Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Zimmerman Trial Day 12: Live Video, Analysis of Defense’s Case & Witnesses

Zimmerman Trial Day 12: Live Video, Analysis of Defense’s Case & Witnesses

Today we will again be covering the Zimmerman Trial live, all day, with streaming video. Continuing commentary will be posted in the Twitter feed of selected contributors below the first video feed. We have brief summaries of the previous day’s events (including last night’s fireworks!) along links to detailed more posts below the second video feed at the bottom of this post.

Also, a quick note, in thanks to the Professor and all of you I’ve put in place a 10% discount/free shipping coupon for Legal Insurrection followers interested in “The Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition”–use code LOSD2-LI at checkout.

Live Stream Video

WITH COMMENTARY FROM CHANNEL 9 IN SANFORD

[For live-stream video without commentary, see NBC live feed at bottom of this post.]

Twitter Feed:

(My tweets can be identified as coming from @lawselfdefense, or @lawselfdefense2 if I’m in Twitmo–follow both!.)



Live Stream Video Alternative

LIVE-STREAM WITHOUT COMMENTARY FROM NBC

Wednesday, July 10 Commentary

During the lunch recess, or immediately thereafter, we will TRY to post a mid-day update. We’ll then follow up with the usual detailed end-of-day wrap up, including video and embedded Tweets, at the usual time in the evening.
After the normal trial business yesterday, and after the jury had been dismissed for the day, the Court decided to hear a number of evidentiary matters and proffers. Among these was the animated video prepared by the defense. Another proffer of evidence involving Trayvon Martin’s cell phone led to considerable “fireworks”, with loud accusations and protestations between the State and defense, as well as between the defense and the Court, and ultimately Judge Nelson walking out of the courtroom while the defense was still speaking, and the defense announcing to her back that given the late hour (10:00PM) it seemed unlikely that they would be prepared to continue the next morning as scheduled.

Judge to rule in morning about Trayvon fighting texts after contentious nighttime hearing

Our end-of-day wrap-up and analysis of yesterday focused on the forensic pathology testimony of Dr. Vincent Di Maio, and the announcement by the defense that they expected to rest their case today:

Noted Forensic Pathologist Says Zimmerman Story “Consistent” with Evidence, As Defense Case Nears End

Monday’s end-of-day wrap-up and analysis focused on the collapse of the State’s “scream” theory of the case, which imploded with the disclosure that Tracey Martin had initially denied that the screaming on the Lauer 911 recording was that of his son, Trayvon Martin. It also noted that the Court had decided to allow Trayvon Martin’s toxicology report to be allowed into evdience. Also, of course, it contains video of all the other testimony and hearings caught on camera throughout the day. That can be found here:

Implosion: Police Testify Trayvon’s Father Originally Denied Son Was Screaming

This past weekend I posted up an analytical piece of Mark O’Mara’s request for a judgment of acquittal. O’Mara’s motion was well-reasoned and supported by Florida’s case law. It was, of course, doomed to peremptory denial by Judge Nelson. In that piece I’ve linked almost all of the case citations made by O’Mara to full-length copies of the decisions, so you can see the sources for yourselves, if you like (most of the decisions are gratifyingly brief). You can see that here:

Why Zimmerman’s Motion for Acquittal Should Have Been Granted

Last Thursday, July 4, I had posted up a review of the trial to date, with some prognostication of how things may role out in the coming days. To take a look at that, click here:

Zimmerman Trial Review– How We Got Here, And Where We’re Going

For all of our prior coverage on day-to-day events in court, as covered here at Legal Insurrection, click here:

ARCHIVE: Zimmerman Trial LIVE coverage all day, every day

For all of our prior coverage on issues specific to the Law of Self Defense as covered at my own blog, click here:

Law of Self Defense Blog: Zimmerman Trial

(NOTE: If you do wander over to the LOSD blog, be sure to come back to Legal Insurrection to comment, as nearly all my time is spent here for the duration of the trial.)


Andrew F. Branca is an MA lawyer and author of the seminal book “The Law of Self Defense,” now available in its just released 2nd Edition, which shows you how to successfully fight the 20-to-life legal battle everyone faces after defending themselves. Take advantage of the 20% “Zimmerman trial” discount & free shipping (ends when the jury returns a verdict). NRA & IDPA members can also use checkout coupon LOSD2-NRA for an additional 10% off. To do so simply visit the Law of Self Defense blog. (Coupon works ONLY at www.lawofselfdefense.com.)

Note also that “The Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition” is also available at Amazon.com.  They set their own price, and it can vary each day, so you might want to check there to see if they are offering the best deal today.

Many thanks to Professor Jacobson for the invitation to guest-blog on the Zimmerman trial here on Legal Insurrection!

FYI, I have instituted a special Legal Insurrection discount coupon for purchase of “The Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition,” good only at www.lawofselfdefense.com, for 10% off and free shipping: LOSD2-LI

You can follow Andrew on Twitter on @LawSelfDefense (or @LawSelfDefense2 if I’m in Twitmo, follow both!) on Facebook, and at his blog, The Law of Self Defense.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments


Oh, wonderful! He’s not going to testify.

Judge needs to shut up now. GZ doesn’t want to testify.

Should have said BDLR threatened me with jail if I testify.

I am so glad GZ is not going to testify.

Waste of time

2-3 rebuttal witnesses? Hasn’t the prosecution already done enough damage to their case?

Uncle Samuel | July 10, 2013 at 3:41 pm

The Prosecution has no more presented FACTS than I can fly.

I still don’t understand why a MAJOR element of the defense’s case was not the fact that Trayvon had over two minutes to make his way home which was only 400′ away.

This destroys the notion that Trayvon was scared and acting in “self defense”.

I realize this has come in peripherally, but why wasn’t it more of a major element?????

    styro1 in reply to fogflyer. | July 10, 2013 at 3:43 pm

    During close they’ll cover it.

      fogflyer in reply to styro1. | July 10, 2013 at 3:54 pm

      Yes, but closing statements are not to be considered evidence, and won’t be something the jury has to look over during their deliberations. I just don’t get it.

        Ragspierre in reply to fogflyer. | July 10, 2013 at 4:19 pm

        You often win or lose a case in closing.

        It is the last thing the jury hears, and if done right, ties all the evidence you want them to focus on in a nice, comprehensible package with a theme that will reach them.

          fogflyer in reply to Ragspierre. | July 10, 2013 at 4:29 pm

          Agreed.
          But wouldn’t it still be better to have it in as evidence and testimony?
          You can still bring it up in closing.

          I just kept waiting for this to come in.
          I find it FAR more important than any of the DNA evidence or what family member thinks about who is yelling.

    rhorton1 in reply to fogflyer. | July 10, 2013 at 3:43 pm

    I concur. Inexplicable.

    VetHusbandFather in reply to fogflyer. | July 10, 2013 at 3:57 pm

    Does the defense need to address this? As far as I can tell the State has never even implied TM was acting in self defense, instead opting to argue that no DNA means TM didn’t attack GZ. The TM self defence farce has been solely the domain of MSNBC commentators and forum trolls.

      rhorton1 in reply to VetHusbandFather. | July 10, 2013 at 4:04 pm

      The prosecution’s position, based primarily of the phone call woman, is that Zimmerman was the first aggressor, which brings into play an additional set of self-defense instructions. Their ultimate argument I believe is two-fold: Martin was defending himself against an aggression and Zimmerman used excessive force.

        fogflyer in reply to rhorton1. | July 10, 2013 at 4:26 pm

        Exactly!
        Hey, I have agreed with you at least twice today! What do you know!

        VetHusbandFather in reply to rhorton1. | July 10, 2013 at 4:34 pm

        That will be one heck of an argument, the evidence doesn’t necessarily show TM hit GZ, he may have run into a tree, but if TM did punch him it was self defense as indicated by the overwhelming lack of evidence. That’s our story no room for doubt.

          fogflyer in reply to VetHusbandFather. | July 10, 2013 at 5:57 pm

          Nobody was saying it was a GOOD argument, simply that it was the state’s contention that George was the aggressor in the situation and Trayvon was scared of him.

          Emphasizing where Trayvon lived and that he had two minutes to get himself safely home seems like it would have been a very important counter to this assertion. The defense, IMO, did not pursue that nearly enough.

      fogflyer in reply to VetHusbandFather. | July 10, 2013 at 4:24 pm

      Not true at all.
      While the state has certainly not made very clear exactly what their proposed scenario is, it has certainly included elements that George Zimmerman was the aggressor in the situation, and that poor scared Trayvon was just trying to get away .

      The two minutes he had to make his way home (400′ in the direction he was already running) is extremely important in refuting this assertion.

        Observer in reply to fogflyer. | July 10, 2013 at 5:28 pm

        Yes, because poor little Trayvon was so terrified when he noticed the “crazy-ass cracka” watching him that he walked over to Zimmerman’s vehicle and circled it while staring menacingly at Zimmerman (something Zimmerman descibed to the non-emergency police dispatcher when he was on the phone with him, and which is on the tape that’s in evidence).

        That’s what all frightened children do when confronted with a scary stranger, right?

          I know from personal experience, that is not how the scared person behaves.

          I have been in those very precise circumstances, i.e. from a sexual predator at least twice.

          The first time is the most memorable because the way it took place at the age I was, made me very vulnerable to being a victim. I was roughly 13 years old. I was delivering pamphlets advertising my father’s business and I was not close to home. The man was in his car, he used the line of wanting directions. I gave them, at a distance I might add. He wanted me to get into his car to show him. I ran… he followed…. luckily for me, I was close to a girlfriends house and I ducked in there.

          The second time I was roughly 21 years old. The person doing the following was an employee in the same place where I had a contract job. I was scared, kept walking, he kept following. Luckily for me a woman was in her garden and so I began speaking to her.

          The correct reaction in such a situation is usually flight, not stay and fight or not act out bravado.

          The Jeantel story is full of lies.

Substantial evidence? Really?

Wow, the judge should never be allowed to sit on an important case again.

Has it been established whether Donnelly was in court before he received a summons to appear?

state’s rebuttal doesn’t get through one question before a sidebar – sounds like par for this trial

Henry Hawkins | July 10, 2013 at 3:48 pm

Rebuttal or mudslinging? You be the judge.

inquisitivemind | July 10, 2013 at 3:49 pm

objection on the grounds the gym owner will impeach himself?
Can someone elaborate

    Ragspierre in reply to inquisitivemind. | July 10, 2013 at 3:53 pm

    Rebuttal and impeachment are two different things.

    Under the rules as I know them, you impeach during the witness testimony.

    You call, generally, OTHER witnesses to rebut testimony during the cases-in-chief.

defense makes a good argument for objection, so JDN must see if state can make a statement that might be 20% accurate so she can overrule

It is in evidence. The defense will cover it in closing using the 7 foot long time line exhibit.

Jury Instructions.

Could one of the lawyers please go over how this works?
Judging by the statements just made, it appears that the attorneys can put forth what they want included in the jury’s instructions? I always assumed it was just a blanket instruction for the charge.

    Ragspierre in reply to fogflyer. | July 10, 2013 at 3:56 pm

    In most jurisdictions there are “pattern” jury charges, usually promulgated by the Supremes or under their direction.

    They provide a base-line. You can submit and argue supplements or deletions, but you are usually pushing a very heavy stone.

    Pauldd in reply to fogflyer. | July 10, 2013 at 3:59 pm

    The State of Florida has a set of jury instructions for all criminal cases and for the particular charges relevant here that have been approved by some commission or perhaps the Supreme Court. Each side can propose additional charges that are in some way tailored to the specific facts of this case. The Judge decides whether to include the additional proposed instructions.

    rhorton1 in reply to fogflyer. | July 10, 2013 at 4:07 pm

    To see them, Google “Florida criminal jury instructions”.

That was another cheap shot by the state and this pathetic excuse for a judge let him do it. MOM asked if he could hear the rebuttal 1st and judge denied and said you can object.

I hate the Rick Perry shirt collar. He should go to jail for that alone!

The state cannot be serious that it wants to put into evidence that the gym owner is using something about George Zimmerman and this trial to market his gymn???

These jurors have been listening to a long trial and the state wants to annoy them?

who would want the gym training that zimmerman got? He got his butt kicked.

    Matt in FL in reply to archtyrx. | July 10, 2013 at 3:57 pm

    Well, I could stand to lose a few pounds, and if Pollock’s training regimen got GZ to lose 80-90#… well, the thought of checking out his gym has crossed my mind.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to archtyrx. | July 10, 2013 at 3:58 pm

    Unless said training involved how to obtain a Florida handgun purchase and concealed carry permits, lol.

    Observer in reply to archtyrx. | July 10, 2013 at 4:48 pm

    Maybe the gym is offering voice training — as in, how to scream for help while somebody is kicking your ass.

Henry Hawkins | July 10, 2013 at 3:57 pm

Wouldn’t gym owner’s marketing been a matter for cross rather then rebuttal?

What gym-boy, be sure to bring a gun to a fist fight?

They should have asked TrayMom if she trademarked her sons name and went on tour around the country having ppl fill up trash buckets of cash for her.

    Judyt2013 in reply to styro1. | July 10, 2013 at 4:21 pm

    $$$$$abrina Traymom better hope for an acquittal so she can keep up the cash shakedown. Something tells me that a wrongful death suit against Zimmerman would burst that stinking “Angel Trayvon” crap all over her bad mother butt. The only way she can continue to play victim of her poor parenting skills is if GZ is rightfully acquitted.

legacyrepublican | July 10, 2013 at 4:07 pm

I am gonna to sum up the State’s closing argument in one simple sentence …

“Members of the jury, we have swamp land we want you to buy, you can trust us, really you can!”

This is what is on gym owners site:
‘To receive information about the training George Zimmerman received at KOKOPELLI’S GYM, please email request by filling out the form provided below.’
and
* ‘George Zimmerman training information will be provided for those who request it after the completion of the trial.’

The guy is/was probably flooded w/ phone calls for what GZ did there and wanted to stop the calls from disrupting his business.

That was on his website while he was testifying; I googled his name, found his site, and read it while he was on the stand.

But, Nelson needs to help the persecution in any way he can at this point…. Sucks.

It is not a marketing ploy looks like a way to blow ppl off. http://www.kogym.com/zimmerman.htm

The gym owner has set up a web page that says if you want information about the program George used, then submit a request through this email link.

His phone has likely been ringing off the hook from people who need to lose a lot of weight, so he put an automated email link.

You too can have the training that got George’s a** kicked!

    styro1 in reply to Benny. | July 10, 2013 at 4:14 pm

    Really. Hello gym I’m looking for a class in self-defense. Could I get the 1 GZ had b/c I want to get my ass kicked too.

Is this judge always so pro-persecution? Or, did NSA give the Crump crowd information to blackmail her into keeping jury and the non-sheeple public from hearing anything about the kid who looks like Obama? Now we have all seen how thin-skinned Obama is so it isn’t a leap that he would be this sensitive. I wonder if he set the IRS on the defense

    Ragspierre in reply to Judyt2013. | July 10, 2013 at 4:14 pm

    She is known as a tough judge in criminal cases.

      Harperman in reply to Ragspierre. | July 10, 2013 at 4:18 pm

      Tough is one thing but blatantly biased and unfair is another thing all together.

      DriveBy in reply to Ragspierre. | July 10, 2013 at 4:18 pm

      Now she is known as an UNFAIR judge in criminal cases, and a political hack.

      I thought she is primarily a FAMILY Court judge. Hadn’t heard about her being involved in Criminal Cases. (Have, however, heard about her decisions being overturned on appeal and/or her getting slapped on the wrist for violations/misconduct)

        Ragspierre in reply to teresainfortworth. | July 10, 2013 at 4:24 pm

        She has a very broad experience, including family law and civil law, including probate.

        She has served as administrative judge in several capacities, if memory serves.

        I also think she is particularly certified to sit in murder trials, but I am not sure if that is something Florida does.

    styro1 in reply to Judyt2013. | July 10, 2013 at 4:16 pm

    She’s going to work in the Obama Justice Dept. after trial. Then she can get a state and federal pension. Plus get to run roughshod over peoples civil rights.

talking head on myfoxorlando just said GZ has a responsibility to warm TM he has gun, when TM was 8 to 10 ft. away…seriously!

    Judyt2013 in reply to Jazzizhep. | July 10, 2013 at 4:25 pm

    Duh … kind of defeats the purpose of a concealed carry permit now doesn’t it if you have to tell everyone within 8 to 10 feet “I’ze gots me a gun”

    Or, did Trayvon retroactively become a member of law enforcement when he got his “angel” wings?

    styro1 in reply to Jazzizhep. | July 10, 2013 at 4:25 pm

    TM ambushed GZ. When would he do that? Is someone who carries a concealed weapon supposed to when walking around saying “I have a GUN”

      Ragspierre in reply to styro1. | July 10, 2013 at 4:34 pm

      Apparently, you are supposed to walk around singing out, “Don’t accost me…I have a pistol concealed on my person somewhere…”

      Whadda moron. But those seem in ample supply on TV.

inquisitivemind | July 10, 2013 at 4:28 pm

Make believe not impeach… LOL

“Mr. Pollock is acting capitalistically in the first degree; guilty!”

The state tries ti impeach it’s own witness but in augment it sites a defense witness that was impeached by prosecution and says well same thing. Duh!

Did/does Mantei seem very sheepish when revealing who the third rebuttal witness is, and why he was going to be called?

Almost like he knows it’s not going to fly?

Prejudicial

Prejudice outweighs probative value.

    Estragon in reply to rhorton1. | July 10, 2013 at 4:51 pm

    I am beginning to wonder if Nelson’s tack is to be so pro-prosecution she can’t be blamed for acquittal, but ensuring there is plenty of reversible error in event of a guilty verdict.

    Not very judicious, but in a way working for justice nonetheless?

    At least no one can ever say she helped the defense in the trial.

      Lisa_PA in reply to Estragon. | July 10, 2013 at 8:53 pm

      Per Nancy Grace on HLN, the prosecution rolled over for the defense today. They threw the case, or she expected the defense to bring up George’s 8 yr. old incident with the police, it’s hard to tell which, she’s pretty much just blabbering now.

Gee…thanks judge… AFTER you already let the jury hear the inappropriate question after you wouldn’t hear O’Mara’s objection.

    Ragspierre in reply to fogflyer. | July 10, 2013 at 4:40 pm

    Actually, that was good. They saw the State try to open a door, and get their nose slammed in it. So to speak.

      fogflyer in reply to Ragspierre. | July 10, 2013 at 4:45 pm

      Yeah, I guess you could view it that way.
      Still seems inappropriate by the judge, but I certainly don’t think it did any harm.

inquisitivemind | July 10, 2013 at 4:35 pm

Mr. Flieschman – ATF agent that arrested GZ
No way that has any bearing on this case

Eight years ago… eight years younger in better shape.

    inquisitivemind in reply to Judyt2013. | July 10, 2013 at 4:41 pm

    Not only that it was reduced to misdemeanor
    A lot of folks did dumb chit when drunken at age 20/21 and have turned the page in their lives

Lucien Cordier | July 10, 2013 at 4:39 pm

My first impression at viewing the screencap of the gym website was that it doesn’t look like an ad for “The Zimmerman MMA Workout”. I wondered if it was simply a means of redirecting an overwhelming number of inquiries from news organizations and crime buffs about the exact nature of the training that could have been interfering with normal operations. Pollock’s immediate strong denial seems to indicate such. I wonder if the state actually submitted the request for info.

    Ragspierre in reply to Lucien Cordier. | July 10, 2013 at 4:41 pm

    You may not have heard it, but the judge just warned the State not to bother with that nonsense about the old Zimmerman case.

      Lucien Cordier in reply to Ragspierre. | July 10, 2013 at 4:44 pm

      ?

        Ragspierre in reply to Lucien Cordier. | July 10, 2013 at 4:47 pm

        It was very much “judge-speak”. I’ve heard the same warnings about, “You are both experienced trial lawyers”. It is very sub rosa.

          Lucien Cordier in reply to Ragspierre. | July 10, 2013 at 4:51 pm

          If by “old Zimmerman case” you’re referring to the charge of assaulting a police officer, I made no mention of that. My comment was about the trainer and gym ad. Are you possibly responding to the wrong comment?

Just occurred to me, MOM specifically asked that Pollock’s testimony be for rebuttal only, and THE FIRST QUESTION goes to impeachment (after MOM wanted to have the testimony proffered first). Reminds me of the Roger Clemens trial when the Fed Prosecutor showed a video in his opening statements that they were told explicitly not to use. The very first freakin’ question.

CNN just reported that the 900+ page cell experts report had been submitted in January to the DA, and the expert later hired a lawyer concerned that they might get in trouble as the defense did not seem to have this evidence. It was also reported that this report was only released to defense on the eve of the trial.

I am curious, would’nt it be possible to establish when the apps used to delete images and texts from TM’s phone be possible to get? Via records from the app distributor?

I am very curious as to when those apps were added to TMs phone

Judge needs to let the NAACP convention attendees know when deliberations start so they can intimidate jurors with screaming and shouting outside the jury room windows. They have bus scheduling they need to finalize and get students pulled from school for their riots I mean protests.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to styro1. | July 10, 2013 at 4:59 pm

    HINT to Business Owners: Hire a retired Veteran or retired Law Enforcement to keep the thugs and thieves from making you a victim.

    I will be angry if Gov. Scott does not have the National Guard in place before any damage is done.

    Protecting our citizens is his responsibility.

Nelson: I just want to inform the jury that I anticipate closing arguments tomorrow, and George Zimmerman wearing an orange jumpsuit by tomorrow night.

West is laughing at Mantei!!!! LOLOLOLOL

Don West laughs every time Mantei says “conspiracy and connivance.” I like to think that’s because West is thinking, “Well, Mantei, you’d know all about conspiracy and connivance, wouldn’t you?”

I can’t stand listening to this guy. He makes me physically ill.

Mantei to BDLR: Why do I always have to argue these?

BDLR to Mantei: Because I’m only good at yelling at witnesses.

    Harperman in reply to Browndog. | July 10, 2013 at 5:00 pm

    BDLR to Mantie: Because when we present a shyster argument the lawyer needs to LOOK like a shyster.

SRSLY????? Whiny little rat-boy lawyer is going there? Benjamin Crump showed up in the courtroom the day after he was deposed, yet had no idea if he was going to be called as a witness for the defense.

He shouldn’t have been able to do that either, should he?

Because it’s hard to argue a motion by yelling “F*cking punks!” and “assholes!” at the judge while flapping your arms like you’re trying to fly home to Jacksonville.

Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. The didn’t have to have the last use of force “expert” on that long. And then he opened the door! Zimmerman’s prior assault on a peace officer WILL COME IN based on this judge biased previous rulings and then that means a guilty verdict. How could they have been so stupid? They had an acquittal for sure and not that all is in doubt. My faith and admiration of MOM has definitely faded. WHY????????

Ya judge lets forget about the state not turning over exculpable evidence and only turns over evidence when a state employee becomes a whistleblower to make sure the state obeys the law.

This is not serious? I don’t care about this Donnelly stuff–it’s already out there. This judge has ruled against the defense at every turn and now the jury could potentially hear about GZ assaulting a LEO. They had his image perfect based on all testimony and now this one new witness will destroy all of that. And that is not serious? Overreaction? I think not.

    DriveBy in reply to Sean. | July 10, 2013 at 5:08 pm

    Nelson wants this over, like now! Mantei will conveniently have the witness go away…. Chill!

    VetHusbandFather in reply to Sean. | July 10, 2013 at 5:18 pm

    I think it’s risky, just like most of th State witnesses. It will get that prio case in front of the jury, but that could probably be defused during cross examination due to the dismissal of charges etc. And who knows whatcthis guy will say about GZs actually fighting abilities. Could possibly turn into a win for the defense depending on what he has to say.

Thank you Styro.

Just want to also add that my husband is also now hooked on this very informative and much appreciated website on this trial.

I never followed this trial through the many months of pretrial, but the media race bating bias has gotten me so PO’d that I needed to find Somewhere to get decent coverage of this case.

I grew up on media professionals that believed in “unbiased” reporting. Now after actually having the opportunity of watching this trial without commentary I am finding this ongoing persecuting media circus has me wanting to be an activist on Behalf of Zimmerman.

What are true resources to support Zimmerman, his legal team, defense fund etc?
Thank You

The persecutors are reaching b/c they’re desperate but what scares me is this bought and paid for judge may rule in their favor.

They can have his testimony stricken BUT…it’s already out there and this just draws more attention to it and how it backs up all the other witnesses. The state is floundering big time.

UPS just delivered my copy of Andrew’s Book. Now I have something to read while the jury deliberates.

PS: Andrew. That will be a bear to format to Kindle. Get a professional to do it.

What’s going to really piss off the judge is that West knew the witness was in the courtroom and did not tell the judge prior to the witness’ testimony.

Did Nelson just tell a joke?!

Do the sidebars become public record at the close of the trial?

How could she possibly give sanctions when $$$abrina and SkipTracey have sat in her line of vision all during the trial. Why couldn’t the parents watch the trial on the MSNBC set with Al Racebaiter Sharpton?

She denied the State’s motion and allowed Donnelly testimony to stand.

I’ve been on a conference call for the past two hours and couldn’t listen to what was happening. Can someone please give a quick recap?

I say bring on the ATF jackboot. He’ll no doubt come off like they always do, IE, a nimrod, and it’ll all look just perfectly desperate on the part of the state.

Besides, most of the jurors have likely heard about this pre-trial. Moreover, its ancient.

I think MOM could handle it just fine.

It will be interesting to learn in the future some time just what the jurors thought the most important event was in the trial.

I am betting Mr. Doll will be something the State has profound cause to regret in coming days…

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Ragspierre. | July 10, 2013 at 5:49 pm

    Is there any limit to how soon after the close of a trial that jurors can go on the talk show circuit? You know they’ll be sought out. Would they have to wait until after any potential appeal? I’d love to hear what they thought too, hopefully before I’ve forgotten much of this trial’s details.

      Ragspierre in reply to Henry Hawkins. | July 10, 2013 at 5:55 pm

      I can’t imagine what it would be, though I don’t practice in Florida or criminal law.

      Every case I’ve tried has the judge releasing the jurors and thanking them profusely.

      Most trial lawyers make a practice of talking to the jurors after a trial, ’cause you can learn so much from them.

      Sometimes it is brutal.

Darn my entire life I have been spelling bitch. B I T C H. Now I see it is spelled N E L S O N.

I just got home from work and LOSDV2 was waiting for me. Can’t wait to read it!

inquisitivemind | July 10, 2013 at 5:46 pm

Common theme in these closing moments – The state needs to have all empathetic testimony towards GZ thrown out and introduce an 8yo case that was subsequently pled to misdemeanor brought in to trash GZ’s character.

You know he’s going to be found guilty based on the fact that he’s an f’n a-hole

Henry Hawkins | July 10, 2013 at 5:50 pm

If cussing killed people, I’d be alone on this planet.

eaglesdontflock | July 10, 2013 at 5:52 pm

I must have missed Doll. Is there a link to his testimony?

Does anyone feel confident an acquittal? For a while I did but I’ve been reading on other sites that because the jury is composed of women, their feelings for Martin’s family will push out any evidence they’ve heard and been presented.
What do you all think of this besides the fact, of course, that it insults women like me.

    inquisitivemind in reply to robbi. | July 10, 2013 at 6:02 pm

    I’m fairly confident in grown women to act impartially with the evidence presented and less on emotions.
    MOM will be doing the closing and appears to have put himself in good standing with the jury at this time – the prosecution has probably pissed them off at this point

    Ragspierre in reply to robbi. | July 10, 2013 at 6:05 pm

    Zimmerman has a mom, too. She will be prominent in the courtroom at close.

    In fact, all the good people who supported Zimmerman will be there, and hard to miss.

    kittycat in reply to robbi. | July 10, 2013 at 6:15 pm

    robbi,

    Don’t underestimate us women. I for one would definitely find him innocent because it’s clearly self-defense. Again, this should have never gone to trial in the first place.

    Next, look at the women who spoke up for him at trial.

    cazinger in reply to robbi. | July 10, 2013 at 6:18 pm

    I think the last witness for the defense (the neighbor who held her baby as she sat through a home invasion style robbery – and whom GZ and his wife offered comfort and support) may be a sufficient counter to that particular aspect.

    you have little faith in women being able to see past the crocodile tears.

    For pity’s sake the woman got on the stand and the way she coldly stated her son’s name should have caused the jurors not to have much in the way of sympathy.

Jury Verdict:

All 3 prosecutors will be sentenced to 30 days of jumping up and down, while screaming

……. ” Ef’fing A-holes “

It occurs to me that Nelson agreed to moving final arguments later in the day awfully easily. Like she wanted the jury to go home with the State’s close ringing in their ears.

Then I thought about it, and the math doesn’t work. They estimated the closings at State 2 hrs, Defense 3 hrs, State 1 hr. But she said State would start closing at 1 p.m., then Defense would go Friday morning, and then State would close up.

If the State is starting at 1 p.m. for two hours, why couldn’t the defense go next, and finish up by 5:30-6:00, and then have State do their last hour the next morning?

Would that (giving the State the sole word on Friday) be more or less potentially prejudicial than giving them the sole word on Thursday?

    Ragspierre in reply to Matt in FL. | July 10, 2013 at 6:01 pm

    Six of one and a half-dozen of another.

    By the time Friday rolls around, the jurors may be ready to NOT hear from the State any more.

    Depends on who is closing. The little guy who argues for the State on motion practice is pretty good, but he’s also an asphole when interrogating.

    I dunno if Cory even COULD close, according to rule.

      Matt in FL in reply to Ragspierre. | July 10, 2013 at 6:19 pm

      For the record, my understanding is that “the little guy” (Mantei) is now done. The closing will be handled by BDLR and Guy. No indication on who goes first, though I’m guessing BDLR will be first batter.

        Ragspierre in reply to Matt in FL. | July 10, 2013 at 6:32 pm

        Personally, if I saw BDLR stand up to close against me, my lil’ heart would SING…

        He is just not a likeable human being. Or, put another way, he is an execrable putz.

    robbi in reply to Matt in FL. | July 10, 2013 at 6:01 pm

    I was thing the same thing. There’s nothing that can be done about it unfortunately. The jurors will sleep only on the state closing tomorrow and then they’ll leave on Friday once again with the state having the last word. Hopefully O’Mara will have a powerful closing.

    Mark Buehner in reply to Matt in FL. | July 10, 2013 at 6:06 pm

    It could potentially help the defense. Look at it this way: State doesn’t have a narrative or theory to close with. They can’t say A happened and then B happened and that caused C which is where these elements of the felony occurred. They are going to go with all the Maybes and Could Haves we saw this whole trial (ie- exactly how a defense typically presents a case, introducing doubt instead of demonstrating facts).
    That being the case, if they were to go one on top of the other, the last thing they here is the defense laying out all of their facts and data (Ie- a narrative, which the prosecution doesn’t pretend to have). Hence they might spend the night poking holes in the defenses closing instead of thinking about how the Prosecution HAS no closing.
    This way, they have the whole night to think about how they’ve been given nothing but an alleged bad attitude and maybe he snapped and shot this kid at some point after some kind of altercation started by god knows who and ended somehow. Then the next morning, they get an actual narrative that is entirely plausible, a hell of a lot more than just reasonable doubt.
    I think that serves better.

      Tertullus in reply to Mark Buehner. | July 10, 2013 at 9:57 pm

      I think there will be objections during the state’s close. The state will try to argue from facts that are not in evidence. They have done this constantly outside the presence of the jury. Let’s watch and see.

eaglesdontflock | July 10, 2013 at 6:02 pm

:/

DunneandOverwyth | July 10, 2013 at 6:12 pm

I think Zimmerman will be convicted of something, maybe not 2nd degree murder, but likely a lesser charge. I believe the whole point of this trial was to ensure Zimmerman would be punished for shooting Trayvon. Although most pundits seem to conclude the prosecution failed to make it’s case, the “evidence” matters not a wit. There is a pervasive “feeling” that Zimmerman is guilty, and that he must be punished, not so much pursuant to any evidence, but in view of the greater social good.

Nobody wants to see rioting and general lawlessness breaking out across the country, but if Zimmerman walks that’s exactly what can be expected. And, should he in fact walk on the state charges, I suspect the Feds will step in and charge him with a civil rights violation. There’s no way he’ll walk away from that. In the interest of peace and harmony Zimmerman must and will do time for shooting Trayvon.

    cazinger in reply to DunneandOverwyth. | July 10, 2013 at 6:28 pm

    I disagree. Remember, these jurors are sequestered, so that their only information about the case is supposed to be coming from the court itself. And while it is certainly possible that one or two of them violate the sequester (heck, they’re human, after all), I don’t think that all of the coverage out there favors a guilty verdict – in fact, many sources (as you point out) have been pointing to just the opposite.

    As for the federal charges, while it is possible, the FBI already investigated and did not file charges. You have to remember, that there has to be a statute to charge under, and for it to be a federal charge, it must be a federal statute. I see absolutely zero federal statute that could possibly be twisted and contorted enough to try to charge GZ now. Not to mention politically, it would be a stupid, obviously political move, since the FBI already investigated. In fact, I think it would set up the feds for criticism that, if such charges were warranted in the first place, why wouldn’t they step in earlier, so that the state could not bungle it as badly as they have (I don’t think they bungled it so much as it should not have been charged in the first place).

      DunneandOverwyth in reply to cazinger. | July 10, 2013 at 7:17 pm

      The White House has intervened on behalf of Travon Martin on two occasions thus far. Once when Obama spoke of Martin as being like a son to him, and again when DOJ (Tax Dollars) funds were used to promote rally’s in support of Martin, and for Zimmerman’s arrest. It is not unreasonable at all to me that additional intervention may be forthcoming.

      Also, the issue of lesser charges has yet to be decided as reported by Headline News: http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/07/10/george-zimmerman-trial-trayvon-martin-day-12 

      “5:32 p.m. ET: Prosecutors want manslaughter and aggravated assault to be included as lesser charges in the jury instructions. The defense objects and the judge says they will take up this matter on Thursday.”

      And, as to rioting I submit the following: New Black Panther Party allegedly busing mobs to Sanford, Florida for expected riots  http://www.qstarnews.com/a/articletemplate6.cfm?articlenumber=2715

      Sanford Police Prepare for Zimmerman Riots http://townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/2013/07/10/sanford-police-prepare-for-zimmerman-riots-n1637192

Anyone else notice that Guy’s little dolly has a ring with a pull-string on its back?

Pull it one way and the doll screams: “Assholes… Fucking Punks!.”

Pull it in the opposite direction and the doll whispers (a little): “Get off… get off.”

Problem is the prosecutors have absolutely no idea which way they will pull it during closing arguments.

eaglesdontflock | July 10, 2013 at 6:23 pm

Zimmerman is innocent. the jury should return a verdict of not guilty by reason of justifiable homicide (self-defense). Any other verdict will inflict unjust punishment as Florida’s laws require a mandatory minimum. He could get 25 for simple manslaughter.

I am sorry for the Martin family. I am sorry they lost their son, and I believe Zimmerman is sorry too. Personally, I would never pull the trigger on a human unless I believed had no other choice. Zimmerman seems to be someone who has that same restraint.

    Bernice in reply to eaglesdontflock. | July 10, 2013 at 6:26 pm

    Well said!

    DriveBy in reply to eaglesdontflock. | July 10, 2013 at 6:41 pm

    If you have noticed my previous posts, I am pro George, but… He put on a gun for a grocery run, over the top for me, and probably most of you. Then he saw a suspicious young black man walking in the rain, he called it in to police, he sat in his truck as the man circled his truck in a threatening manner, and he left relative safety of his truck when he thought the man was gone to try to see where he went. He was attacked and beaten and he used deadly force because he had no other option to stop the beating. But if he did not have that gun would he have gotten out of his truck? Would he have followed on foot? Probably not.

    Both sides of this are outraged and outrageous in their positions, but poor George should never have got that concealed carry license. Trayvon would not have killed him. George may have actually had to go to the hospital, but Trayvon would not have killed him and any speculation to the contrary is no more valid than my speculation.

    George’s Air Marshall best friend and George’s own nature of going for what looks good without thinking it through has gotten him in quite a pickle! He killed another human being.

    I don’t know, nobody does. But I can understand if the jury comes back with a conviction on a lesser charge. The good thing for George is that it is Florida and his community is like him and might do something crazy!

    Start throwing stones in 3, 2, 1…

      Matt in FL in reply to DriveBy. | July 10, 2013 at 6:56 pm

      DriveBy sez: “He put on a gun for a grocery run, over the top for me, and probably most of you.”

      I’m not going to throw stones, but I am going to answer that. I shamelessly stole this from here, but it’s the best answer to that argument that I’ve ever seen, and it sums up my feelings exactly.

      This is tied in to another thing I often read on the internet “You carry a gun to the (grocery store/restaurant/nice neighborhood/sewing circle/whatever)?” No, I don’t. As Kathy Jackson phrased it so well, I don’t carry a gun “to” anyplace; I just carry a gun. I put the gun on in the morning with no more emotional freighting or special foresight than my shoes. In fact, probably less, because I may wear different shoes, but I always carry the same gun.

      When I put my shoes on, I did not run though a complex internal calculus of “Well, there’s a ‘No shirt, No shoes, No service’ sign at the bank, and I think I have to wear them at the grocery store, too. On the other hand, it’s warm out, and I could put those errands off and not wear shoes today…” I just put my shoes on. It’s the default state, just like putting the pistol in the holster on my belt. As I go through the day, I don’t constantly think about my shoes, and whether I might “need” them at my next stop. Ditto, the gun.

      That’s it. I carry a gun. Period. Full stop. I carry a gun anytime I’m out of my house, and everywhere I go, save where it is prohibited by law. It is not a toy, or a totem, or a small manhood compensator. It is a tool. And tools are useless if you leave them at home.

      Some people say they only carry the gun if they’re going somewhere dangerous, or if they think something bad might happen. There’s an easy way to avoid that: Don’t go to stupid places, to do stupid things, with stupid people. However, even if you don’t purposely go dangerous places, trouble can find you anywhere. If I thought something bad might happen, I wouldn’t go there. If I knew something bad would happen, and I had to go there anyway, I wouldn’t bring a handgun. I’d bring a rifle. And a friend. And his rifle.

      See? No stones.

      Bernice in reply to DriveBy. | July 10, 2013 at 7:00 pm

      Sounds like you are blaming the victim of an assault for the unfortunate way the incident ended. Following your reasoning, Trayvon could just as easily have continued home to enjoy his Watermelon Cooler (and dial 311 to report a suspicious creepy ass cracker). He chose instead to confront and initiate violence by sucker punching George.
      “George’s own nature of going for what looks good without thinking…” — is that characterization supported by some evidence you have special access to?

        DriveBy in reply to Bernice. | July 10, 2013 at 7:10 pm

        Like I said, I don’t know but neither do you. George was the “victim” of a beating, not an attempted murder! Trayvon has no history of murder nor attempted murder, but he does have a history of fighting, with fists, not with weapons! George brought the gun to the party. Sanford, Florida: Pitbulls and Guns, the Travel Channel will no doubt do a series on that.

        Hey, give me a break, I support George! I just think that looking back he did the wrong things at many steps along the way and a 17 year old is dead – Florida…

          randian in reply to DriveBy. | July 10, 2013 at 7:22 pm

          George was the “victim” of a beating, not an attempted murder!

          Wrong. Slamming somebody’s head against the ground is attempted murder. Anybody knows, or reasonably should know, that such an attack has a substantial likelihood of fatal injury.

          Matthew Carberry in reply to DriveBy. | July 10, 2013 at 7:23 pm

          There is no such thing as “just a beating”. Even a moment’s research will find numerous instances of single blows to the head even from minor slips and falls being lethal (see subdural hematoma). In the real world fights occur around all sorts of hard and sharp objects that can cause injury in an instant, they aren’t friendly bouts in a clean, well-lit padded dojo.

          A person unjustifiably attacked does not have -any- moral obligation to incur repeated injury on the chance that it won’t turn out to be lethal or crippling.

          The burden of avoiding getting shot for beating someone is on the beater. Stop attacking people and they won’t have a reason to shoot you.

          Wolverine in reply to DriveBy. | July 10, 2013 at 7:37 pm

          Others have already mentioned that they believe Zimmerman’s fear of death or grave bodily injury was reasonable (and therefore he was justified in using lethal force to stop it).

          My question is: you seem to feel that his fear was unreasonable. If you feel that way why aren’t you advocating that he be found guilty of manslaughter?

          rantbot in reply to DriveBy. | July 10, 2013 at 9:01 pm

          “he did the wrong things at many steps along the way and a 17 year old is dead”

          Some day you’re just going to have to join the real world. Zimmerman DID do the right things. So far as we can tell, the right person survived the encounter. The violent attacker did not. I don’t see a huge problem with that, given that it was likely going to be one or the other.

          A life-or-death conflict was NOT caused by Zimmerman, and it was not caused by his Kel-Tec. It was caused by the guy who was out to get the creepy-ass cracker.

      Narniaman in reply to DriveBy. | July 10, 2013 at 7:00 pm

      Yeah, you have an interesting point. I sort of suspect that there are maybe a million or so folks in the good state of Florida who do things like carry weapons for a milk run. And it’s not like George’s neighborhood had any problems with pitbulls or anything like that. . . . . .

      And if you think about it real hard, ole’ George really shouldn’t have gone out after dark anyway. One never knows when he might run into someone like Trayvon Martin in the dark, right?

      Perhaps the take home lesson for all of us do-gooders is that whenever we see something suspicious, we should mind our own business, right?

      Matthew Carberry in reply to DriveBy. | July 10, 2013 at 7:04 pm

      The central tenet of being armed for self-defense is acknowledging that you can never predict when the need to defend yourself might occur. The risk of being attacked at all is low, you are armed against that small chance.

      Once you accept that small chance exists a cursory look at, well, reality quickly demonstrates there are no “safe” places. Thus there is no rational basis to be armed in one place and not in another, as the initiative on violence always lies with the attacker and attacks demonstrably happen in every place at every time.

      There was nothing “over the top” in Zimmerman arming himself for a run to the store. If you know for certain there is so likely to be trouble as to justify being armed in a particular situation, the responsible thing is to not enter that situation. In truth, responsible defensive gun carry almost -requires- you carry all the time lest you be accused of “looking for (or at least expecting) trouble” because you chose that particular time to put on your gun.

      In any event, a convenience store at night probably does qualify as a place where the odds of trouble go up from 1 in a thousand to 1 in nine hundred and ninety-nine. There’s nothing out of line in being armed to visit one.

      There is nothing wrong with carrying all the time, and there is nothing wrong in doing something legal while armed, like getting out of your car to be a good neighbor, that you would do unarmed. There is nothing rationally to be said about any of Zimmerman’s actions that based his being armed or not.

        Can you say, “Paranoia?” Yes, George, you, me, and most folks have the right to carry, but if the odds are one in a million or one in a billion or one in a trillion, why bother to put on a gun to go get lunch meat at Target on a Sunday night!? Every Sunday night?! It makes no sense but for paranoia or bravado or both, or more likely bad advise from a good Air Marshall friend to an easily influenced George. IMO

          Matt in FL in reply to DriveBy. | July 10, 2013 at 7:36 pm

          I’m 36 years old. In my whole life, I’ve never had a house fire, none of my family have ever had house fires, none of my friends or their immediate families have ever had house fires. Yet every single one of us has, at the very least, a fire extinguisher and smoke detectors in the house, and some have expensive fire alarms, and a few even have full on sprinkler systems in their homes.

          Is all of that paranoia, or bravado (because if a gun makes me a wannabe cop, then a fire extinguisher and a garden hose makes me a wannabe firefighter), or both, or are you maybe willing to admit that there’s something else going on, and that maybe that something else could also apply to a concealed hangun?

          Matthew Carberry in reply to DriveBy. | July 10, 2013 at 7:40 pm

          Am I looking to get in an accident because I wear my seatbelt and have car insurance; or am I making a responsible choice even knowing that the chances of my getting in an accident are very low?

          How many times does the average person actually need their CPR lessons, are they paranoid or “wanna-be” EMTs just looking for a chance to save a life?

          Harperman in reply to DriveBy. | July 10, 2013 at 8:12 pm

          Sorry I hit thumbs up when I meant to hit thumbs down on DriveBy’s comment.
          You talk of odds casually. The problem with odds is that when you loose such odds it costs you your life.
          Now let’s talk about the grocery store where you think you don’t need a gun. I have pulled a gun once in my life in self defense. Fortunately all I had to do was to make a show of superior fire power to the four young men threatening me with baseball bats. No shots were fired. This incident occurred while exiting a grocery store at night. So tell me some more about grocery stores and safe they are.

          rantbot in reply to DriveBy. | July 10, 2013 at 9:13 pm

          One in a million? Don’t be so mathematically illiterate. I’ve been licensed for twenty years. In that time I’ve encountered two situations for which a firearm would be the appropriate tool. One, an animal horribly mangled after a road accident; the other, the discovery that burglars had broken into my house when I was out for twenty minutes (no, I didn’t shoot anybody, I made enough noise as I was clearing the house from attic to basement that they had time to skedaddle before I reached them). Two times in twenty years. Not much, but it’s more use than I’ve had for my first-aid kit or my fire extinguisher.

    Please do not feel sorry for Traydemom. She is a lying bitch.

    archtyrx in reply to eaglesdontflock. | July 10, 2013 at 7:16 pm

    I think you’re in the shrinking minority, he will and should be charged with at least a lesser crime, and do jail time. On a gut level, I believe the jury will go this route.

I didn’t see much significant comment from the Maestro Atty for July 10. Disappointment. Will it come later?

I am a Zimmie Fanboy.

I think the State’s “case” is incoherent.

However–depending upon what lesser included offenses are charged, Zimmie may not be out of the woods.

Today some of Root’s testimony touched on a potentially convictable area, although the prosecutor really didn’t pursue that avenue very much at all.

The MMA guy made Georgie sound like someone who was pretty much untrained and inept. Root testified that a gun is “only as safe as the person carrying it.” I don’t really think O’Mara planned on that, because it implicates Zimmie’s level of experience/training in the use of the firearm, esp. if he’s going to take it with him on night watch.

I think the clear evidence demonstrates George was defending himself from attack, but it’s certainly not completely unequivocal, and I’m not on the jury.

I don’t know if there’s enough evidence to prove it but the jury could get into deliberations and say to themselves “What the heck was this numnutz doing walking around at night looking for trouble while carrying a gun he really wasn’t that well trained in using, without some sort of lesser defensive skills or tools, so that in the event of a confrontation, he might not be forced to use lethal force to defend himself?”

There are a few links of logic that would have to be tied together and I’m not sure how you really “get there” based on the actual trial evidence.

However, what you basically had was a street brawl and the unarmed dude ends up shot dead.

Street brawls happen all over and all the time where people get the crap kicked out of them but that doesn’t per se vindicate lethal force in self defense (generally speaking).

I’m not saying I’d convict on a manslaughter or other lesser included offense, but the implication is clearly there if the jury doesn’t feel comfortable letting Zimmie walk off scot-free.

There is a concept in the law where if you voluntarily undertake a duty then your level of responsibility is raised. Maybe not to an LEO level but perhaps somewhat higher had Georgie JUST been completely “minding his own business.”

Again–I’m not saying I really buy it but it’s there if the jury wants it.

    Matthew Carberry in reply to Marco100. | July 10, 2013 at 7:11 pm

    I don’t think the state would go there.

    That take would implicitly require the prosecution to denigrate the existing State of Florida licensing scheme.

    After all, Zimmerman successfully completed all the training the state itself feels necessary to be minimally safe carrying and potentially using a gun defensively in public. For the prosecution to claim that wasn’t enough in this case means that the state has certifying hundreds of thousands of similar “incompetents” to do so.

    randian in reply to Marco100. | July 10, 2013 at 7:17 pm

    Root testified that a gun is “only as safe as the person carrying it.”

    I don’t recall the prosecution alleging that Zimmerman negligently discharged his weapon. That’s one of the advantages of claiming self-defense. Light trigger on the weapon? So what, that only implicates negligence. The defendant’s claim he intentionally fired eviscerates a negligence claim.

    It would be breathtaking hypocrisy for women to convict Zimmerman because he wasn’t a good enough fighter.

      Marco100 in reply to randian. | July 10, 2013 at 7:38 pm

      “negligent” doesn’t mean the same thing as “non-volitional”.

      It’s possible to take an action which is intentional but negligent. Negligence being the absence of a reasonable degree of care under the circumstances. I.e. I’m late for work so I deliberately run a red light causing an auto accident. I ran the red light intentionally but it was still a negligent [lacking in reasonable degree of care] act.

      And it’s not really so much how the prosecution spins it since I don’t really get what their strategy is.

      It’s more a possibility the jury puts the puzzle together in the jury room in a different way then either the prosecution or the defense might prefer.

    archtyrx in reply to Marco100. | July 10, 2013 at 7:20 pm

    I think I am finally seeing some sense about how this may turn out here. I don’t feel the jury will let him walk off a free man. There are responsibility issues here that don’t fall entirely on trayvon, as many have implied here. No, I would be shocked to see Zimmerman walk away without jail time.

      Narniaman in reply to archtyrx. | July 10, 2013 at 7:36 pm

      And who knows if Zimmerman would have only begged for mercy as he was getting his head smashed against the concrete may St. Skittles just might have stopped his attack?

      So obviously, Zimmerman was grossly at fault for trying to protect himself from the MMA assault. . . . and everyone else should learn the lesson that they should mind their own business, not go out after dark, and if they are sucker punched and knocked down, they should immediately plead for mercy from their local thug. It would be tragic if any more Trayvon’s were to lose their lives in the midst of their assaults. . . .

        Marco100 in reply to Narniaman. | July 10, 2013 at 7:49 pm

        It’s really more of an abstract sort of global issue, I think:

        If you are going to put yourself out there in the dark of night as a volunteer “do gooder,” armed with a weapon, is there some sort of obligation to realize that yes you might have a higher level of chance of confrontation with possible wrongdoers, therefore, need to prep yourself for the possible tangles more than George actually did?

        If you think a bit about it, we wouldn’t want actual LEO’s [I get George is not LEO, not held to the same standard, but…] going out there who were rather incompetent at non-lethal physical defense and not very well trained in defending themselves against an attack by let’s say an intoxicated person, with only recourse to lethal force for self-defense.

        Tons and tons of drunk & drugged people get into confrontations with LEO’s every day but the expectation isn’t that the LEO is going to be easily placed into a situation where lethal force might be the only defensive possibility.

        We expect an LEO to be able to “handle themselves” to where they don’t have to shoot an aggressor, right? Part of that is knowing when to sit tight and wait for reinforcements to arrive.

        Now, sure, if you buy the defense narrative that this was a completely unprovoked assault by TM, circling back to jump GZ, jumping in so quickly that there was no possibility of using less than lethal force, then yes maybe acquittal is the only choice. And, the prosecution really hasn’t gone down the road I am suggesting might be there.

        On the other hand if for some reason one of my teenage children was high on marijuana one night or perhaps pulled over for a DUI, and perhaps got aggressive or took a swing at a cop, I wouldn’t like it, and I might expect him to suffer some sort of physical repercussions, and possibly criminal charges for assault on a police officer or resisting arrest, I don’t think most people would be very accepting of the result being their kid got shot and killed because the cop simply wasn’t skilled or trained enough NOT to have to use non-lethal force.

        Yes I know George isn’t an LEO. And I don’t even know if the trial facts could be put together in this way.

        But I think it may be a lingering question for the jury if they scratch beneath the surface and possible trouble spot for the defense.

          randian in reply to Marco100. | July 10, 2013 at 7:54 pm

          We expect an LEO to be able to “handle themselves” to where they don’t have to shoot an aggressor, right?

          No, we don’t. We allow women to be LEOs, don’t we? Think about this in relation to the female jurors. Would they hold themselves to the “handle yourself” standard you suggest they impose on Zimmerman?

          DriveBy in reply to Marco100. | July 10, 2013 at 7:56 pm

          Thank you Sir! That is the most coherent, unbiased, and logical post that I have (literally) read in weeks!!!!

          Wolverine in reply to Marco100. | July 10, 2013 at 7:58 pm

          Given the totality of the circumstances (dark and stormy night, Martin acting suspicious sufficient for a Terry stop, history of crime in the area, etc.), I wouldn’t be surprised if a police officer would have shot Martin when he put his hand to his waistband.

          Henry Hawkins in reply to Marco100. | July 10, 2013 at 8:37 pm

          “On the other hand if for some reason one of my teenage children was high on marijuana one night or perhaps pulled over for a DUI, and perhaps got aggressive or took a swing at a cop, I wouldn’t like it, and I might expect him to suffer some sort of physical repercussions, and possibly criminal charges for assault on a police officer or resisting arrest, I don’t think most people would be very accepting of the result being their kid got shot and killed because the cop simply wasn’t skilled or trained enough NOT to have to use non-lethal force.”

          But if your child knocked the officer down, ground and pounded the officer’s face, and banged the officer’s head off the concrete, the officer will shoot your teen if at all possible.

          I don’t see much overlap between your scenario and the GZ/TM altercation.

          VetHusbandFather in reply to Marco100. | July 10, 2013 at 8:53 pm

          Comparing this to a teenager taking a swing at a cop is a huge minimization of the evidence of this case. I think any LEO that had someone punch them/knock them to the ground, jump on top and repeatedly hit their head against their ground, and finally reach for their gun, would do the exact some thing and fire in self defense. In fact I doubt most LEO’s would have got as far as letting them reach for their gun while then scream for help. Granted you may not believe that all of these things were true, but there is far more evidence pointing to these things being true than there evidence pointing to the idea that Trayvon ‘just took a swing at him’.

          rantbot in reply to Marco100. | July 10, 2013 at 9:28 pm

          “I don’t think most people would be very accepting of the result being their kid got shot and killed because the cop simply wasn’t skilled or trained enough NOT to have to use non-lethal force.”

          You’ve reasoned yourself into a strange corner here. I doubt that “most people” would be terribly overwrought if your kid got shot while assaulting a police officer. We can reasonable expect the officer to use the force needed to stop the assault … which is exactly what we expect from Zimmerman.

          rantbot in reply to Marco100. | July 10, 2013 at 9:54 pm

          “therefore, need to prep yourself for the possible tangles more than George actually did?”

          So, anyone carrying a concealed firearm should also have the full range of police equipment – baton, spray, taser, maybe a shotgun with non-lethal rounds? Cool stuff, for sure, but it’s not clear how anyone could carry all that crap concealed.

          Also, believe it or not, some useful non-lethal weapons are far more heavily regulated than lethal ones. You can’t just go out and buy, say, rubber bullets at Walmart, even if you’re licensed for real lead ones. That’s law and bureaucracy; you can’t blame it on Zimmerman.

      franker01 in reply to archtyrx. | July 10, 2013 at 7:43 pm

      So you see this as Political rather than Legal?

I’ve heard the prosecution is arguing for adding aggravated assault to the list of lesser included offenses the jury may consider. Anything to try and get the jury to bite. I think it’s outrageous they can do that at this late stage of the trial.

eaglesdontflock | July 10, 2013 at 7:59 pm

4.5 lb trigger pull is not light.

eaglesdontflock | July 10, 2013 at 8:04 pm

Zimmerman should be acquitted based on the evidence. No lesser charges should apply.

    franker01 in reply to eaglesdontflock. | July 10, 2013 at 8:09 pm

    DOJ should have pressed charges to the fullest extent against the NBPP Thugs intimidating Voters in Philly.

    Holder and Company did not.

    This is not your Father’s Oldsmobile let alone his America!

I think the clearest evidence of the self defense is the witness (was his name Cook?), the man who was talking about ground and pound and clearly placed TM on top of GZ. That might wash out any other issues assuming the jury puts enough weight on that particular witness’s testimony.

    franker01 in reply to Marco100. | July 10, 2013 at 8:18 pm

    IMO this is OJ Redux.

    Back then a mostly Black Jury ignored the evidence and ruled in favor of the Black Guy because he was a Black Guy.

    Today a mostly White Jury may be in fear for its life and that of members of the community if it ignores the Actual Evidence and decides that GZ is innocent.

    Could go either way.

    DriveBy in reply to Marco100. | July 10, 2013 at 8:19 pm

    John Good, IIRC.

    The best things that George has going for him are not the facts of that night or the facts of what lead up to it, rather the best things George has going for him are his excellent attorneys and the sad excuses for attorneys that the state appointed to prosecute this trial.

    George used the phrase, “It was God’s will” in describing what happened and said he would not change a thing, if he could. O’Mara must have coached George on that point. Because in fact, truth, George had choices and he made decisions, God did not do that for him, and looking back he should have done many things differently.

      franker01 in reply to DriveBy. | July 10, 2013 at 8:24 pm

      While I have never been straddled and have my head smashed into the concrete, I guess I kind of understand what you are saying.

      So, for instance, on the day that I fell and broke my knee it would have been a much better decision had I just stayed in bed?

      Yes, that makes total sense!

      LOL

        DriveBy in reply to franker01. | July 10, 2013 at 8:34 pm

        It depends. Before you fell and broke your knee after getting out of bed did your Air Marshall friend encourage you to carry a firearm at all times (especially when hitting up Target for lunch meat), get a Concealed Carry License, follow suspicious young men that circle you in a threatening way while you observe them from the safety of your vehicle in the pitch black on rain soaked nights?

        We could both go on, but I am less snarky than you!

        I hope George walks, but don’t bet on it is all I am saying, and don’t feel bad if he has a price to pay for taking the life of a human being, I mean a 17 year old fist fighting pot smoking jewelry stealing thug, but not a murderous thug…

          eaglesdontflock in reply to DriveBy. | July 10, 2013 at 8:46 pm

          I carry always, even when hitting up Target for lunch meat. I report suspicious characters. If I’m observing a suspicious character, do I intend to shoot. No. Never. But if they are pounding my head into the concrete, that may be the only choice. My uncle died from a tap on the head. You never know.

          Given the break ins, his neighbors’ concerns, George was doing what a good citizen does. Maybe he should have gone home, but he may have been considering the consequences if a supposed bad guy stayed on the loose.

          Henry Hawkins in reply to DriveBy. | July 10, 2013 at 8:47 pm

          TM pounded on GZ for at least 40 seconds showing no sign of stopping. TM caused considerable damage to GZ, potentially lethal damage per expert testimony. So, what was it that stopped the beat down and saved GZ’s life?

          Please explain how GZ was supposed to arrive at your conclusion – while getting his head pounded, mind you – that TM was “a 17 year old fist fighting pot smoking jewelry stealing thug, but not a murderous thug…”

          Hindsight is 20/20, a luxury you have, but GZ did not.

          rantbot in reply to DriveBy. | July 10, 2013 at 9:35 pm

          “but not a murderous thug…”

          That may have been true, up to the moment that he tried to crack a guy’s head open like an egg. From then on, the only thing preventing him from becoming a murderous thug was a dose of lead.

          franker01 in reply to DriveBy. | July 10, 2013 at 9:42 pm

          Snarky?

          I was merely offering an alternate opinion.

          Without name-calling I might add.

eaglesdontflock | July 10, 2013 at 8:55 pm

And you really need to explore the why of “why didn’t Trayvon Martin run home?” He was 400 feet or so away. That would have been the safe thing to do. Somewhere in that phone call he had the opportunity to go home and didn’t. Did he want a practice fight with a creepy ass cracker? Did HE want a confrontation? Beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard. On that, George is innocent.

The webpage is not giving me an option to reply to either Henry or Eagle, so new post.

We have all seen the photo that the asian neighbor took of Treyvon’s body, where it was in the grass; it was nowhere near the concrete sidewalk! The fight was initially on or near the sidewalk, and George withstood several blows on the concrete. But at the time that he fired the fatal shot the two were well on to the grass and there was no “deadly weapon” of concrete!!! Guys and gals, the jury is going to look objectively at this. Please stop with all of the “he was pounding George’s head on concrete when George just had to save his own life” stuff, that happened early in the fight/assault. Also, the neighbor and the police arrived seconds after George decide to fire the fatal shot.

    eaglesdontflock in reply to DriveBy. | July 10, 2013 at 9:11 pm

    According to the testimony, Zimmerman stated he moved Martin off by sliding away and pushing him and he was on his stomach. The photo I saw was Martin on his back, so someone turned him over which would have moved him further from the sidewalk. Also according to the testimony, Zimmerman said he pushed himself sideways off the concrete in the midst of the attack, which continued on the grass. As multiple experts testified, time stands still when you are in mortal fear and the police were not there when the trigger was pulled and 40 secs of yelling for help produced no one to help.

      DriveBy in reply to eaglesdontflock. | July 10, 2013 at 9:18 pm

      Treyvon’s body was nowhere near the concrete and it was perpendicular to the sidewalk. So rolling him over would be a lateral move, not putting him nearer or farther from the sidewalk.

      The prosecution has let George’s excellent defense team beat the crap out of them throughout this entire trial! If the teams were reversed, Murder 2 might actually be a possibility!!!!

      George may walk. But my opinion, he made bad choices and bad decisions and he is getting off because of a brilliant defense team, and because of his own personal short comings and ignorance.

        Matt in FL in reply to DriveBy. | July 10, 2013 at 9:26 pm

        DriveBy, you’ve gone from a concern troll to seemingly a full-on champion of the prosecution.

        You started out “on Zimmerman’s team” but thought that it was over the top for him to take a gun to the grocery store. As your posts have gone on, you’ve evolved your stated view several times, ’til now it’s all George’s fault, and he’s only getting off through the grace of God, the amazing skill of his defense team, and pure dumb luck.

        Were you not watching the trial? Did you not see that every piece of significant evidence supported his story? Did you not see that the prosecution has no unified theory of what happened, but just a scattered strategy of trying to poke holes in the neatly meshed narrative of George’s story and the evidence? You talk of him “getting off” which implies “getting away with” something. He’s not “getting off,” he’s getting acquitted, because he’s not guilty. There’s a significant difference there.

        So tell us, what do you think happened? What do you think he’s guilty of? I mean crimes, not just poor judgment.

          DriveBy in reply to Matt in FL. | July 10, 2013 at 9:39 pm

          Hi Matt, please tell me what a “Concern Troll” is. I know what a troll is.

          Anyway, in addition to what I have put forth tonight. Why doesn’t Treyvon have a single mark/wound/injury, other than his gunshot wound, that was inflicted by George during the fight the George describes as life threatening? George and Treyvon fought from The “T” down two town-homes lengths to where Treyvon’s body laid, well away from the concrete sidewalk(s). Not a scratch from George’s fingernails on any part of Treyvon. Not a bite mark anywhere on Treyvon inflicted by George. Nothing. Something in the picture is missing for me.

          Matt in FL in reply to Matt in FL. | July 10, 2013 at 9:48 pm

          From urbandictionary.com, because they do it better than I could:

          In an argument (usually a political debate), a concern troll is someone who is on one side of the discussion, but pretends to be a supporter of the other side with “concerns”. The idea behind this is that your opponents will take your arguments more seriously if they think you’re an ally.

          Because I’m a gun person, I often see it in the guise of an argument like, “Guys, I’m a 2A supporter just like y’all, but I really don’t understand why anyone needs to carry more than 10 rounds.”

          In your case, it’s the “I’m on George’s side, but who carries a gun to the grocery store?” argument. Or the “I want George to get off, but I am still concerned about the positioning of TM’s body.” Or “George may walk, but why does TM have no visible injuries if they had such a knock-down, drag-out fight?” I’m paraphrasing your arguments, of course, but you’ll find the essential elements are accurate.

          As I have identified you as such, I’m not going to prolong the conversation any further.

          DriveBy in reply to Matt in FL. | July 10, 2013 at 9:59 pm

          Great, thanks so much Matt. So you have identified me as a “Concerned Troll” and therefore I definitely am a “Concerned Troll.” Seriously!? You seemed so much more intelligent that that Matt.

          Concerns, dissent, questions, discussion all mean Concerned Troll. Definitively…

        VetHusbandFather in reply to DriveBy. | July 10, 2013 at 9:39 pm

        I’m glad to see that to prosecutors were able to create a ‘reasonable doubt’ in your mind that events happened exactly as GZ said they occurred. But honestly it doesn’t matter one bit. The prosecutors were supposed to prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt that he carried these acts out in ill-will and with a depraved mind, and yet you nor the defense can put together a coherent story of how things progressed from point A to B to C in a way that supports your story. When all the evidence points one direction, and none of it points another direction then Occam’s razor will usually give you the right answer, or in this case at least a reasonable doubt in the far-fetched complicated answer.

          Why are you saying, “in a way that supports your story.” I don’t have a story. I am not on trial. I did not kill a human being.

          “I don’t have a story.”

          You certainly do. Your story is that

          1. although GZ has a perfectly good and reasonable story of self defense which is an adequate defense against the state’s charges (either Murder 2 or manslaughter), and

          2. the state has obviously been unable to punch serious holes in that story or provide a coherent alternate which shows GZ to be guilty of a violation of Florida law, nevertheless

          3. GZ should be convicted of something.

          Whatever your notion is, it certainly isn’t law. If GZ’s actions were entirely legal, why would anyone with any respect for law & order insist on convicting him of anything?

          “I did not kill a human being.”

          That is NOT why GZ is on trial.

          Are all the “concern trolls” we’ve seen here at LI over the past few days the same person using different aliases? They’ve all followed the same logical fallacy of pretending the case is about things it really isn’t.

          VetHusbandFather in reply to VetHusbandFather. | July 10, 2013 at 11:06 pm

          Driveby… that’s the problem and the prosecution doesn’t either. But there needs to be one in order to convict GZ, that’s the way that the law works. You can’t just say convict someone of something because the facts line up in a way that shows they could have done it. The facts have to line up in a way that shows they did do it. A lot of people in this country seem eager to forget that when it suits their political aims.

        AZ_Langer in reply to DriveBy. | July 10, 2013 at 10:04 pm

        Except for the media-hyped political and race-based rabble rousing, GZ never would have been charged. He wouldn’t have needed that brilliant defense team because his story and the evidence convinced the local authorities that he’d fired in self-defense because he feared for his life.

          DriveBy in reply to AZ_Langer. | July 10, 2013 at 10:13 pm

          Yes, correct! Agreed! The only thing is… now there has been a trial and we know more. The jury will have the case soon. I have some questions now that the trial is over, questions that I did not have before it began. Apologies. I will let everyone go on with saying things to one another that they know all others will approve of – until tomorrow. Goodnight..

          VetHusbandFather in reply to AZ_Langer. | July 10, 2013 at 11:10 pm

          Driveby: The point is “having some questions” isn’t good enough. Do you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that GZ wanted to kill TM that night? That he meant to kill TM because he hated him or “people like him”? If you just have a few doubts about GZ’s honesty, then honestly that’s not good enough.

On Fox News: Did Justice Department support anti-Zimmerman protests after Martin shooting?

Apparently the Justice Dept. sent a crew to Sanford to help organize the demonstrations against Zimmerman.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/10/did-justice-department-support-anti-zimmerman-protests-after-trayvon-shooting/#ixzz2YhcCAvvr

I thought the state only had a total of 3 hours which would give Guy 30 minutes?

    Matt in FL in reply to robbi. | July 12, 2013 at 12:50 pm

    It’s flexible, but totally up to the judge. MOM went a little over 3 hours, I think, but as long as they keep it within reason, Judge Nelson will probably not tap her watch at them.


Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend