hands consistent with punches being thrown and landed and that was Martin.

Eye witness testimony places Martin on top of Zimmerman throwing punches. Notice I did not say landing because the witness said he could not see punches being landed but that is obvious by all the physical and medical evidence.

Not one shred of evidence exists that proves Zimmerman began any physical confrontation or assault. There are no marks, cuts, or bruises to Martin's face or body showing any evidence of blows struck by Zimmerman.

All marks, cuts, and bruises showing evidence of blows landed are on Zimmerman.

Manipulation or not that and the rest of the testimony and evidence is what is left for the jury to go by and for justice to be done it is all they should go by.
 
Judge rules today that GZ defense will be allowed to show that TM had been using marijuana.
Click to expand...
The article linked to only mentions THC was found in Martin's system. If found in the blood, it indicates usage within the last few hours and potentially intoxicating. Marijuana is also known to cause anxiety and feelings of paranoia, all of which might be relevant to judge Martin's state of mind and, by inference, actions he may have taken as a result.

If the metabolites of THC were found in liver or fat cells or in urine, it could have been introduced in the system days or even weeks earlier. It would not normally be indicative of marijuana intoxication.
 
I agree with those who say "Evidence doesn't lie". But most (all?) jury trials aren't very objective. Again, I'm not following the case except to see it on TV with the sound off while on the treadmill at the gym. Did I read one of you saying the jury was all women? That seems like it would tend to stack in favor of the dead guy. "Oh that poor young kid" "Maybe he smoked a little pot or whatever but he got hooked in with the wrong crowd. No need for the big, mean adult guy to kill him".

I think juries tend to go with their gut a lot more than their head. OJ (his first trial) for example.

As many have said, we can't get in the heads of those jurors. But I'd bet that there's going to at least be a very long deliberation. There's going to be a lot of "I know the evidence all points to XXX, but I still don't think it's right that the kid had to die. It's just not right. I wouldn't want my kid killed" etc. I hope, for Mr Zim's sake that that line of emotional juror thinking isn't unanimous.

And, as many are probably sick of hearing me say, Zim will be in his own mental and emotional prison for the rest of his life, no matter what happens when the judge reads the verdict.


Sgt Lumpy
 
I'm waiting for the decision of the jury. All else is conjecture or, perhaps, wishful thinking.
Click to expand...
The verdict is simply the jury's decision based on the evidence presented. It is not a pronouncement of truth or accuracy.

As Old Marksman said, the state is trying to prove that a person committed a crime. It is up to the jury to decide if the state has made their case beyond a reasonable doubt. A conviction doesn't mean the defendant did it; plenty of wrongful convictions have been reversed. Likewise, an acquittal doesn't indicate innocence; it simply means the state did not adequately prove their case to those six people on the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

The concept of truth is a malleable thing in a courtroom.
 
Not a lawyer, but they will chime in. You can only appeal on some kind of misconduct or legal mistake - not that you were convicted.

There has to be reversible error.
Click to expand...
I do not know Florida law. Under federal law, a case should be dismissed for lack of evidence only if no reasonable jury could convict. In weighing this, a judge must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the government. Credibility issues, except in very rare cases, are exclusively for the jury to consider.

No trial is perfect so an appellate court determines if an error is harmless. There are different standards for determining harmless error depending upon whether the error was one of constitutional law or non-constitutional law (a purely evidentiary ruling, for example). If the claim of error is not preserved (by an objection or motion), an appellate court reviews only for clear error which has an even higher standard.

Again, this is not Florida specific. This is the standard used in the federal court system and many state systems.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top