Today began with the expectation that it would the the day on which the State rested its case. That proved true, and it was. It was also among the most bizarre and disturbing days of a lengthy trial full to the brim with bizarre and disturbing days.
Sybrina Fulton, Trayvon Martin’s Mother
The first State witness of the day was, as anticipated Sybrina Fulton. She had two missions for her appearance: (1) identify the screamer in the background of the Jenna Lauer 911 recording as her son, Trayvon Martin; and (2) avoid saying anything nice about the reputation or character of her son that would open the door to the defense introducing into evidence Martin’s history of violence and drug use. She accomplished both.
Sybrina Fulton, Trayvon Martin’s mother, Part 2
Sybrina Fulton, Trayvon Martin’s mother, Part 3
There was never, of course, any question that she would say exactly that, nor that the defense would fail to point out the suggestive conditions in which the identification initially took place–in the Mayor’s office, surrounded by family and family lawyers/advisors, and without any law enforcement officer present. Ms. Fulton’s credibility was also substantively damaged when she claimed that she had not known before hearing the tape that it was believed to contain the sound of her son’s last, desperate screams. That the persons responsible for playing that tape would not have prepared her beforehand for the shock–to not do so could only be described as monstrous.
Jahvaris Fulton, Trayvon Martin’s Half-brother
Next up was Martin’s half-brother, Jahvaris Fulton, also a son of Sybrina Fulton. He testified on the stand that the screamer was Trayvon Martin. On cross-examination, as so often has happened to State witnesses, the credibility of his testimony quickly vanished. Defense counsel O’Mara pointed out that two weeks after first hearing the recording played Jahvaris was still stating to reporters that he wasn’t sure that the recorded screams were those of Trayvon. When pressed, his answers became a series of “don’t know,” “not sure, ” can’t remember,” almost as if he’d been pushed outside the boundaries of the coaching for his testimony.
Jahvaris Fulton, Trayvon Martin’s half-brother, Part 2
Jahvaris Fulton, Trayvon Martin’s half-brother, Part 3
Jahvaris Fulton, Trayvon Martin’s half-brother, Part 4
Jahvaris Fulton, Trayvon Martin’s half-brother, Part 5
After Jahvaris the State introduced Dr. Shiping Bao, the medical examiner who had conducted the actual autopsy on Trayvon Marting. I can come up with no positive way to describe Dr. Bao’s testimony, nor the time at present to make the herculean effort to do so, but perhaps will touch on it in a post this weekend. Let it just be said that not only was his testimony not compelling of guilt, it would seem prudent for Dr. Bao to be exploring alternatives to his present employment.
State Rests, Defense Motions for Directed Verdict of Acquittal, Nelson Denies
At that, the State rested its case. The defense, in the person of Mark O’Mara, then made a rather desultory oral motion for a directed verdict of acquittal (in addition, presumably, to written motions separately submitted to the court). Unlike O’Mara’s usually energetic demeanor, this presentation was made in the tone of a lawyer speaking on a point of great importance on which he knew the judge had already decided against him.
Mantei provided the State’s counter to the motion for a directed verdict in a manner that cannot readily be described in language suitable for a family-accessible blog. To say it was histrionic, lacking in factual evidence, and rife with abject fabrications, would be to put the matter too kindly. O’Mara returned with fire in his belly to counter Mantei, showing the kind of firm but fierce determination we’ve come to expect from the defense.
After these lengthy arguments by both sides, Nelson rejected the motion for an acquitted verdict in a two sentence statement from the bench, which was disappointing but totally in keeping with her track record in this trial–nearly perfect reflexive support of the State prosecutors and disfavor of the defense.
What WAS surprising is when she immediately insisted–demanded, really–that the defense immediately call their first witness. This is notable because of the hour–5PM on a Friday afternoon in a long, long trial. For those not familiar with state courts, if you ever need to test fire a cannon without risk of human injury, any courthouse in the country at 5PM on a Friday is a pretty safe testing ground.
Gladys Zimmerman, George Zimmerman’s Mother
The first defense witness was a bit of a surprise, but the kind I’ve come to expect from O’Mara and West–George Zimmerman’s mother, Gladys Zimmerman. She was here on a similar mission to that of Sabryna Fulton–to testify that the voice screaming for help on the Jenna Lauer 911 recording was her son. This she did. On cross Bernie de la Rionda took the tack of suggesting that one couldn’t really be expected to accurately match a person’s normal voice to that of them screaming–a deeply ironic approach considering that only before he had expected just that of Sabryna Fulton, and indeed had argued for such a matching through many days and experts of a Frye hearing. Asked if she had ever before heard her son scream like on the tape, Mrs. Zimmerman could only be honest–no, not exactly like that.
O’Mara came back strong, however. Is that scream of anguish, fear, and terror without question your son’s voice?” “Yes,” she answered.
Jorge Meza, Orange County Courthouse Deputy, Uncle of George Zimmerman
The second defense witness was George Zimmerman’s uncle, Jorge Meza, an Orange County Courthouse deputy with 36 years experience in uniform (Orange County abuts Seminole County). He appeared this day not as a law enforcement officer, however, but simply as George’s uncle. He testified that he had been at home working on his computer while his wife separately watched the news on television when he heard the scream come from the TV.
Instantly, he said, he knew it was George. “All I heard on the TV was the scream, it was my nephew screaming for his life, without question. It WAS George screaming.” He explained the sound was so familiar to him because George had long played with his own sons, and he was familiar with their laughs and screams together. “I felt the screams in my heart,” he testified firmly but emotionally. It is notable that this is the first member of either family who has claimed to have identified the voice absent a suggestive environment.
Officer Meza was the last witness of the day, and so the last two witness the jury will mull over the weekend will be Zimmerman’s mother and uncle having identified George Zimmerman as the screamer on the 911 call.
Final Thought for the Week: Get Ready for a Brutal Defense
One aside before I fully wrap this up. To me, the biggest take home message of the day was not the scream identification of either the Martin or Zimmerman family, but rather the mid-trial motions and response by the State. Mantei’s web of half-truths and claims utterly unsupported by any evidence whatever showed the State was as hungry for George Zimmerman’s hide as they must have been when first handed the political prosecution of their careers. They would see George Zimmerman do life in prison, whether warranted by the evidence or not, or they would die in the effort. Given the almost complete lack of direct evidence, and the need to wildly interpret the available circumstantial evidence–and particularly following the utter debacle that was the Dr. Bao testimony–one could only imagine that their fervor would have diminished. Not so.
O’Mara’s response was that of a sheepdog to a wolf. If the State wanted Zimmerman’s hide, they’d have to fight for it, hard, and at high cost. Any thought that there might be a relatively brief defense was cast aside. I expect that not only will there be a vigorous defense, it will be a 10 gauge double-barreled coach-gun defense, to the head.
One cannot but draw the natural parallel–just as Trayvon Martin sought to punish George Zimmerman and discovered at the cost of his life that Zimmerman was not the easy target he’d perceived him to be, now it is the turn of Zimmerman’s defense team to similarly disabuse the State prosecutors. Their lives, of course, are secure. I would not, however, want my professional reputation to be at the wrong end of the defense’s considerable talent and righteous attention.
Have a Great Weekend! Keep Eyes Open for Analysis Moving Forward
OK, that’s it for today. This weekend I’ll write up a lengthier post about both side’s oral arguments in their mid-trial motions today, and what it suggests for their respective strategies moving forward. If time permits, I’ll also try to put some additional detail into the remarkable detail of Dr. Shiping Bao today–the most remarkable piece of courtroom testimony I’ve ever seen by someone who is presumably a professional at such appearances.
Other than that, I wish you all a safe and secure weekend,
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
P.S. Some exciting news: “Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition” and I got quoted extensively in both the Washington Post and Chicago Tribune of the last couple of days. Read all about it, including links to the actual news pieces, here:
Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition–Mentioned in Chicago Tribune, Washington Post
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.
Many thanks to Professor Jacobson for the invitation to guest-blog on the Zimmerman trial here on Legal Insurrection!
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
i kind of get that carol
nobody wanted this
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2013/06/30/how-and-why-the-media-got-it-so-wrong-the-zimmerman-case-packaged-and-sold-by-ryan-julison-benjamin-crump-natalie-jackson/
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2013/06/30/how-and-why-the-media-got-it-so-wrong-the-zimmerman-case-packaged-and-sold-by-ryan-julison-benjamin-crump-natalie-jackson/
i need a smoke
After reading Julison’s words I need a shower.
The blogger is to be commended for making the link back to Washington. IMO, anyone who believes this case is being directed by the State of Florida is living in a dream world. This mess has Eric Holder’s fingerprints all over it.
[…] Legal Insurrection has today’s courtroom information and videos. […]
Ok, I’m not a Lawyer or anything, but if I were a juror, here’s some examples of where the prosecution failed to make their case.
1) Trying to prove TM was the one screaming on the tapes. Going by the testimony of the mother’s/family alone this is at best a toss up, which means reasonable doubt is there. If you believe Good’s eye witness account that GZ was on top, its pretty much the nail in the coffin.
2) Trying to prove that GZ racially profiled TM, indicating ill-will/depraved mind. It seems like the prosecution dropped this one about a week into the case. Certainly GZs interactions with his professor should be enough to draw a reasonable doubt that GZs actions were racially motivated.
3) Trying to prove that GZ falsely profiled TM as a ‘criminal’. I feel like the defense can do a decent job debunking this one. It’s pretty clear from the tape that it was the actions of TM that made GZ suspect he was up to no good not the appearance. In the non-emergency call he describes how TM is just looking at houses in the rain, and looks drugged up. The smoking gun for their ‘criminal’ profiling would be if he had told the dispatcher that TM was dressed like a thug and didn’t fit in. I think the defense can and should drive a few nails into this one in the upcoming week to make sure there is reasonable doubt.
4) Trying to prove that GZ initiated the fight. Really all we have on this one is GZ’s testimony and Dee Dee’s ear-witness account, the most incriminating parts of which she only recalled during her day at court. Taking an impartial look, you may think there is credit to Dee Dee’s account if you buy into all her other excuses. However, what really strengthen’s GZ’s account of the fight is the challenge interview, when the police claimed to have a tape. He would be caught in his lie very quickly if he had started the fight and the whole thing had been on video, so I doubt he’d be relieved to hear that it had. Now Dee dee on the other hand, I wonder how she would react if the police told her that a recording had been found of her whole conversation with TM. Anyway, reasonable doubt is already there due to conflicting accounts, and bolstered by GZ’s challenge interview.
5) Trying to prove that GZ had a depraved mind by showing that he was obsessed with vigilante justice. There is reasonable doubt, all over the place on this one: turning down a civilian/leo hybrid opportunity, the professor’s testimony that his stated goal was to become a state prosecutor, plus just a total lack of any psychological expert willing to testify on behalf of the state to make this argument. I don’t think the jury will buy any of this.
6) Trying to prove that GZ intentionally/maliciously killed TM. Eye witness accounts, and physical evidence put all sorts of reasonable doubt in this one. If he was acting out of malice: why just one bullet? why wait until TM was on top of him to shoot? why the surprise when her learned TM hadn’t survived? The state is weaving all sorts of wild tales to make the evidence fit together into their narrative, but unfortunately for them coming up with an implausible way that things might have happened, usually means there is lots of reasonable doubt in their stories.
Now has the defense proved to me yet that GZ didn’t do it? Honestly who cares. It only matters that I have doubts about whether or not GZ did it, and that is good enough for an acquittal.
Spot on Vet.
Are there any recent picture of Trayvon with Jahvaris? Look at how Jahvaris looks next to John Guy, then imagine TM as that size instead of the 14 year old images.
If I were a juror, my main concern would be that GZ never identified himself as a neighbourhood watch. Therefore, the two individual’s were suspicious of each other.
If I had been followed while a pedestrian by someone in a truck who was obviously tracking me, I would be concerned.
He was on the phone and noted a “creep a** cracker” was following him. Creepy indicates scary to me. So, TM was aware and tentative of GZ.
GZ was also suspicious of TM. But, GZ is in the power position. He was the decider. And he made several bad decisions based on his role as a trained neighbourhood watch person.
While he was not commanded to stay in his truck, he was advised it was not necessary to pursue the individual. His not abiding by that advise placed everyone in peril; himself, TM, and police who would discover an unanticipated escalated situation.
The easiest way to have defused the situation would have been to identify himself from the get go. TM would have understood that a non-criminal was watching and following him.
I see TM as the one who was authorised to used deadly force, as he was being pursued by an aggressor. Most statutes support this position as well.
So, I think GZ has a tall hill to climb because he did not abided by his training and advice.
You know, I read comments like SDK and I just shake my head in disbelief that there are people out there who can be so wrong but have no clue.
TM had no right to use deadly force or to attack GZ as the simple fact is GZ posed no threat to him. It seems to me that the reason TM attacked GZ was simply down to the kind of person TM was. He didnt have any care what so ever for the welfare of GZ and saw GZ as simply another victim or another notch on the belt (another creepy ass cracker smashed).
And thats the whole point people like SDK appear to wilfully ignore…getting out of a vehicle is not an illegal action.
The criminal action that created this whole problem was TM’s fatal decision to attack GZ…a mistake he will never make again, and most likely for the good of the community too.
Regards
Mailman
Since a lot of people in the general public seem to reason about this exactly the way sdk reasons about it, I don’t think it’s simply misunderstanding of the law. I think it’s a genuine “cultural clash.”
If you live in the ghetto, basically in any area where criminals roam openly and with impunity, perhaps it is “understood” as a matter of “street survival” that you don’t “come up on” ANYONE else. And doing so is perceived as both an imminent and dangerous threat because the ONLY reason someone in that environment would follow someone is with the intent of doing serious bodily harm to them.
In Trayvon Martin’s world, his real world, not the simulcra presented to us as a trial showpiece, the mere act of following him meant–to him, and appropriately in the context of his real world–that you had intent to do him seriously bodily harm.
Of course that’s a narrative the prosecution simply can’t use.
But it’s clearly implied by everyone who doesn’t see at least reasonable doubt in these facts, like sdk.
I think that Marco100 may be onto something here, with TM maybe operating with inner city/ghetto rules and GZ with urban/middle class rules. The problem here, of corse, is that the laws were written by the middle class, and not the under class, so GZ, and not TM, was correct as to the legal expectations in their encounter. GZ probably could have said almost anything to TM, including disrespecting his mother, challenging his e masculinity, etc, without TM having the legal right to assault GZ (and esp. not to use deadly force, as his striking GZ’s head against the concrete may have been).
The problem with a lot of these types of arguments (even if they held any legal water) is that Zimmerman has said over and over that he was not pursuing Martin at the time he was attacked, and there is no evidence that proves otherwise.
I am quite sure the defense is going to point out that if Trayvon Martin was being pursued and was trying to escape, he had more than enough time in which to do so…from the time Zimmerman lost sight of him to the time of the shooting he could have been home several times over. It was only a couple of hundred yards. The only story that makes logical sense is that Zimmerman is telling the truth…Trayvon did not run away, he did not go home, he was lying in wait to attack. That’s not defending yourself, under anyone’s definition.
GZ left his truck with the explicit purpose of following TM. In another moment of incompetence, he may have lost track of TM and even where he was. BUT to say he was not following AT THAT MOMENT is ridiculous.
I normally refrain from ad hominem and stick to argument. But for you, sir, I’ll make an exception, because you are a moron and a racist.
You’re a moron because you exhibit not a scintilla of understanding of the legal theory of self defense. You use the equivalent of the “short skirt, she brought it on herself” argument in the attempt to muddy clear legal doctrine.
Let’s say I follow you for an entire day, until you finally turn around and say “Why you followin’ me, Cracker?” To which I reply “Because you’re ugly, a moron and a racist.” I carry on a length about your lack of stature, wit and charm. I recite the Magna Carta and sing all of Jesus Christ Superstar.
YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO TOUCH ME.
Got it? Trayvon, who looked like the son some people never had, started a fight. He won the fight. He lost his life because the loser of the fight was legally armed and legally shot him in self defense. End of story. Cue the violins. And shut the f up.
As I recall, according to Zimmerman’s story, he left the truck to try to read road signs, so that he could give the police useful information about the location of the suspicious person, should they think it worthwhile to check out.
And he was returning to his truck having lost sight of Tray when Tray struck him.
And he was doing what the dispatcher suggested. Keep an eye on him. Last suggestion (near the “T”)
Dispatch:”You don’t have to follow him.”
Z: “OK”
Why is it ridiculous? His story makes perfect sense nd totally fits with the timeline and physical evidence. Ask yourself, if you really believ Zimmerman pursied him till he caught him and then initiated a confrontation, how in the world did he end up wiht all the injuries and Trayvon Martin with none? He had a gun for goodness sake…do you think he chased down Martin, grabbed him and then laid down to let himself get beat? It’s clear he never saw it coming or he would have at least put up some semblance of a fight. Trayvon didn’t have a scratch on him aside from on his knuckles. The “Zimmerman chased him, caught him and confronted him” theory makes absolutely no logical sense. He’d have to be a complete idiot to attempt such a maneuver. Not to mention he was 5’7″ 204 lbs. and simply not in the physical condition to be able to catch up to a 17 year old high school linebacker, even if he had (inexplicably) wanted to.
P.S. sorry for the typos, multitasking!
Two points:
1. The Defense claims: TM appeared suddenly out of hiding and confronted GZ, TM – one sentence, “Why are you following me? or What’s your problem, MFKer?” and GZ replied,”I don’t have a problem…” then GZ was decked mid-sentence, GZ didn’t have a chance to identify himself.
Earlier when GZ spotted TM, he was on the phone to the dispatcher and the goal was for the police to do the confronting and questioning, not GZ. When TM circled the car earlier, taunting him, GZ was on the phone, but the police were on the way. The dispatcher did not suggest rolling down the window and identifying himself, but urged GZ to ‘sit tight in the boat’ until the police arrived.
2. The fact is, GZ didn’t buy the gun for use in apprehending or harming the burglers, but because of the dangerous pit bulls in the neighborhood.
People make way way to much over the supposed following of TM. GZ did nothing illegal in following TM from a distance. He was NOT told to NOT follow TM. And if he had been he was under no legal obligation to comply with such a directive. No reasonable person would expect to be viciously assaulted for doing what GZ did. After all, did you hear the testimony earlier in the trial that a burglary in the SAME NEIGHBORHOOD was solved by people FOLLOWING the suspect?
I don’t understand why so many people think that the expected response to someone following you is to viciously assault them (.e.g. someone follows you = “authorized to use deadly force.”) That is hardly a reasonable expectation. How did TM know that GZ was not simply trying to tell him he dropped his bag of Skittles and was attempting to return them to him?
Zimmerman was never following trademark. He did initially run in the same general direction he saw trademark running after he lost sight. When he acknowledged to the operator that he was “following”, that was just semantics. “following” implies a visal or a trail or something. Zimmerman just heading in the same direction to see which way trademark went, which he couldnt do because of the darkness.
Plus, trademark ran down the T and made it back to his father’s fiancee’s house. There isn no evidence at all to suggest zimmerman went down the T. So there was no actual following.
“I see TM as the one who was authorised to used deadly force, as he was being pursued by an aggressor. Most statutes support this position as well.”
This is a very interesting comment given that you have extensively analyzed the facts of the case. But no where in your analysis do you indicate any facts which would have “authorised” TM to use “deadly force” against GZ.
And the scary part, the really scary part of what you wrote, is that you don’t even seem to have any comprehension whatsoever of this omission in your analysis.
A lot of people seem to think it was OK for TM to use “deadly force” against GZ simply because TM believed GZ was stalking or following TM.
But that’s just not the appropriate standard. Deadly force can only be used in response to an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury, or reasonable fear of same. You never stated any facts by which TM could have reasonably felt he was in imminent danger. Just that he was being followed (even assuming that’s what actually happened.)
Maybe in the ghetto people are very aware of their “space,” everyone is careful NOT to follow anyone else mysteriously, and doing so basically automatically means you are going to jump them. But that’s not the legal standard in the so-called “civilized” world. None of the self defense cases cited either by prosecution or defense ever suggested you could beat someone up simply because they were following you.
Oh and by the way…do you realize you just ADMITTED that you interpreted the evidence as proving that it was TM who initiated use of “deadly force” on GZ, not the other way around?
LOL
To believe that TM was authorized to use deadly force merely because he was being followed is laughable. If this were in fact the law, this would mean that any time I am walking out to my car in a parking lot, or even walking down the sidewalk, and someone is behind me, I am free to draw a pistol and shoot them dead.
I hardly think that there would be a single case that would support such a result.
Precisely.
“In Florida prosecutions, self-defense is a type of affirmative defense that operates to avoid (or cancel) the legal effect of a violent act (such as a homicide or battery), which would ordinarily subject the accused to criminal liability. When an accused raises a self-defense claim, he or she effectively admits to the truth of the alleged act (i.e. that he or she committed violence against another person), but justifies the act by asserting that the act was reasonably necessary to save him- or herself from the imminent use of unlawful force by the other person. In effect, the defendant says: “Yes, I committed the violent act. But I did not commit the violent act unlawfully because, under the facts and circumstances, my acts were justifiable to prevent physical or legal harm to myself.”
We already knew that. Nice cut and paste, now … care to cite a case where a jury bought “I was in such fear due to following that I didn’t warn, brandish, or yell for help, I shot him”…?
The State has to prove to the jury that GZ was not in justifiable fear of “physical or legal harm” when he stopped the “use of unlawful force by the other person” by shooting him. Read your own post.
Although there is no evidence that Zimmerman followed Martin, just for kicks, let’s say he did. That in itself is no crime. And think on this. If you saw someone watching you and it scared you, wouldn’t you make a beeline for a safe place, like an apartment? Why then did Martin end up at the “T” in the sidewalk, well away from the apartment and safety? IF Zimmerman had been following him, wouldn’t the altercation have taken place closer to the apartment? I encourage you to find a Google map of the apartment complex, and find the clubhouse, the “T” sidewalk, and Brandi Green’s apartment. These elements can’t be disputed. They show that Martin could have avoided the conflict that ultimately resulted in his death had he just gone home. The fact that it appears he went to where Zimmerman was, and it was he that racially profiled Zimmerman, tells me he instigated the confrontation. Beyond that, Zimmerman’s injuries would make any reasonable person fear for their life and self-defense was justified. What was said by whom means nothing. That’s a white rabbit issue.
Thats right. There was no following. Zimmerman went across the top of the T in the sidewalk. Trademark went diwn the T. Two different directions. It was only after trademark went back to the T intersection that the confrontation happened, making it his fault, not zimmerman’s.
Interesting. Logical, too. That makes Trayvon a racist and his mother a perjurer … the latter being all but certain.
I guess the old adage is right, if you say something often enough it becomes the the truth. Zimmerman was never told to stay in the truck, the NEN operator did not even know that he was in a vehicle at the time. He heard the wind noise and correctly assumed that GZ was following and advised him not to.
As to the point of identifying himself, this is arguing both sides of the same coin, Zimmerman is faulted for not following NW procedures for following TM, and at the same time he is asked to break the procedure by approaching and identifying himself as NW. It is damn if he does and damn if he doesn’t.
The bottom line is this there were no laws broken in any actions that Zimmerman or TM did, prior to the incident taking place, it is from this point on that the case should be decided. Had the prosecution proven that anything prior to that was relevant, that could be argued, right now the only thing that might have some relevance prior to the encounter seems to be whether TM was under the influence of drugs, all else is superfluous by the prosecution.
sdk has explained it very nicely.
TM was “authorised” to use deadly force against GZ because GZ was the “aggressor.”
I guess if you buy Jeantel’s testimony that TM said “Get off!” and then interpret that as meaning that GZ laid hands on TM and initiated the fight, there is actually some merit to that POV.
But just because GZ may have initiated the confrontation (I don’t buy that, but some evidently do) doesn’t mean he wasn’t entitled to use deadly force to defend himself against TM’s use of “deadly force” during the escalation of the confrontation, or at least create a reasonable doubt about the issue.
sdk seems to think TM did indeed use deadly force on GZ which is reasonable given what Mr. Good saw.
That’s the nuance I think a lot of people don’t understand. Whoever initiated the confrontation doesn’t answer the question of whether or not GZ could use deadly force to defend himself when TM escalated the threat level of the confrontation.
Even if I accost someone on the street and grab them, which is about the most Jeantel’s phone call implies GZ might have done, none of the case law cited entitled TM to escalate by use of deadly force (ground and pound). And at that point, when it escalated, there is clearly reasonable doubt as to who initiated the escalation, and therefore reasonable doubt on whether self defense was justified.
And if there is reasonable doubt about it, GZ should walk.
“Get off” is a slang term that means ‘Come on and fight.’ or ‘Bring it on.’
Get off is also what TM might have been saying to Jeantel … Not to GZ. Get off the phone, so I can beat this guy up. That’s why Jeantel assumed all was well after her last phone call. Just some beat down of a creepy cracker.
George Zimmerman was walking back to his car when Trayvon Martin approached and challenged him. When asked “What’s your problem?” Zimmerman replied that he had no problem. Martin said, “You’ve got a problem now,” and attacked Zimmerman. But in your view, Martin is acting in self defense, because Zimmerman should not have followed Martin and because in a moment of stress, he did not explain himself as well as you think he should have? That is not self defense under any principle of law of whioch I am aware.
Coincidentally, what would be an occasion for self defense is:
1. You are on your back with someone straddling you.
2. He is pounding you in the face and slamming your head into the concrete.
3. When he finds the firearm at your waist, he reaches for it, saying “You’re going to die tonight.”
I realize that is Zimmerman’s account, but significant parts of it have been corroborated. This case screams reasonable doubt about any alleged guilt of Zimmerman.
sdk-wp: “I see TM as the one who was authorised to used deadly force, as he was being pursued by an aggressor. Most statutes support this position as well.”
I’m modestly familiar with the use-of-force statutes in the United States. Could you point me to the one that defines “following at a distance” as an ‘act of aggression” warranting a deadly force response?
Sure, I’ll wait.
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
TM was being pursued my a person with a gun.
TM did not have a gun.
GZ and TM had been watching each other.
GZ was the aggressor at every stage.
This would put him TM as the victim. This is my point.
BUT, my MAIN point is that GZ should have identified himself earlier.
sdk-wp, there was no way that TM could have known that GZ had a gun, because it was concealed. And failure to identify yourself is not the threat of deadly force, which is REQUIRED to justify the use of deadly force.
Please set your ignorance aside and read the law.
I’m afraid you’re asking the impossible.
Not that it matters much legally here, but you seem to be glossing over the facts that concealed carry is FL law, carrying concealed (or probably even openly) as long is legal and not a legal provocation, and, maybe most importantly for your argument, TM didn’t know that GZ was armed until the very end, when he apparently finally saw the gun and grabbed for it. In other words you can’t logically (or legally) justify TM physically assaulting GZ based on a gun that TM had not seen at the time of his assault.
You claimed to have knowledge of the statutes that give TM the right to use deadly force on someone following.
The question to you was direct and concise, yet you fail and/or refuse to point out what is(are) the statute(s).
Would you admit you just made that up?
sdk – Lets say you are walking down the street and you notice someone following you. You don’t know anything else about them. Is it your contention that you then have the right to knock them down to the sidewalk, straddle them, and beat them with your fists?
let’s say that someone from a truck has been staring at you and monitoring your actions. You leave and he gets OUT of his truck and follows you? That guy in the truck – well he actually is packing heat. (You do not know this at the time).
This is the scenario.
SDK please, please, put your “theory” to the test next time someone is following you. Just make sure their packing heat (round chambered) and give me the address to send flowers.
At least we’ll be rid of your nonsense.
Yes I meant “they’re” … what do poor typists and single women have in common?
They’re both hunt n’ peckers.
***giggle***
sdk-wp, you clearly don’t understand self defense law. The ONLY time you are allowed to use deadly force is when deadly force or the threat of deadly force is being used against you.
Regardless of what you think of GZ’s actions, unless he threatened TM in some way, TM had no right to use any force at all against GZ, much less deadly force. The law doesn’t allow you to cold cock someone simply because they are following you.
Even if you are yelling at someone, indeed cursing at them, the law does not allow you to use force against them. Given the facts as we know them, there would have been ZERO justification for TM “defending” himself unless GZ drew his weapon and pointed it at TM, and there is ZERO evidence that he did.
I disagree. The “he shouldn’t have left his car” mindset seems to me to be the same as “she shouldn’t have worn that dress” or “he shouldn’t have worn that expensive watch.” IMO, despicable justifications for violent assault.
It’s the same mentality that blames rape victims (usually women) because of how they dressed or the company they kept. “They were askin for it” is not a legal or moral justification, even if the victim put themselves in a compromising situation.
This post has been the most rational and well articulated response I’ve seen on this forum. And what does it get? 9 thumbs down, two up. Tells me so much about these viewers.
People here don’t want rational – they want Zimmerman to walk. And they will spin it anyway they can to push that opinion. Problem is, the jury will decide, and I am confident that they too can see that Zimmerman made very poor decisions that put everyone into a higher risk scenario, and eneded the life of a young man. He may not get 2nd degree murder, but he will get manslaughter – I don’t think there’s anyway those jurors will let him walk away a free man. This man was the nexus of this whole mess.
Oh good grief, what on earth is “rational” about thinking someone “deserved” to get his head beat into concrete because he got out of his car? I’m an anti-gun liberal but the law is the law and GZ did not break the law.
What is rational about believing that someone called the police to tell them what was doing and give his location while he stalked someone out of pure rational animus, right before attacking and shooting the guy for no particular reason? How often does someone with a “depraved mind” call the police right before committing wanton violence?
What was rational about SDK’s post? Andrew was able to undermine his whole argument with one simple legal question (to which SDK was unable to respond). You can come up with all sorts of rationalizations for why you think Zimmerman is a terrible person and why you think Martin is a saint. But the law is blind to your moral relativity, and the law says that Zimmerman was right and Martin was as wrong as could be.
I suppose you will have no trouble citing those statutes that support your narrative.
The most interesting part of your comment is that, like Trayvon Martin did, you think that you have the right to use lethal force against somebody following you.
You reveal yourself to be just like Trayvon Martin: a thug.
The above comment is a response to sdk-wp | July 6, 2013 at 4:00 am
SDK, you have no clue. There is not a state in this country where you are allowed to attack someone just because they are following you.
Where do you come up with that?
You seem to lack an understanding of what does, and does not justify using lethal force. One must have a reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury at the exact time he or she deploys lethal force. It is an easy case to make that George Zimmerman could have had such fear.
The argument is that the same state of fear reasonably existed in TM; being stalked and pursued by a stranger.
Try using evidence and facts instead of msm talking points. Trademark made it back tothe house where he was staying. That means he was no longer being ‘threatened’ (if you believe following someone is a reasonable threat). If he was scared and felt threatened by zimmerman, why did he leave the safety of his home and return to the sidewalk T – over 400 feet – to confront zimmerman?
Just because you believe it happened a certain way does not make it truth. The evidence shows you are wrong.
So, it’s you’re belief that someone merely observing and following you generates an identical fear for your life as someone actually assaulting you, announcing an intention to kill you, and actually engaging in the process of trying to kill you?
I’m sorry, I just realized that IS actually what you believe, and I just wasted my time typing the preceding sentence, and arguing with an intellectual midget wearing delusional ideological blinders.
Not the same fear at all. One person thinks, somewhat implausibly, that he’s being followed by some crazy-ass but not obviously dangerous cracker; the other thinks that the next blow he takes to the head might be the one to cause him permanent brain injury or even death.
Hardly comparable.
It has to be imminent fear and it has to be reasonable. I’ve lived in the inner city of Philadelphia for many years and there have been plenty of times I’ve felt people watching me or been made uneasy by someone walking behind me. That certainly didn’t give me the right to pre-emptively attack them. Not to mention you are making a whole heck of a lot of assumptions. Was Trayvon scared, or was he angry? If he was scared one would think he would have exercised a lot of other options he had…running for his life, calling 911, knocking on a neighbor’s door, yelling for help. His actions indicate anger, not fear. If you’re scared of someone you don’t wait around for them to catch up to you and then punch them.
sdk-wp, what you seem to be missing is that the harm needs to be imminent. Although you may perceive someone following you as a ‘threat of harm’ or ‘an aggressive action’ there is no imminence to that threat. Meaning they are about to cause harm to you. You would need something more to make the threat of harm imminent, like if they brandish a weapon or start charging towards you. Maybe one of the legal minds in here could jump in and explain this a little better though.
A useful conceptual framework for exploring whether a situation presented an imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm is the AOJ triad.
The AOJ triad is not, strictly speaking, a “legal” framework applied by courts and such, it’s really just an organized means of distilling the varied facts of a deadly force encounter to its essential elements.
ABILITY–did the other possess some disparity of force that, absent your own defensive use of deadly force, could cause you death or grave bodily harm? This could be a weapon, a disparity in numbers (multiple attackers), a disparity in strength or fighting ability, etc. It can also change over the course of the conflict–if you were fit when the fight began, but became injured over the course of events, “ability” might arise as a result.
OPPORTUNITY–did the other possess the opportunity to bring that “ability” to bear? If he is armed with a contact weapon (knife or club) but is 100 feet away, probably not. Should he close the distance, at some point he would possess the necessary opportunity to bring that threat to bear (Tueller drill, anyone?). Of course, if armed with a firearm he would possess the necessary “opportunity” even at considerable distances.
JEOPARDY–did the other act in a manner that a reasonable person would interpret as evidencing and intention to bring to exploit that “ability” and “opportunity” against you? An armed guard standing near you in a bank has both “ability” and “opportunity”, but does not represent a source of “jeopardy”. A second individual similarly armed and shouting for everyone to get down and waving his gun around clearly does.
Applied to the facts in evidence in this case, the only one of the two actors to demonstrate all three of these factors is Trayvon Martin.
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
This might be a good time to point out that GM shot TM to stop the beating (per his account, and that of witnesses and the evidence). I’m sure the defense will point out that only GM knows if he intended to kill him.
If he didn’t, classic self defense. If he did, well … he succeeded.
Whoops … GZ
You are absolutely incorrect about TM being the one authorized to use deadly force. No jury in the world would believe that TM had cause to believe he was in danger of great bodily injury or death, though not to say he shouldn’t have been afraid of GZ. He had the upper hand 100% during the fight. If he had not continued to pummel GZ it might be a different story, but from what the evidence shows, TM was not going to stop the attack until GZ had either been killed or seriously injured beyond any reasonable or necessary claim of self defense. The fact that he had drugs in his system works against any claims TM was not up to no good. People who use drugs aren’t exactly known for their likeliness to follow the law. One medical examiner has already stated that the amount of THC in TM’s bloodstream ‘could’ have an effect on his behavior. The defense has a ME who literally wrote the book on the subject. I am sure he will testify (not in the presence of the jury) that the amount of THC in TM’s system would affect his behavior as well. GZ stated it looked like TM was on drugs, so in a normal court this would be sufficient to be made known to the jury that TM was on drugs. This judge has shown to have a major bias against the defense, so it is hard to tell if she will allow it. If not, just chalk it up to another one of many reasons to appeal the case, which many experts have stated is probable in the unlikely case that GZ is convicted.
“I see TM as the one who was authorised to used deadly force, as he was being pursued by an aggressor.”
So I can legally kill someone for following me?
Only if after you kill them, you find out that they had a gun on them and you were lucky enough that they didn’t use it. /sarc
I think this is a nice summary of reasonable doubt. Quite frankly I suspect that the jury is quite befudled by the state’s case at this point.
They were told bu the prosecutor that Zimmermans story was a tangled web of lies. The testimony they heard however was the remarkably the consistent account given by Zimmerman ,along with the assessments of both lead investigators that it was consistent. They havent been listening to the prosecutors cheerleaders in the msn. If you think about what they were told they would hear in opening statement by the prosecutor I suspect they are ether angry or confused or some combination of bot
My read is the the jury likes Zimmerman at this point, but that is based on NO direct observation, obviously.
Consider…
On the race thing, Martin is the one who appears to be the bigot. Our young JAG prosecutor LOVES Zimmerman, and it was apparent. Zimmerman is clearly a “minority”, too.
Of the LEOs who have testified, they are at worst neutral, but most were warmly positive in what they had to say about Zimmerman.
Of the State’s experts…well, that (except for the firearms expert) was pretty much a dog’s breakfast, with the Bao testimony setting a new land-speed world record for self destruction by an expert.
The fact witnesses were nicely self-impeaching except for the neighbor who observed…and clearly testified about…Martin being on top of Zimmerman.
Finally, it is easy to identify with an individual on trial for their life at some point in a trial. It is hard to identify with the State when you have fairly unlikeable personalities like BDLR at work.
Couple of comments on the refusal of Nelson to grant GZ Motion for DV.
1. If the judge is satisfied that a question of fact exists, and the factual issue is material; then it must be decided by a jury.
2. The standard is very high for a judge to grant a motion for directed verdict.
3. All is not lost. At the close of trial, judge has the option (in most states) to grant a motion for Judgment NOV if jury comes back with guilty verdict. (Not likely in a political show trial)(NOV: notwithstanding verdict)
Just making the motion for the Directed Verdict had a purpose – to provide the opportunity to summarize the case, to re-state the claims of the Defense, and criticize the Prosecution’s lack of evidence as well as to look at the law underlying all of the above.
It was an opportunity to give the Judge, Prosecution and Martin/Crump team a chance to do the right thing. It was a chance for the Defense to say, “We’ve won, the score is 60-2. We have proved our points, turned all the Prosecution witnesses (except the obvious liars) around for the Defense, so do you want us to keep running up the score?Ready to ‘cry Uncle?’
But no…so they got clobbered again by Mrs. Zimmerman and Uncle Deputy Command Sargeant-Major Meza (Did anyone know he was GZ’s Uncle before he testified? If not, that was priceless.).
Now the score is 80-2.
Expect the defense to make the motion again at the end of their case. This allows them to make a motion for a later JNOV motion to put aside a guilt verdict. Constitution requires the jury to decide issues of fact, so what a JNOV really does to stay w/I the Constitution is for the judge to reconsider a previous motion to directed verdict or dismiss for lack of evidence. My memory is that it has been held to be malpractice to not to have made such motions for dismissals when warranted by circumstances (I.i. When the prosecution didn’t make their case, jury convicted anyway, and JNOV not available for failing to have made timely motion for dismissal based on evidence)
The thing about a JNOV is that it allows the jury to do the judge’s dirty work. Much better all around if the jury gets to acquit, rather than the judge. Then, if the jury really screws up, and convicts when the judge really doesn’t think there is enough evidence, he can set the guilty verdict aside.
Some posts and pictures of the Condo complex appear to show that TM was almost home (was thought to be in back yard when talking to Jentile) and then he “doubled back” to the intersection of the two sidewalks where the altercation occurred. If this is true (and it is quite possible that it’s “internet speculation”) then the question would be “why did TM walk back down the sidewalk to the p[lace where the confrontation occurred?” Did TM seek out a confrontation?
The only problem I have with the consistency in GZ’s testimony on videos is he said TM came out of the “bushes.” All I could see was grass and some scraggly trees. Yes, it was a dark and stormy night . . .
Bingo…what I’ve been screaming about since March 2012…if anyone would really care to look at the layout of the apartment complex and the locations that are important to this narrative, it indicates that Martin initiated the confrontation. If he had truly been afraid he could have easily gotten to the apartment and totally avoided Zimmerman. Where the altercation took place is out of the way of Green’s apartment.
Now that in itself doesn’t give Zimmerman permission to shoot him. But it does shoot down the theory that Zimmerman went after Martin. That’s in irrelevant point though because the only thing that should be at issue is when this altercation escalated and was Zimmerman entitled to use deadly force to stop the attack. The answer must be yes.
I’m seeing a pantload of chatter about his injuries, they weren’t that bad (the state has a new meme to push and Traybots have latched on to it), along with the tired chestnuts of ‘he shouldn’t have followed, he should’ve stayed in his truck, he shouldn’t have had a gun…blah blah blah. You can’t fix stuck on stupid.
**an**
Not only are there bushes nearby, but a slim jim (lock pick) was subsequently found in the bushes at one of the “ear” witnesses house. My take on George’s story is that he was surprised by TM and didn’t know where he came from as he just seemed to suddenly appear.
A slim-jim was found? I was not aware of that. When and where was that mentioned?
It was during Serino’s cross. I can’t recall if it was the cross or recross though. MOM brought it up. IIRC, it was found in subsequent searches outside the Manalo residence.
Fingerprints on the slim Jim?
None mentioned (that I know of) during testimony.
The detective mentioned that a slim jim had been found in the bushes by the Manolo hose. Nothing other than place links it to TM.
Still, it is interesting to consider.
Yes. I found it quite interesting. Especially considering that GZ thought TM might have come out from behind bushes.
I am amazed at some of the contortions that TM supporters go to in blog posts to make their case. They rely very heavily on speculation. As for GZ, he seems to be very consistent with his story, which is much easier when one is telling the truth.
Response:
I am amazed at some of the contortions that GZ supporters go to in blog posts to make their case. They rely very heavily on speculation. As for TM, he can’t tell his story because he’s dead
Herpes again. Very hard to get rid of, I hear.
Very unsightly too.
Your snarky comment aside, here is an example: How did GZ get his injuries?
GZ Supporters: Because his head was getting smashed against the concrete by TM as per eye witness account from Good.
Your turn, please explain how GZ could have received the wounds to his head in a way that is consistent with all physical evidence and eye witness accounts, but doesn’t start with TM on top of GZ beating him up, and end with GZ shooting TM in self defense. Please try to do so without any contortions.
I wish MOM had never allowed GZ to do the Hannity interview. The State is going to use the statement by GZ about “stand your ground” to call GZ liar, liar, liar during closing. Question for the legal eagles. Should MOM in closing say this: “If Dr. Bao cannot remember anything about an autopsy he did last year, what is so surprising about my client not remembering part of a class.” Or should MOM just leave it alone.
If that’s the best evidence the state has I would pretty much ignore it. It’s tangentially related to the case at best.
I agree, since SYG isn’t even in play with this trial. That is a really stupid issue to bring up by the state and shows how weak their case is. It’s like they’re throwing things at a wall and hoping something will stick. Of course, this entire case has been built on lies, obfuscations, distortions, histrionics, threats, smoke, and mirrors.
For the Prosecution to use the Crump/Julison/Jackson Fictional Narrative promoted by the leftist media is beneath contempt.
Hopefully all those who concocted and promulgated this narrative will repent and acknowledge the wrong of their actions**
No doubt many of them will be consigned to wear lovely orange poly-cotton jumpsuits accessorized by silver-tone bangle bracelet and anklet sets and/or be forced to pay fines and damages to the Zimmerman family.
**(Ms. Sybrina Fulton missed her sterling chance to do the right thing during her sworn testimony yesterday)
This awful political circus has been put on for political and fiscal gain by officers of the court, justice and government at the highest level.
And it may have a darker purpose/portent than we have previously imagined, as MC Escher has surmised.
Amishlawyer, I like the ignore it strategy. I would hope someone on the jury in deliberations would say I don’t remember anything about most classes I took.
We also need to keep in mind that “Stand your Ground” is not actually in the statutes that were discussed. That is a media term used to describe it. Although that law, along with use of force laws in general, were discussed, the instructor might or might not have mentioned the term “Stand you ground”.
Something else that is interesting. If becoming educated in your states use of force laws can be construed to indicate a nefarious purpose, why does the state of Florida require citizens to take a course discussing use of force laws in order to obtain a permit to carry a firearm?
Fortunately, forgetting a statute, or even lying to Sean Hannity about your recollection of that statute, is not a crime under Florida law,
Further, SYG is not and never has been relevant to this case. Even if GZ lied about not recollecting it, he may as well have been lying about recollecting a dog licensing law. Lying about SYG, if that’s what you believe he did, is simply not relevant to any material issue in this case.
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
Andrew, their point, which I don’t agree with, is that if he lied on Hannity about SYG, then ALL of his statements must be lies because he is now a proven liar.
Ask just about anyone if they can remember a specific date from a history class or simple algebraic equation learned last year. . . Stand your ground was hardly a household term before this trial.
What are the sanctions, if any, for the comments made by the prosecutor during the request for acquittal phase?
Probably none since it wasn’t in front of the jury so they weren’t prejudiced by it, and trial judges hear so much lying from prosecutors (and defense lawyers) & witnesses day after day that there is nothing in this trial that’s happened yet that is particularly unusual except perhaps how ridiculously bad Bao was given the magnifying glass he was under.
However if BDLR or Mantei try to tell the same kind of lies to the JURY the jury most likely won’t like it one bit. I am sure the jury was VERY unhappy with what they heard from Bao, that’s the only explanation of why they wanted to start hearing from defense witnesses immediately rather than after the weekend break, at least a few of the jurors are probably looking for reasons to acquit.
Bao, in addition to the complete nonsense with his memory failure and secret set of trial notes, obviously LIED to the jury on his direct testimony. He went out of his way to testify that TM could not possibly move at all after being shot. Then on cross examination he completely contradicted himself.
In that context what he said on direct wasn’t simply an error or mistake, it was an outright lie, but it was a stupid one since Bao had to know he would be cross examined on the point.
So when an important state’s witness deliberately lies to the jurors, but apparently thinks them so stupid that they won’t notice they’ve been lied to when the retraction occurs on cross, that’s bound to anger the jurors.
Friday was very damaging to the State. BDLR and Mantei don’t seem as if they will be able to cross-examine very adeptly based on their ineffectiveness against GZ’s mom and uncle.
But who knows? It depends on what the defense witnesses say.
Bao’s testimony had one important element – he changed his mind about the mental/behavioral effect on TM’s of the drugs in TM’s system.
Marijuana is the drug most often correlated/implicated in crime.
Codeine can cause aggression.
“2.1. Opiates (morphine, heroin, and codeine)
Like benzodiazepines, there is considerable confusion regarding the extent to which
opiates are linked to instances of interpersonal aggression. Again like benzodiazepines, a
complex interplay of interpersonal and pharmacologic factors (including withdrawal
factors) are likely at the root of instances of violence manifested by opiate users and/or
abusers.
A large body of literature on the effects of opioids on aggression in animals suggests that
morphine and other opium derivatives temporarily reduce aggressive behavior (Espert,
Navarro, Salvador, & Simon, 1993; Haney & Miczek, 1989; Miczek, Weerts, & DeBold
1993), although this effect, like many of the effects of opioids, will diminish as tolerance
develops (Rodriguez-Arias, Minarro, & Simon, 2001).”
http://www.ukcia.org/research/AgressiveBehavior.pdf
The combination of blunts (cigar stuffed with marijuana joint) plus purple drank (juice or soda + skittles + codeine) may have a cumulative/interactive effect and cause semi-permanent changes on thought processes and behavior, even on the structure, function and chemistry of the brain itself.
Marco nailed it in his first sentence.
[…] to substantiate his thoughts on the case. You can use Mike's link on his article or you can click here. Posted in George Zimmerman, Social […]
What was the outcome of the burglary tool the defense alluded to finding? Also where can I find the testimony of the guy who took photos of George that night? I can find Good’s but having trouble finding the photo guy’s. Tia
Good question. I am going to go way out on a limb and predict that no DNA analysis was done on the slim Jim.
I think you mean Jonathan Manalo. He was the first on the scene after to shooting (just before Officer Smith arrived).
Scroll down
https://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/zimmerman-trial-day-5-analysis-video-states-own-witnesses-undercut-theory-of-guilt/
TM to GZ ” Do you have a problem”
GZ to TM “No”
This is a lie of course. GZ has been watching and describing TM in some detail. “looks like he is up to no good”
GZ should have said, “YES, I am neighbourhood watch, what are you doing around here”
GZ lied and TM knew he lied, because otherwise GZ would have not left his truck and pursued him. Of course GZ was following TM – at least to the extent of being to relate to the police where (the suspicious guy) was going.
Also, GZ was armed.
So, TM has been lied to by an stalker with a gun. Justified to throw a punch in my opinion.
GZ never had his head bashed several times. The medical information simply does not support this. He did perhaps lose the top position as he began to get his a** whipped.
But, TM was justified is using some force under the circumstances.
Yeah, you do have the right to follow. But, GZ was looking for a confrontation.
sdk-wp, for God’s sake please catch up. Go read the law. It’s only a few paragraphs. Then come back here with an intelligent argument based on facts.
Or just go away.
GZ was not initially arrested because of the STG law.
Serino originally wanted GZ arrested.
The judge of the trial ruled against acquittal (at this stage)
Who was defending themselves is the argument here. Which one does the law apply to?
The prosecution presented case history that an aggressor cannot claim self defence.
Wrong.
http://www.thelegalroundtableshow.com/2013/07/zimmerman-murder-manslaughter-or-self.html
“To be found not guilty (of murder or manslaughter) based on self-defense, the prosecution’s evidence must show that at the time of the shooting that either: 1) even if Zimmerman initially pursued Trayvon, that he (Zimmerman) had withdrawn prior to making contact with Trayvon in good faith and in a manner in which Trayvon knew about it, yet Trayvon attacked him anyway, and deadly force was necessary to prevent death, serious bodily injury, or a forcible offense; or 2) even if Zimmerman had not withdrawn from the altercation, that Trayvon used excessive force in defending himself against Zimmerman and Zimmerman was similarly justified in using deadly force to defend himself against Trayvon.”
WHERE did you get that drivel you quoted…?
Our legal system does not require a defendant to prove his or her innocence. The State has to prove their guilt.
Stuffed.
Not you, Mr. B. Had to reply to your post to get in the stream….
Defence? Something tells me you’re not from Florida.
@sdk-wp
False. That’s what the media reported, but that is not why he wasn’t arrested. He wasn’t arrested, because his actions fall under the “simple” self defense laws, so SYG is not and never was needed.
False. As Serino has testified, he was unable to find any evidence to refute GZ’s story. As he also testified, it was only after he was pressured that he relented and agreed to manslaughter, but even that was not enough for the bloodthirsty racialists, so he was demoted for his refusal to cooperate.
Which is evidence of nothing but standard procedure. As MOM explained, the state has the deck stacked in their favor at that point in the trial.
Both, silly. Both can rely on the law depending upon their actions.
No, they didn’t, but if they had, it would have been false. Florida law is very clear. Even an aggressor still retains the right to self defense depending upon their actions.
There is testimony that TM was on top and GZ was on the bottom, and TM was whaling away on GZ in a “ground and pound” attack. There is also testimony that GZ tried to wiggle out from under TM, which moved his head to the sidewalk, where TM began pounding his head against the concrete.
These elements provide GZ with all the justification he needed to shoot even if he was the aggressor. Unfortunately for TM fans, there is ZERO evidence that GZ was the aggressor. So his simple self defense claim is all he needs to prevail.
Whether he will prevail in this court or not is an open question, but he is clearly innocent. Anyone who says he is not has either not watched the trial or is profoundly ignorant of the law, as you are.
I suppose you want to shoot me now since I made you cry?
TX that’s not a bad idea … you might even get credit for a Darwin Award by taking sdk out.
SDK, TX is crying from laughing so hard at your comments.
Even if Trayvon had some legitimate reason to use self defense, that does not take away George’s right to self defense.
Assume following and lying about it is a reasonable self defense basis to physically attack and pound the follower.
Certainly if that is “reasonable” then being physically attacked and pounded while on neighborhood watch is also a reasonable self defense basis to respond.
This is the trick. Who was REALLY justified to use the deadly force at the point of confrontation?
The armed aggressor or the unarmed victim?
As long as the confrontation is verbal, none of them has the right to use force of any kind.
Once the confrontation turns physical, it is a matter of who is using unreasonable force.
Now pretend that you have an ounce of decency and tell me from the evidence, who used physical force, reasonable or not?
You must mean “the unarmed victim who’s pinning the other guy to the ground and pounding him (after punching him in the face) and who is just about to grab the gun that he didn’t know the other guy had (and therefore thought it would be easy to incapacitate him).”
GZ never was pounded, according to the doctor. Maybe he was fixin’ to get pounded. Minor injuries from 1-4 blows.
Here was another opportunity for GZ to stop yelling for help and ID himself as neighbourhood watch.
GZ never did this. GZ neglected almost every aspect of official rules and advice that evening – and he shot an unarmed teenager who had every right to walk home with iced tea and Skittles. WHAT WAS GEORGE DOING IN THE PLACE HE HAD THE ALTERCATION? TM was almost to his home, not GZs truck. GZ was packed for a confrontation – it is what he expected to happen (except for the getting his a** whipped part)
No, the knockdown ground and pound happened closer to GZ truck, at about the location where GZ said he lost sight of TM. TM actually had time to go home and come back.
Asserting false facts (eg 1-4 punches) just makes you look passionately ignorant and proud of it.
Silly sdk, Trayvon WAS armed. He was armed with his hands–bare hands used in a manner capable of causing death or grave bodily harm ARE deadly weapons–and he was armed with the concrete sidewalk against which he was smashing George Zimmerman’s head–just as much as if he had picked up a similarly-sized chunk of sidewalk and used it as a club.
Fortunately, Zimmerman was also (surprise!) armed with a deadly weapon, which he deployed efficiently and with desired effect under incredibly challenging circumstances (a vicious and deadly aggravated assault initiated with a surprise “sucker punch” that dopped him to the ground).
I don’t care what anybody says about “doughboy” Zimmerman, in my book he’s one tough son-of-a-gun.
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
Sdk this is for u, trayvon had arms and legs. He did not have a weapon in accordance with the law. Haven’t u ever heard of a punch that can kill? There was recently an attack of a referee at hockey or some other sport that made a call and a player didn’t like it so he punched him, he died. So being unarmed you can still kill someone or even cause great bodily arm.
Self defense does not depend who has a knife in their pocket or even who has a concealed firearm in their holster. If anything it depends on which one physically attacks the other.
@sdk:
I’ll try to come up with some responses to some of what you posted, hopefully at least it’s food for thought–
“TM to GZ ” Do you have a problem”
GZ to TM “No”
This is a lie of course. GZ has been watching and describing TM in some detail. “looks like he is up to no good”
–You are correct, the jury could certainly decide that it thinks GZ was lying to the police.
“GZ should have said, “YES, I am neighbourhood watch, what are you doing around here””
–I’m not sure I agree with this sdk. When you say “should have said” that means GZ had an obligation of some kind to announce himself. But OK, let’s assume he should have done so and failed to do so.
“GZ lied and TM knew he lied,”
–OK although I am granting your version of the facts up to now, here, what TM did or didn’t “know” is pure speculation. It is impossible that GZ could have “known” that GZ “lied” because the “lying” you speak of was by GZ to the police and could not have been heard by TM at that time. At least there is no trial evidence that TM could have heard GZ lying to the police during his NEN phone call.
Jeantel’s testimony of her call from Trayvon was that a creepy @ss cracker was following him and the “get off!” implies that GZ started a physical confrontation. However there is nothing to indicate that TM actually heard GZ lying to the police. So by that token TM could not have known what GZ’s motivations were.
“because otherwise GZ would have not left his truck and pursued him.”
–But remember at this point TM doesn’t know why GZ left his truck to pursue TM. Or at least there is no evidence other than the Jeantel phone call about what TM did and didn’t believe. The only thing we can derive from her testimony is that GZ followed and accosted TM in some manner but TM really didn’t know why that was happening.
If you want to construe this against GZ that’s fine, you could say GZ was racially profiling TM and perhaps intended to push him around or even beat him up. So maybe TM thought GZ was going to beat him up.
“Of course GZ was following TM – at least to the extent of being to relate to the police where (the suspicious guy) was going.”
–sdk, here’s the problem, now you are sort of contradicting your theory by providing GZ with at least a semi-legitimate reason for initiating the following of TM. If you agree that the evidence shows GZ’s reason to follow TM was some undefined suspicion to phone it in to the police, that seems to contradict the notion that GZ just racially profiled TM for no reason whatsoever with the intent of beating him down.
This is why this is a “reasonable doubt” case. If we agree (and you obviously do) that GZ had a legitimate (non-illegal) reason for following TM, i.e. report his activity to the police, (and reporting a stranger’s activity to the police is perfectly legal), then you completely cloud the issue of GZ’s mental motivations, which is the entire issue of the case (since it’s undisputed that GZ physically shot Tm, the only issue is what was going on in GZ’s head at the moment he pulled the trigger.)
“Also, GZ was armed.”
–GZ was legally armed. However, this may play into whether, knowing he was armed, he had a duty to be very careful in use of his weapon. If he was “culpably negligent” then he committed manslaughter.
“So, TM has been lied to by an stalker with a gun.”
–No, this is incorrect on the facts you stated. You said GZ lied to the police. TM doesn’t know about the lying to the police, based on Jeantel’s testimony. All he knows is a crazy @ss cracker is following him. No evidence that TM heard the NEN calls.
TM ALSO doesn’t know that GZ is armed. At least we have no evidence that he knew GZ was armed at the start of the confrontation.
I am completely OK with consideration of your version of the events but you are imputing factual knowledge to TM that there so far is no trial evidence in support of.
“Justified to throw a punch in my opinion.”
–Assuming GZ laid hands on him first, then I will grant you perhaps TM was entitled to “throw a punch” as a self-defense measure. Had TM only thrown a punch, or maybe even two or three, then I don’t believe GZ would have been justified in shooting him.
“GZ never had his head bashed several times.”
–OK let’s assume this is correct. The law in FL is clear and Captain Carter testified that actual injury is not necessary to allow use of deadly force in self defense. Only reasonable fear of death or serious physical injury.
Your version of what happened states that Trayvon “threw a punch” and therefore you’ve admitted that Trayvon was inflicting some measure of threat against GZ. The only real question is how much was being inflicted by TM at the moment of the gunshot and whether or not GZ was justified in viewing that as a serious threat of death or serious injury.
“The medical information simply does not support this.”
–So far the evidence is consistent with his head being struck on a hard service. But again the law does not require serious physical injury to actually have been sustained, only the threat of it. (This is why if a criminal points a gun at a police officer the police officer is allowed to shoot first. Just like Han Solo LOL.)
“He did perhaps lose the top position as he began to get his a** whipped.”
–sdk this is the critical issue which you have identified. According to you GZ started the altercation (let’s agree that’s what happened) but then “lost the top position and started to get his a** whipped.” You just ADMITTED you think that’s what the trial facts prove.
At that moment of “reversal” TM was out of any danger and BECAME the aggressor even if he wasn’t originally the aggressor. If he was “beginning” to “whip GZ’s ass” then that’s your way of saying TM was NOW the aggressor and about to inflict what could reasonably be perceived as “serious physical injury” to GZ (“ass whipping” = serious physical injury.)
AT THAT POINT GZ became legally entitled to use the reasonable degree of force to prevent the “ass whipping” that even you just admitted TM was about to inflict upon him. So the only question then is whether GZ was in a position to get away or defend himself w/o shooting TM.
“But, TM was justified is using some force under the circumstances.”
–But this case isn’t about what TM was justified in doing or not doing. He’s not on trial. If he was on trial, if it had worked out in the reverse, reasonable doubt might apply to his defense too.
And “some force” does NOT equal “ass whipping” once the situation had reversed and TM had become the aggressor.
“Yeah, you do have the right to follow. But, GZ was looking for a confrontation.”
–Let’s say GZ WAS looking for a confrontation. Let’s assume that. The question is what were the respective positions of GZ and TM immediately before TM was shot. You have admitted that even under your version of the trial facts, at that moment, TM had become the aggressor and was in the process of ass whipping GZ.
That clearly creates reasonable doubt as to GZ’s guilt. Remember, in a criminal case, you can believe that GZ PROBABLY was at fault but THAT’S NOT ENOUGH TO CONVICT. The standard is “reasonable doubt.” You’ve admitted TM was the aggressor when the shot was fired and ass-whupping GZ at that time = “reasonable doubt.”
I appreciate the break down analysis. My initial post was that the ‘if’ I were a juror the point that Serino made about whether or not GZ identified himself is key.
It completely controls the vantage point of TM. Also, GZ was armed (and knew it). So, while he may have lost his power position, it was because he made a bad decision. Even cops wait for back-up. If TM asked GZ “what is your problem” and GZ said “nothing” — this is a key lie. Because now you have this dude who has been stalking you and following you and doesn’t tell you why. Are you scared? TM was – he thought GZ was a “creepy” (i.e., scary) –a** cracker. So, TM is scared. So, he is the one who is in imminent fear – not GZ. GZ is armed, he is only in imminent fear when he is surprised by the person he was pursuing (which again speaks more to incompetence). BUT – this again points that he was not careful and really should have not pursued TM. GZ only became injured because TM WAS SCARED and in fear. Should of TM ran – could have TM ran? Many scenarios. BUT the point is, GZ was always in control of his bad decisions. Nothing would have happened without GZ stalking TM. And finally, GZ used a gun. He WAS NOT near death. He WAS NOT bashed several times. (HOWEVER, maybe he would have been if he didn’t use the gun.) TM did not know GZ has a gun. There were cries for help – maybe from both.
“(HOWEVER, maybe he would have been if he didn’t use the gun.)”
You would make an excellent defense witness. You have just described legal self defense. It is both amazing and depressing that someone could type those words and not realize that this trial is a travesty of justice.
The prosecution introduced the case scenario where if the table turns on the aggressor, there can be no self defence. Don’t you get it? You can’t start a fight and then blame the person if you get beat up – essentially.
And you are simply wrong.
Mistaken.
In error.
(Need I continue?)
That was directed at our obdurate sdk.
Calling NEN on a suspicious person is not “starting a fight.” Getting out of one’s car is not “starting a fight.”
Following someone, or looking to see where they went, is not “starting a fight.” I don’t think I’m the one not “getting” it.
The irony is that you are describing TM’s actions since he was the one who doubled back to confront GZ (unless you think RJ was lying when she testified that TM had made it back to the father’s girlfriend’s home).
SDK will never understand. Not honest enough.
And who, with any education, writes ‘should of’ instead of “should have’ or the contraction ‘should’ve’?
The ignorance of SDK is palpable.
SDK, it must be hard for your brilliant observations to be held in so much contempt by the Neanderthals on this forum. Therefore, let me finish your narrative for you and let you take a breather. . . .
So if I follow SDK correctly. . . . Martin, who appears to have had some psychic powers similar to Edward the vampire in the Twilight movie series, realized he was being pursued by someone with a gun, and feared for his life. Now according to his “girl friend’s” testimony he was able to escape Zimmerman’s pursuit and made it to the safety of Martin’s father back yard.
However, although Martin realized that a “creepy-ass cracker” with a gun and malice aforethought was trying to hunt him down, instead of just stepping into safety of his father’s condo, he bravely decided to go back out and confront Zimmerman. He skillfully and stealthily made his way back to the “T” where Zimmerman undoubtedly was looking for more upstanding, innocent youths to profile.
Martin courteously greeted Zimmerman with “What’s your problem, Motherfucker???” Although not understood by viciously racist bitter clingers from fly-over land, that phrase in the gloriously diverse cultural milieu of South Florida is actually an affectionate greeting, much like “How’s it going, man?”
Besides already trying to track down Martin like an animal, Zimmerman then unbelievably insulted Martin with “I don’t have a problem.” He then jumped on Martin, grasped the front of his shirt, and fell over backwards, pulling Martin down on him. With Martin flailing around trying to get away from Zimmerman, Zimmerman coolly pulled out his pistol, and carefully took precise aim at Martin, and shot him through the chest.
The fact that the bullet hit Martin’s heart proves he had to take careful and precise aim, because if he had shot in the mist of a struggle he would have never been able to hit Martin, given that the bullet had to travel at least three or four inches.
Zimmerman, who had been planning to do something like this for years, as evidenced by his taking criminal justice courses in college, then smashed his fist into his nose to break it, and bashed the back of his own head on the sidewalk to produce some lacerations, all to make it look to like sweet little innocent Martin had assaulted him.
Finally, the fact that he was able to shoot a fellow human being proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Zimmerman had a horribly depraved mind.
There. . . how I’d do, SDK-WP????
Priceless. Good job.
I think you meant “midst” though … or were you riffing off “Gorillas in the Mist” lol…?
You forgot to mention the screaming. GZ first pulled TM on top of him then started screaming HELP!!! HELP..me hold him down!! as he smashed his head into the cement… oops(concrete)
SDK: “Thank you sir may I have another”
If that fantasy leads you to believe that it justifies assault then I am surprised you don’t have at least one felony conviction in your record.
But I do hope for Zimmerman’s sake someone during jury deliberations tries to seriously suggest such a scenario. The illegality and laughable foolishness would do more to acquit Zimmerman than anything else.
Man, SDK, this is really such drivel. According to you it is OK to assault someone who had been following you from a distance? It is OK to assault someone when you don’t like their answer?
Wow.
SDK is another Trayvon Martin.
They live by a very strict street code where anything perceived by them as disrespect warrants and justifies the use of violence.
He has never read what the law says, and he never will.
Middle aged white male born in western USA.
You ARE another Trayvon Martin.
Did I say anything about the color of the skin?
Did I say anything about where you live?
You ARE another Trayvon Martin.
You ARE another Trayvon Martin.
You ARE another Trayvon Martin.
A thug with no knowledge or respect for the law or for the rights of others.
Why the racist remark, SDK? Some personal agenda?
sdk, with all due respect, you keep using British spellings, i.e. “authorise” and “defence.” I’m skeptical that you were raised in America… which leads me to wonder, just how far west is “west” to you?
Since we’ve all been (justifiably) flogging SDK …
… please SDK, try to understand what we see in you is overt racism … “reverse” racism – you believe GM was racist because…? What, exactly??? His SKIN COLOR …
… we could show a little mercy. I’ll take a stab that he is as he describes, perhaps a webmaster or sysop (the sdk-wp handle) who is devoid of experience and understanding of the Law. And is racist. Stop that, SDK. Make the choice.
sdk-wp.
First off, TM would have had no idea that he had been lied to or that GZ had a gun, so I’m not sure how you can use either of these things to justify TM attacking GZ. A GZ supporter could equally argue that TM was high on drugs, had a history of getting into fights, and had a history of breaking into houses. None of these things issues are admissible in court at this point because GZ didn’t know them and so they cannot factor into his decision to defend himself against TM. Same would go for TM, the things he didn’t know about GM wouldn’t factor into his right to self defense.
Secondly, it can be pretty easily argued that GZ didn’t answer that he was Neighborhood Watch because he felt threatened by TM, and though telling TM he was NW (a snitch) would put himself in greater danger.
Question that I guess I missed the answer to during this trial and I mistakenly just posted in an older thread. How is the conversation between Trayvon and Dee Dee not hearsay? Isn’t it offered for the truth of the matter asserted?
Yes. Most assuredly hearsay, but it comes in under at least one of several general hearsay exceptions.
The formulation varies some from state-to-state, but generally…
1. present-sense impression,
2. excited utterance,
3. then-existing mental, emotional or physical condition.
Thank you Ragspierre. You have kindly answered a few of my elementary questions.
Hearsay exceptions:
1. Party admission: statement made by a party (B or A) is admissible against the party as substantive evidence; vicarious admission must be made by agent/employee concerning matter within scope of agency/employment and during agency/employment; (party admission is actually an exclusion under FRE)
2. Unavailable declarant required: grounds of unavailability: death or illness, absence from jurisdiction, privilege not to testify, stubborn refusal to testify, and lack of memory
a. Former testimony: former testimony given at a former proceeding or deposition admissible against a party who had an opportunity and motive to cross-ex or develop testimony of the declarant at the earlier proceeding if the same issues in both proceedings; if witness unavailable due to party’s wrongdoing and wrongdoing proved by preponderance of the evidence, prior statements are admitted against that party
b. Statement against interest: a statement against declarant’s own pecuniary, proprietary, or penal interest; in criminal cases, a statement against penal interest must be corroborated if offered to exculpate A
c. Dying declaration: a statement made under a belief of impending and certain death concerning the cause or surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s death; available in all civil cases but only in criminal homicide cases
3. Excited utterance: statement concerning a startling event and made while declarant is still under the stress of excitement caused by the event
4. Present sense impression: a description of event made while the event was occurring or immediately thereafter; must be virtuously contemporaneous – no more than 30 to 40 seconds after event
5. Present state of mind: a contemporaneous statement concerning declarant’s state of mind, feelings, or emotions
6. Declaration of intent: a statement of declarant’s intent to do something in the future is admissible to prove declarant’s conduct; also admissible to prove someone else’s conduct if declarant said he was going to do something with that person
7. Present physical condition: a statement made to anyone about declarant’s current physical condition
8. Statement for purpose of medical treatment or diagnosis: statement made to medical personnel concerning past or present symptoms or general cause of condition for the purpose of treatment or diagnosis
9. Business records: records of any type of business made in the regular course of business that the business regularly keeps and was made at or about the time of the event recorded and which consists of information observed by employees of the business or a statement that falls within an independent hearsay exception; foundation: can call a sponsoring witness (e.g., author or record or custodian of records) or can use a written certification under oath.
Mr. Branca, your trial coverage is fantastic. Is there a chance MOM will call Professor Gordon Scott Pleasants as a witness and ask him about the change.org post he made that was apparently undiscovered at the time MOM cross-examined him?
So the State can ridicule GZ for saying TM looks like he is on drugs, but the defense is not allowed to say that the marijuana in TM’s blood could have impacted his mental state or his actions. Another fair ruling from Judge Nelson.
Yes, it was, and pretty much the same ruling any judge would make who understood the rules of evidence.
Zimmerman’s state of mind is an element of the crime with which he is charged. The State HAS to prove that state of mind beyond reasonable doubt.
At this point, Martin’s state of mind is extraneous to the matters before the court. AND there is no evidence to show that drugs of any sort played any role.
Today.
That might be about to change. We’ll see.
But the prosecution used Zimmerman’s atatement that TM looked like he was on drugs as an indication of hatred or ill will.
Isn’t it reasonable to include the toxicology report as evidence that Zimmerman’s statement was indeed accurate and not a product of his imagination or ill will?
Sorry. I meant statement.
The only evidence from the autopsy shows that Martin was not intoxicated.
At all.
Via any drug.
1.5 nano grams of the was found in both his urine and his blood. These levels are low but that they are in his system at all is a criminal offense. On cross with dr bao who had many changes to his opinion not based on research but on a previous autopsy did say the levels might or might not have had any effect on him. So it should have allowed the results in under his opinion now.
Really…???
What “criminal offense”, specifically?
Do you think Zimmerman has super powers that allow him to see trace levels of THC?
Or, like The Whistler, does he know what eeeeeeevil lurks in the hearts of men?
What a crock.
Sorry didn’t see that comment, it is against the law to be intoxicated in public is it not? Is being under the influence of a illegal drug not a crime? It is against the law to posses or use an illegal drug along with having Paraphernalia.
As a Physician, I wouldn’t assume any statements Dr. Bao made had any elements of truth to them at all.
Rags, I agree that the 1.5 ng of THC in Trayvon’s blood was not relevant…UNTIL Dr. Bao testified (away from the jury) that 1.5ng might be a high enough level to cause mental impairment.
Seeing as the state is attacking George’s assessment that Travvon “seemed like he was on drugs or something” as an unfounded, profiling comment. I would think evidence suggested that it WAS founded would be admissible.
Now, I do not agree that such a small level would cause impairment, but I was not testifying as a certified expert… Dr Bao was.
Obviously, the judge did not agree with my thoughts though.
TM had trace amounts of THC in his system – below the level of “performance impairment”.
His THC level was inadmissible due to this fact.
HOWEVER, GZ was taking prescription drugs with known side affects, such as paranoia.
[…] think Andrew had it right when he described the prosecutors’ argument on the motion for acquittal. While that argument was before the […]
A question for you Lawyerly types:
The conventional wisdom is that GZ should not testify, as that opens him up to a potentially damaging cross examination by the prosecution. I understand that part of it….but if he was called as a witness, what limits are placed on the state during a hypothetical cross examination?
Are they restricted to questioning him on his direct testimony? Or can they toss in the proverbial “Isn’t it true Mr. Zimmerman, that you hate puppies.”?
I think GZ would make a fairly good witness if called to testify in his own defense, although obviously subject to a number of traps and pitfalls on cross-examination–flubbing his words; inability to explain perhaps irrelevant inconsistencies; deer in the headlights reaction; jury just taking a dislike to him once he opens his mouth; etc.
However, I think the real issue is that once the defendant testifies in a criminal case, he goes a long way towards negating the practical ability of his attorneys to appeal a conviction.
Once the defendant testifies, and if convicted, an appellate court could decide that various mistakes made by the trial judge don’t really matter any longer, because now the jury has had the chance to weigh the words out of defendant’s own mouth about what did/didn’t happen, and by convicting him, REJECTED the defendant’s story.
That’s a credibility determination which wouldn’t be appealable. It could swamp every mistake the trial judge had previously made. The appeals court could simply rule that “Hey the defendant testified and the jury thought he was lying, didn’t believe his story, and convicted him anyway, so it doesn’t matter what happened before that.”
After the defendant testifies, if the jury rejects that by convicting him, then I think it’s much harder to win an appeal based on various errors the judge made during the trial–they would have to be pretty huge IMO to overcome the inference that the jury didn’t simply didn’t find the defendant’s own testimony about what happened credible.
Generally speaking (this IS the law, remember?) the rule is that you are limited to exploring only those areas addressed on direct.
Which here, could be pretty stinking expansive.
The ONLY way that restriction is enforced, however, is having the other side (sponsor of the witness) object.
O’Mara is not an objection mavin, for all his great qualities as a lawyer.
If GZ testifies there won’t be any real limits on the scope of cross-examination.
I think you are wrong.
Here is something I would like to know: At what point is the defense going to hammer home the fact that there is no such thing as a “Stand Your Ground Law”? SYG is codeword for a subsection of the overall Self Defense Statute that the politically correct crowd do not like. I don’t believe George was lying about it in the Hannity Interview because it simply did not become the catchphrase until the Ambulance Chasers got involved.
Sean Hannity, in a friendly interview, asked an extremely leading question tbat suggested the answer he was ldoking for: Have you even heard of the syg law?
I would say it would be natural to answer yes without first thinking back to a college course that he took several years ago and may or may not have remembered. This was not a statement made under oath or made to LE.
In most criminal cases where the prosecutor actually has real evidence, this would be viewed as a triviality and hardly worth mentioning
Giving media interviews as a criminal defendant is a real high-wire tactic. O’Mara’s assumption had to be that he’d be able to control the interview with Hannity sufficiently that it would help more than hurt GZ in the subsequent trial.
Wasnt there testimony (by the JAG officer I think) that the syg law isnt called the “stand your ground” law? That name is just a nickname fore the statute. So it is possible zimmerman never heard of a law called specifically “stand your ground” even though he might know the content from his classes.
Yes. You are correct. It was, IMO, yet another win for the defense.
West brought that up in cross, captain carter explained they went over what the castle doctrine was. Stand your ground is actually different, the castle doctrine only actually covers the duty to retreat if you are in your own home not in a public place. The 776.0. What ever it is gives you the right not have to retreat of any place you are legally able to be in.
@Pauldd, I am a CHL holder in Texas. I make it my business to know the laws regarding deadly force inside and out. I had never heard the term Stand Your Ground and was quite surprised to find out that Texas had such a law. I had to go back (for the umpteenth time) and actually read the law to see what they were talking about.
SYG may be a common term for the press, but I doubt seriously Zimmerman had ever heard the term, or any other CHL holder in Florida for that matter. It’s an invention of the media.
What does chl? I. Florida it is a concealed weapons permit or fire arms license (cwp)
“Evidentiary Flashback: See George Zimmerman’s Concealed Weapons License (CWL)” is.gd/lXbLUM
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
Hmmmm, try that again:
“Evidentiary Flashback: See George Zimmerman’s Concealed Weapons License (CWL)”
http://is.gd/lXbLUM
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
At least couple of commenters have mentioned that they know Jorge Meza, George’s uncle, (not sure if it was in this post or a previous one by Andrew) because of his work as an Orange County Courthouse deputy. I get the impression he is well respected by everyone who knows him.
What are the chances that Judge Nelson knows him also? (If so, what a pleasant surprise to have him be the last witness before the weekend break!)
Courthouse staff have a way to get information to their judges on a very subtle level…
Being part of neighborhood watch means nothing. Just as Manalo testified to in his cross when he described what he thought NM meant. Clever those defense attorneys – even got him to describe the NW sign at the entrance of the complex and what significance it meant to him as a resident.
He was not stalking tm so stop throwing that out there. Stalking implies on more then one occasion that he was following him. So there for that argument is flawed, the pros aren’t event using the word stalking as this would be illegal offense by gz.
In your words ” (HOWEVER, maybe he would have been if he didn’t use the gun.)” the next blow could have created a situation that gz could not have recovered from. Remember captain carter and the state saying in argument for acquittal that he did it need to have actual injury to use self defense.
Gz had a gun but u are taught to use it as a last resort not ur firs thought, so after yelling for help and no one helping him and not knowing where the police were a reasonable person might have thought a head I jury can lead to death. Just like Natasha Richardson. And people bring up why not shoot to injury, well that’s also a flawed argument, dunno if it was u that keeps saying that. But I will address it here anyways. You are taught along with Leo’s to shoot for body mass, if u shoot someone in the legs they could still kill u and most likely will for the trouble of u shot them. Deadly force is the only means of protecting yourself in a fight that has escalated to the use of it.
If you then say well gz threaded tm with the gun, why did it last for a shorter period then it did? One who takes a cwp class are taught if u draw ur weapon u better use it or have it be used on you.
It’s too bad George Zimmerman can’t just demonstrate his scream in court. Of course that would be self incrimination.
http://georgezimmermantrialwatch.blogspot.com/2013/07/should-george-zimmerman-testify-in-his.html
Did they take George’s shoes that night? And just where are TM’s? Seems it would be telling if there were grass stains/grass scuffs on the top of one pair and not the other.
Just an interesting aside. A commenter on a CNN article wrote that GZ had only received “two itty bitty scratches” to the back of his head. I replied that I’ve had my head beaten into a hard surface with no visible injury to my head (my hair cover the lumps and bruising) and that in my experience the terror is overwhelming. I didn’t use profanity. I didn’t attack the commenter. I just expressed my view that an assault with head trauma should never be minimized. My comment was deleted (though the original comment still stands). The disinformation is so bad that the MSM won’t even allow someone to say that, hey, this has happened to me and, yes, you do fear for your life. Of course this is the same MSM that doctored the NEN tape, identified GZ as white, and claimed he used a racial epithet so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.
The commenters on other sites have been atrocious. The media screwed up in pushing this case to a trial, so all they can do now is cover for themselves. Luckily for them, they have commenters to parrot the same tired memes about GZ starting the fight by following TM.
I question moderators in general since I’ve worked at dotcoms and groupthink/power obsession tends to sink in (whether moderators are volunteers or paid). The moderators ensure that their organization and power is protected. At least you have LI…
Thank you for your first hand experience. I find it difficult to believe that the average joe/jane on the street would think that having ones head bashed on a sidewalk is not life threatening.
Of course the professionals, such a Neurosurgeons that deal with traumatic head injuries every day will tell you (and the jury if asked), just how dangerous this is. Indeed it takes less force that most people believe.
The whackadoodles that slime the comments and testify as to “insignificant” injuries are the same people who want to ban heading a soccer ball … to prevent injury.
And that’s all ya need to know.
I’ve noticed very similar occurrences when commenting on CNN, and so has my wife. If you write a comment using the all sorts of crude language and bigoty, it never seems to get moderated (it doesn’t seem to matter if it’s a liberal or conservative comment). But if you write a simple, non-confrontational, and logical conservative perspective, it just happens to disappear. For example, I commented on an article (not an oped, an article) that called the IRS Scandal, Benghazi Scandal, and AP Phone Records Scandal a “coordinated attack” against the administration by the Republicans. I wrote a comment that first pointed out that commentary calling the scandals a “coordinated attack by republicans” belonged in an opinion piece and not the “news”. And then I pointed out that a few sentences later they reported that Majority Leader Harry Reid had harsh criticism for the AP Phone Records Scandal, so I posed the question of why the Senate Majority Leader was involved in a Republican “coordinated attack” on the administration. My comment disappeared very quickly, along with all of the responses to it.
Andrew, let me present you with a challenge; Please submit to us what you think the jury instructions will look like.
google Florida patterned jury instructions criminal cases and you should get a set of standard jury instructions. Each side may suggest additional instructions tailored to the facts of the case. The judge decides whether to accept the proposed additional instructions.
Well, that’s not much of a challenge.
FLJI 7.4 MURDER—SECOND DEGREE
http://is.gd/Eaw6Zq
FLJI 7.7 Manslaughter
http://is.gd/b5AyHT
FLJI 3.6(f) JUSTIFIABLE USE OF DEADLY FORCE
http://is.gd/y3M5Rs
There, you owe me a Guinness. 🙂
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
OK “culpable negligence” in FL = “gross negligence” elsewhere or “reckless indifference”, i.e. higher level than ordinary negligence.
So I guess it would be like getting drunk and firing your Uzi up into the air on New Year’s Eve and someone gets killed.
Much harder to prove negligence against GZ at the higher level, there’s no evidence that he was “recklessly indifferent” even if he may have been “merely” negligent in lacking sufficient training etc. to carry a gun on NW.
Why was Ms. Fulton allowed to testify at all? Mrs. Zimmerman was prohibited from the courtroom because she was a potential witness. Why the different standard for Ms. Fulton?
A special dispensation in Florida rules for the immediate family of a victim.
Florida law says if a victim is a minor they are allowed to be represented in the courtroom by either themselves or their attorney
“Why Can Martin’s Parents Stay in Courtroom, But Zimmerman’s Family Can’t? FL Law Explained” http://is.gd/ayIEcR
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
http://www.husseinandwebber.com/florida-law-self-defense-use-of-force.html
“In Florida prosecutions, self-defense is a type of affirmative defense that operates to avoid (or cancel) the legal effect of a violent act (such as a homicide or battery), which would ordinarily subject the accused to criminal liability. When an accused raises a self-defense claim, he or she effectively admits to the truth of the alleged act (i.e. that he or she committed violence against another person), but justifies the act by asserting that the act was reasonably necessary to save him- or herself from the imminent use of unlawful force by the other person. In effect, the defendant says: “Yes, I committed the violent act. But I did not commit the violent act unlawfully because, under the facts and circumstances, my acts were justifiable to prevent physical or legal harm to myself.”
From Andrew’s jury instructions on self-defense:
“In deciding whether defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge [him] [her] by the circumstances by which [he] [she] was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing the defendant need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, the defendant must have actually believed that the danger was real.”
This language makes Mr. Good’s testimony critical and it would seem Mr. Good’s testimony provides at least reasonable doubt that GZ’s use of deadly forced was justifiable.
A lot of the idiots claim that Zimmerman got out of his car and chased/pursued/hunted down Trayvon in violation of the police order. The defense should see if they can puncture this balloon with the following.
They should put up a map of this area and walk the jury through Zimmerman’s statement of what happened where and show how the evidence including the position of the body supports Zimmerman’s statement. Maybe have the lead investigator provide testimony for this exercise.
I think that this would show that Zimmerman didn’t pursue Martin after talking to the operator. That he was walking back to the mail boxes as he stated. Furthermore, that Trayvon ran towards Zimmerman to were the confrontation occurred.
Not only do I strongly believe that Zimmerman is innocent – he even seems like a cool guy at this point. He’s taking all these classes to try to figure out what he wants to be when he grows up (something I can empathize with for sure), doing all this volunteering and everything – In any other light he’d be considered a prime guy for kids to emulate. The Martin’s should never have participated in this nonsensical witch hunt. They’re coming across as disingenuous pawns for a bunch of idealistic ‘tards who having avoided their homework, picked a fight they couldn’t win.
Very astute. USA expat living in UK.
In Florida I think they call this nonsense the prosecution.
🙂
Well, even he knows he killed a teen. Innocence is who had the right to defend – who had the justification to be scared?
Indeed. The guys whose assault only ended with a gunshot, or the guy who was taking an unrelenting beating when he fired it?
If this is a difficult question for anyone, may I suggest they only smoke half the joint next time.
I think what you are trying to say is that TM was justified in beating up GZ because TM was scared.
That may be true but does not negate GZ’s right to use deadly force in response to the risk of serious physical injury from TM.
It is not a zero sum game (assuming you know what that means).
That was @ sdk not maestro
Understood .
It has nothing to do with who was scared. It has to do with who was subjected to a potentially deadly physical assault.
No evidence supports the claim of a “relentless beating.”
His wounds were minor. Of course, he likely would have been hit a couple more times had he not shot TM. No evidence that TM even touched the gun to support that TM was actually going for it. GZ was foolish and broke all reasonable measure to avoid confrontation. TM was not doing anything wrong and was unarmed – even to the last.
There’s also no evidence (unless I missed it) that Zimmerman ever touched the gun.
We know he did, of course. Because he said so. Which is the evidence that exists that Martin was grasping for it.
*dagger*-*insert*-*done*
🙂
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
http://news.sky.com/story/1111223/zimmerman-trial-trayvons-dna-not-on-gun
“The DNA of Trayvon Martin was not found on the gun that shot him, an expert told a jury, despite the shooter’s claim the unarmed teenager grabbed the weapon.”
And the Officer Smith’s DNA was not found on the gun, though he handled it.
Too many CSI reruns for sdk … and unfortunately many more….
sdk-wp, seriously dude, GET UP TO SPEED.
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. God, the educational system in the UK must be beyond atrocious if you’re having this much trouble understanding simple concepts.
BOTH men had the right of self defense. EITHER man could lose that right by committing a criminal act. EITHER man could regain that right should the opposite person commit a criminal act against them and they are unable to withdraw.
Read the damn law man. Stop spouting this profound ignorance on a LAW blog.
I think sdk is blinded by his racism — in this case, assuming GZ is himself racist, based on … his skin color.
SDK that’s a theory, as in uncertain. Here are some facts:
Trayvon was a proven thief and brawler. BY NO MEANS does this mean he “deserved” to die. Not at all. But trying to put the square peg of the “good kid” being “in fear” just doesn’t jive with the evidence.
Trayvon jumped a Neighborhood Watchman who had been following him. He was beating him up when said Watchman defended himself with a gun, and Trayvon got a single bullet to the heart.
Move on. And stay out of trouble.
Goog God, you are tiresome, sdk. It’s like a two-year-old on a long road trip. “Why? Why? Why? Why?” Yet completely incapable of understanding the explanations.
At least the two-year-old has good reason–it’s two-years-old. What a shallow, hollow way of life it must be for a purported adult. Sad, really.
Fortunately, unlike my two-year-old, you I can leave at the side of the road. 🙂
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
Andrew:
My suspicion is that the disconnect with folks like sdk is cultural. Sdk acknowledges that TM was beating GZ up at the time of the shooting. But Sdk believes TM wasn’t doing anything wrong by beating up GZ.
That can only be because sdk comes from a place where, if you question a stranger’s presence, if you look at someone else the wrong way, and certainly if you rat someone else out to the police, you FULLY DESERVE a brutal beat-down.
Sad you bring a 2 year old into this. Clearly nothing is as clear cut as YOU SEE it. There are multitudes who along with me disagree with this “obvious” conclusions.
The trial is 1/2 over. But, something IS wrong when an unarmed teen is stalked by an armed stranger because “he doesn’t look right.”
Had GZ settled down and waited for more considerate minds – police – to meet him, as was discussed – the event would have never happened.
TM did nothing wrong. So, again, GZ demonstrated poor judgment and analysis at most every stage of his pursuit and encounter.
GZ was the power player throughout the scenarios:
in truck vs. pedestrian
armed vs. unarmed.
Knew the neighbourhood and knew the law.
TM was a visiting teen.
I hope everyone can take something of value out of all these comments.
In particular, SDK’s “arguments” make a very strong case for CHOOSING YOUR KIDS’ COLLEGES AND EVEN COURSEWORK AND PROFESSORS CAREFULLY … lest they end up as addled as he is….
Hahaha that was good.
Mr. Good’s testimony supports what you elsewhere have referred to as TM “whipping GZ’s @ss,” sdk. aka relentless beating.
“Of course, he likely would have been hit a couple more times had he not shot TM.”
Sdk how is it that you can acknowledge the above statement and yet not understand this is the essence of a valid self-defense claim?
Too much crack in your morning Wheaties, perhaps?
“TM was not doing anything wrong”
Beating another person up is not doing anything wrong?
This is assault my friend, and if the beating includes bashing someone’s head into a sidewalk, aggravated assault, a felonious attack providing complete justification for the shooting.
So you think felonious assault is doing nothing wrong, correct? We know GZ didn’t assault TM, because there wasn’t a single injury to support it. We also know from multiple sources of evidence, that Trademark continued to assault GZ until the shot stopped the attack.
There is seldom a more clear, textbook example of the justifiable use of lethal force.
Your argument: Following someone justifies an attack, but being beaten while defenseless does not.
Such panic when your arguments are tested.
None of my posts mentioned race. I have only questioned assertions and vantage points. I just cannot see the slam dunk defence that many on this site do. It is interesting and puzzling to listen to such whining.
So you ‘ cannot see ‘ how had it been you, on the ground, getting pounded against concrete after a jarring punch in the face would have reasonably been in fear for your life, and taken the step you believed necessary to prevent your own death?
Mmmmkay.
You ascribe thoughts to GZ with “certainty” and you frame your entire argument in terms of persecution. Of course that implies racism … in you. You’re the one projecting….
The point is TM has reason – more reason – to feel equally threatened and justified in using force. This is the essential debate that is going on.
Sigh. No. TM’s state of mind is irrelevant. The defense legally has to prove but one thing: did GZ shoot because he believed he was in imminent danger of losing his life?
That is the only legal question for the jury. What-ifs, and ‘ wonder how TM felt ‘ are not legally pertinent.
@sdk: Maybe the problem isn’t cultural, maybe it’s just a comprehension issue.
What the jury has to decide isn’t the argument you are making–which is that if TM had survived the altercation and been placed on trial for killing GZ (had things turned out that way), perhaps TM would be entitled to an acquittal.
The standard of acquittal is reasonable doubt.
Let’s say I agree with you, from TM’s perspective, he was fully justified in beating up GZ. Fine. We agree.
That doesn’t mean GZ wasn’t ALSO justified in shooting TM, because that’s judged from GZ’s perspective, not TM’s.
What you’re hearing from sdk is essentially regurgitation of Professor Ponytail’s “Social Justice” lectures. Hence the incoherence to anyone trained in critical thinking….
My base argument is that TM was more justified in using deadly force than GZ.
GZ was the armed aggressor and pursuer – this is not denied.
TM was unarmed and DID NOT START the pursuit of GZ.
So, I see the law validated in the reverse.
@sdk:
But that’s not what the law says. What matters is the situation when the trigger is pulled, not who started chasing who.
When the trigger was pulled, TM was the aggressor because as you have admitted here and elsewhere, the situation had reversed. As you stated had GZ not shot TM, TM would have continued beating GZ and those additional blows could clearly have caused serious physical injury.
Assuming you are not simply a crypto-racist or biased for some other reason, apparently you have a vengeance-based mentality–i.e. since GZ started things up (according to you), once TM was able to turn the tables, he was entitled to take whatever vengeance he could against GZ and GZ must remain defenseless.
That vengeance idea is the mentality of a thug or street punk, an uncivilized cur, but it is not what the law says.
Sorry.
GZ sustained minor injuries – Dr. validated.
BUT, this is not the point.
TM has just as much right to defend himself from an aggressor who stalked him and pursued him.
GZ was cognizant of the law and neighbourhood watch practices, carried a weapon, and was familiar with the neighbourhood. Yet, he made several decisions that went against the prescribed best practice. He placed himself, the police who were on their way, and TM in jeopardy. In the end he kills a youth who was NOT a threat to him. YET because he was surprised (which demonstrates even more incompetence) his killing is somehow justified. I just do not understand, honestly.
@sdk:
“TM has just as much right to defend himself from an aggressor who stalked him and pursued him.”
–I completely agree that TM has every right to “defend himself.”
“GZ was cognizant of the law and neighbourhood watch practices, carried a weapon, and was familiar with the neighbourhood. Yet, he made several decisions that went against the prescribed best practice. He placed himself, the police who were on their way, and TM in jeopardy.”
–I agree GZ may have been negligent. However for manslaughter he had to have been “culpably negligent” i.e. GROSS negligence or reckless indifference to human life and clearly there is no evidence that he was “recklessly” negligent. (i.e. randomly firing his pistol into the air just for fun). Or getting really really drunk before going out on patrol.
“In the end he kills a youth who was NOT a threat to him.”
–But it is not true beyond a reasonable doubt that TM was not a threat to him. Mr. Good stated the ground and pound, and you yourself admitted at the time of the shooting, TM was giving GZ a beat-down.
Maybe you are not a racist or an ignorant thug, but just a liar who can’t admit when you are wrong? You already admitted to the relevant facts, so that’s not part of the argument any longer.
“YET because he was surprised (which demonstrates even more incompetence) his killing is somehow justified. I just do not understand, honestly.”
–Obviously you don’t understand but in large part it’s because you don’t want to understand. I’ve tried to explain as well as Andrew and others.
Maybe for some reason you identify personally with TM and are resentful at any sort of authority figures who try to impose order for the benefit of their communities? If so that’s on you not anyone else.
I agree with you GZ may have been “incompetent” to carry a gun on NW but the issue is whether he was “culpably” or recklessly or grossly incompetent and there is just no evidence of that. In fact for whatever reason the prosecution didn’t even try to prove that. Instead they tried to prove the opposite, that GZ was well-trained in criminal justice issues.
Perhaps the bottom line of all this is that TM made the mistake of going unarmed into a gunfight.
In that case he should be given a posthumous Darwin award for stupidity.
Most reasonable people view GZ as an involved member of his community who saw a suspicious character who fit the description of someone who had been committing burglaries in the neighborhood and reported it to the police.
The individual became aware he was being observed and/or followed and didn’t like that one bit, and he may also have overheard the phone call to the police.
Being young, arrogant, and stupid, the individual decided to put a beat-down on the citizen. Now that’s plain stupid and shows a complete lack of street sense, doesn’t it?
Come on now be honest sdk you sound like you’re familiar with the streets.
How stupid does someone have to be to attack an unknown individual who MIGHT be carrying a weapon?
Trayvon Martin in the end died because he was stupid and arrogant and started a fight he couldn’t win.
Do you really think GZ started the confrontation, or are you just saying that to play along with the narrative?
Do you really think a middle age fatso could run down a young tall athlete like Trayvon Martin?
Who is b.s. ing who here sdk?
Run your jive game on someone else OK?
Marco, great point on a “fatso” running down Trayvon. Prosecution has emphasized GZ weighing more than TV. Turn the “morbidly obese” note from the medical records around on TV. No juror with common sense could believe GZ chased down the lean TM. So, since TM could have gotten away from TM if he wanted, Trayvon deliberately put himself in a position to have contact with GZ.
“Myth Busters: Did Zimmerman Chase Down a Fleeing Martin? See evidence-based truth” is.gd/0sTNG9
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
“Myth Busters: Did Zimmerman Chase Down a Fleeing Martin? See evidence-based truth”
http://is.gd/0sTNG9
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
You say the doctor validate that his injuries were minor, she examined pictures. Not credible, the pa he saw the next day stated that all head injuries are not minor.
Not even sure if this needs another view, but even if SDK believes that TM feared for his life, (say hypothetically GZ was chasing him (as in running) with a drawn gun:
Now TM defends himself gets on top of him and is beating the daylights out of GZ, who has his gun in his hand for 30+ seconds? Not possible, TM would have wrestled for the gun.
Sorry, once he was on top, even if GZ provoked the confrontation, his GUN was holstered, and was no threat of any kind to TM (not even a scratch), for him to use deadly force, as he neutralized the aggressor (according to you).
I suppose if you feel that you are threatened and in danger. TM was a visitor to the neighbourhood and high school aged. He said GZ was “creepy a** cracker.” Well, creepy is scary, right?
@sdk–
So you’re saying because TM was creeped out by GZ it was OK for TM to mug GZ?
There’s just no quit in that boy sdk.
Trouble is, there oughta be….
Of course, the prosecution contends that IT DOES matter. That was the hearing yesterday that denied acquittal. Prosecution provided case law examples to support. (Which defence also did, we know.)
You are like the lil’ bunny in the Energizer commericials.
You keep going, and going, and…
But with exactly the same brain-power.
No it sounds like sdk identifies with the thug culture but is intelligent and is experiencing cognitive dissonance over all of this.
Somewhere deep down he realizes what this case is all about but the reality doesn’t fit in with the socio-political brainwashing he has heretofore been “educated” with.
He’s in the midst of experiencing a red pill/blue pill moment.
VERY astute analysis Marco.
BTW you just described an entire generation … and their changing Politics (thank God)….
Prosecution contends it doesn’t work that way and cited cases (yesterday). You cannot be the aggressor and then claim self defence if the tables turn against you.
Anyway, the argument was enough to deny acquittal.
@ sdk:
You have it backwards. You CAN be the aggressor and claim self defense if the tables turn. However most of the time it’s up to the jury not the judge to sort through all the facts.
Acting as the jury you’ve sorted through the facts and concluded that GZ was the initial aggressor but TM turned the tables and when the shot was fired TM was the aggressor beating down GZ.
That equals an acquittal on self defense grounds.
The motion for acquittal is hardly ever granted even if the judge is unbiased. They have to go through the motions if actually convicted for appeal. But the dca who has already reversed her error, in not allowing the depo of crump which at first she said he could do. This judge was a prosecutor and all of her case she proceeds over she rules more for the state. We all knew she would never dismiss the case but it was a necessary step.
And yes florida law supports the use if deadly force by the aggressor the case law mantei spoke about other things were at factors the the aggressor used deadly force without the reasonable suspicious of force
sdk, GZ legally carried a gun like millions of other americans do, he was a civilian just like anyone else. Being a member of a NW, doesn’t matter. GZ Could have done things differently, (like walk the path with a flashlight on, etc), but the fact is he didn’t.
Even if he verbally told TM off, and called his mom a slut, would have been perfectly legal and would have not been a threat. The evidence clearly shows who was the aggressor and who got beat up, GZ. TM had a knuckle abrasion. Even if GZ had shoved TM once in the chest, that wouldn’t justify deadly force. Anyway, following someone while carrying a gun legally concealed is not a crime. I do it all the time when I go to the grocery store.
There was no acquittal granted. Prosecution presented case law to refute the contention that an aggressor who loses the advantage can claim self defence.
Really. Cite to it.
Those motions are largely perfunctory and rarely, at this stage result in an acquittal. By trotting out that errant point, you expand the degree of your ignorance and wrongheadedness (which I could scarcely have imagined possible)
“By trotting out that errant point, you expand OUR COMPREHENSION OF the degree of your ignorance and wrongheadedness”
Fixed it for ya…. ;^)
I never said GZ carried his weapon illegally. Also, TM did not carry his skittles and iced tea illegally.
And “looking suspicious” is not a crime. It is a justification to wait for police to if there is valid concern to find out more.
That is why my 1st post stressed that I see the big problem as GZ not is some way IDing himself as neighbourhood watch. Even the Serino interview brought this up.
SDK, Leaving this case, and all of its facts behind for just a moment, If you were being beaten, were unable to defend yourself or escape, believed that the next blow could well end your life, would you have the right to defend your life with lethal force, yes or no?
I am a middle class white guy. I would have asked Dee to call 911 because some dude in a truck was stalking me.
While you were on a walkway, yards from you father’s door.
Yeh. Scary…
@sdk: LOL you are BUSTED!!!!–
“sdk-wp | July 6, 2013 at 5:57 pm
I am a middle class white guy. I would have asked Dee to call 911 because some dude in a truck was stalking me.”
EXACTLY!!!! You’d of called 911 IF WHAT JEANTEL testified to, was actually true.
Did TM call 911? No.
Did Jeantel call 911? No.
Did either call the NEN? No.
So that proves they weren’t actually scared for TM’s safety doesn’t it?
(Unless you are now going to say they didn’t call 911 because blacks can’t trust the police?)
Indeed even after losing contact with TM Jeantel never bothered to report anything to the police.
By the way, you spelled “neighbourhood” the british way, with a “u.”
Do they have 911 in the U.K.?
“Middle class white guy”?
That doesn’t insulate a person from being ignorant, stupid, or just plain wrong, does it?
Unrelated to my question. If you don’t want to answer this, just say so.
Again: “SDK, Leaving this case, and all of its facts behind for just a moment, If you were being beaten, were unable to defend yourself or escape, believed that the next blow could well end your life, would you have the right to defend your life with lethal force, yes or no?”
yep. more or less.
Ok. If that was an answer to my question, why wouldn’t Zimmerman, in that exact circumstance, be justified?
Which begs the question why GZ neighbourhood watch leader dude did not know the streets in his neighbourhood.
(prosecution asked this yesterday)
NWP trainer lady taught the residents to get to know *each other*–not memorize street names or house numbers. Sgt. Raimondo was even confused about the next neighborhood name and streets when being CX’ed about walking pathways through that neighborhood, the shortcut RJ testified TM said he was taking. Lauer didn’t know where the street names began and ended because they change. Look at the neighborhood map–there are loops inside loops and the streets bend and the names changed, and the stub of street near the back entrance isn’t labeled at all. It’s not on a neat grid of squares with distinct straight streets with names that don’t change. Perfectly understandable to me. Not damning evidence whatsoever. And NWP doesn’t have “duty” or “patrols” so there is no need to master the street names and house numbers.
Answered in his statements to the police (has ADD for which he is being medicated, was coming up with a blank). His walk to the East end of the walkway forming the top of the T, was to find an address on a street he knew the name of.
Also, patrolling the neighborhood is not part of Neighborhood Watch according to testimony by the police, so there was no compelling reason for him to memorize the names of the streets. Note that the police asked him to become a citizen patrolman, even offering to provide a patrol car. He turned them down.
Of course, you would know all this if you watched the testimony and read the available discovery documents.
Prosecution and defence went round and round on this during the acquittal hearing.
No acquittal.
Waiting for those citations, showing that an instigator of a shoving match cannot rightfully claim self-defense when the other(s) turn to deadly force.
Tic-toc….
Florida statutes:
776.012 Use of force in defense of a person
776.041 Use of force by agressor
Pay particular attenttion to 776.041 2(a)
I know. He just keeps rocking and chanting to himself whenever those are rubbed in his nose.
This isn’t, like, new ground in American jurisprudence, either. These questions have been around a LONG time, and they’ve been resolved.
Yes, i figured you knew, I was hoping (I know, I know) that tdk would look it up.
Here you go, links and all:
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—
http://is.gd/wnFMTt
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.
http://is.gd/kn3y7a
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—
http://is.gd/1Bl594
782.02 Justifiable use of deadly force.—
http://is.gd/EIPq7C
Just happened to have ’em handy. 🙂
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
Educated in the good ole USA I am afraid. Listen, it is a bad thing to trivialize this case. I mean, TM should not have died. Something went wrong that day. Now, my contention is that a lot of what went wrong – most in fact – was created by GZs bad decisions. But, I am NOT on the jury.
But “bad decisions” are not Murder II.
You just destroyed your own argument.
“Bad decisions” are not manslaughter either. At this point murder II conviction seems unlokely, and GZ’s real fear has to be of a “compromise verdict” of manslaughter. This now needs to be focus of defense given the potential 30 year sentence for manslaughter involving a firearm.
Even in your backwards scenario of lethal force in response to a creepy guy following you, Trayvon made quite a few ‘bad decisions’ that resulted in his own death. So let’s not act like ‘bad decisions’ should be what determines guilt instead of the law.
Bad Decision 1: According to RJ’s testimony, TM had made it back to his Father’s Fiance’s residence, but the incident occurred back at the T. It’s a bad decision to leave an area of safety to go confront someone that you fear may kill you. TM should have gone inside and called the police.
Bad Decision 2: Although you believe that TM was justified in escalating things to a physical altercation, because he was being ‘stalked’ it would still be a poor decision to escalate things into a physical altercation. If someone is looking to harm you, why pick a fight unless it was your last resort?
If some guy in a truck is looking at you, and follows (at a distance), … that gives you a stand your ground self defense “right” to yell “take off eh!”.
If the guy gets out of the truck and approaches you … that gives you a stand your ground self defense “right” to say “take off eh!”.
If you instead ask “are you following me?” and the guy responds “what do you think” … that gives you a stand your ground self defense “right” to say “take off eh!”.
If instead you knock the guy down, break his nose, straddle him on the ground, beat his head into concrete, and refuse to stop even though he is yelling “help” to nearby witnesses (who also tell you to stop) … that gives him a stand his ground self defense right to unholster his concealed firearm (you didn’t see before) and shoot you dead.
Prosecution cited them yesterday. Listen to the acquittal hearing.
Cite your cases.
The hearing did not…damn sure SHOULD not…have considered anything outside of the statues under which Zimmerman is charged, nor should there be case-law that runs counter to the statutory provisions under which he is charged.
So, put up.
Otherwise, you are just trolling now.
Never watched it I am afraid. Do not really watch TV – video streams on internet, but no cable.
LOL don’t really watch TV, middle class UK, right, you are a British socialist snob who looks down their nose at “USIans” right?
If you (tdk) haven’t watched it, how in the world are you arriving at your conclusions?
If you are uncertain about some evidence that was presented, just ask.
If you are uncertain about how some statutory or case law applies to this case, just ask.
If you are uncertain about the rules that apply to the motion for judgment of acquittal, just ask.
There are sufficient legitimate issues with this case that would be fruitful and interesting to discuss. But most of your conclusions seem to be due to a misunderstanding of the evidence or the law.
I think sdk gets all of his news from fellow Brit, Piers Morgan. With him there’s practically no need to keep up on current affairs. What better place to get all of your facts than from Piers Morgan?
We will see. They sum of many may just equate to M2.
@sdk-wp
Not ONE IOTA of this has ANYTHING to do with the law or this case with the exception of the highlighted statement. That statement is a plain falsehood, as anyone who has watched the trial would readily now.
Whether or not you think GZ’s injuries were life threatening (and they most certainly were – google one punch kill), TM was committing aggravated battery on GZ.
Concrete is a deadly weapon, just like a rock, hammer or any other hard object used to strike the head.
Once you commit aggravated battery on an individual, they do not even need to be in fear of their life to shoot you dead.
You get that? If you commit aggravated battery against someone (as in pounding their head on a concrete sidewalk), they don’t even have to be in fear for their life to use deadly force. They can shoot you simply because you are committing the battery.
Look, I realize the UK has turned you Brits into a bunch of namby pamby limp-wristed wimps who are too terrified to even fight back, but that’s not how it’s done in the US. If you’re going to live here at least learn the laws before expressing your opinion about them.
Here, we still believe that a man has a right to defend himself, his loved ones and his castle and a criminal has no rights other than to a fair trial and three squares a day for the balance of his sentence if convicted.
@ sdk:
OUCH!!!!
LOL
Are you kidding? The dude who has been stalking you from his truck has just got out to try and follow you.
I would be scared.
So scared you chit-chat with your girl friend, instead of coverin the short distance to safe haven while calling 911????
You really are just an obdurate Energizer bunny…with all the brains.
RJ testified that when she called TM back at 7:12 he was at home, in the back of Brandi’s house (dad’s girlfriend, where he was staying). He had arrived at safety. If he went inside and gave Chad his Skittles and drank his Watermelon Tea and watched the NBA game and calmed down, nothing would have happened.
Instead, here’s what happened that is based on the state’s case and evidence entered this week:
6:23 p.m. TM leaves 7-11 – it is one mile from the 7-11 to the mailbox area. Why does it take TM so long? RJ doesn’t know, they didn’t discuss. Gives TM enough time to case houses, which GZ witnesses him doing.
7:09:34 GZ calls NEN having seen TM suspicious behavior while GZ en route to Target
About 7:10 Jayne S. hears TM at top of T talking loud on cell phone, not in distress or arguing—one low loud voice (she said 5 to 10 minutes before, then 5 minutes before, then on the stand 2 minutes before—defense CX nailed her on differences in this time in her separate statements; this is assuming 5 minutes is correct because longer doesn’t fit the sequence of events)
7:11 RJ-TM’s call is dropped, TM is running to/through the T and down the dogwalk
7:12:06 RJ calls TM back, he’s at his dad’s girlfriend’s house in the back (dogwalk side of the house or past the end of the building?) — RJ hears TM breathing hard, wind noise, TM is speaking in a low soft voice not to be heard and discovered as he walks back up the T to surprise confront/attack GZ—TM has just short of four minutes to walk back before confrontation and call dropped
7:13:40 GZ hangs up with NEN – thinks it’s over and that TM has left the area, but is waiting to meet up with responding officer, waiting for officer’s call to get directions/meetup point. GZ at T and hesitates to give home address because he doesn’t know where this guy is, could overhear then show up later.
7:15:44 RJ-TM call is dropped—spoken confrontation has already happened and suckerpunch has been thrown and RJ has heard people falling on wet grass and Bluetooth fell off TM’s head, is on the ground
• Jayne S. heard loud low pitched aggressive voice speak first, which is the same voice she heard 5? Minutes earlier; then a higher pitched, softer voice responds; then the low pitched loud voice speaks again.
• Jayne S. attributes lower pitched voice to adult man, higher pitched voice to the boy – had never seen TM alive/standing (no height/weight perception) and assumed it was TM (because of media pictures of 12 year old TM); had never heard GZ’s (high pitched soft meek) voice or perceived that GZ was shorter than TM
• RJ testified TM spoke first (she gave different versions of what was said)
7:16:11 1st neighbor (Lauer) calls 911 about the fight in progress almost 30 seconds already…this is the call that gets the yelling and the gunshot
• Surdyka saw two men laying on the ground wrestling, “vertical” (perpendicular) to her—that would be parallel to dogwalk, between Lauer’s and Good’s patios (distance)—didn’t perceive top man sitting up. Assumed GZ was on top. She only saw briefly because she had to open the window and turn off the nightlight which was causing glare and she couldn’t see until it was off. Dark outside in the area, sounds like one patio light on? Good’s?
• Only eyewitness Good saw as a MMA style ground and pound with TM on top raining blows down on GZ – 17’ from him and on the concrete—statement to police THAT DAY, and he stepped (one foot) outside on porch and spoke to them. Cut that out! I’m calling 911! – went back inside, GZ knew no one coming to help him – no, help me!
• Lauer heard but didn’t see because she went upstairs to hide, (afraid of home invasion like what happened recently?)
7:16:53 shot fired (Surdyka heard three – pop pop pop – echo?)
TM assaults GZ for a minute and 10 seconds
7:17:06 Surdyka 911 call starts 13 seconds after gunshot (but she testified it happened when she was on the phone with the 911 dispatcher)
7:17:15 Good 911 call starts, shot has already happened, NOT going out there
7:18:17 Good one guy in back yard with flashlight (Manolo neighbor) – GZ asks Manolo for help restraining TM (still moving and talking)
7:18:37 Good says two guys with flashlights in backyard (cop arrives?) – black guy down, pretty sure he’s dead
7:18:40 Lauer 911 call ends
7:19:03 Good 911 call ends
7:31:35 Surdyka 911 call ends – she was histrionic and took a long time to calm down
Very nice timeline, well done. I love timelines because they really put perspective to the facts.
U keep using the word stalking, stalking as it applies to the law involves several attempts over time. Not several attempts over minutes. It is also used to harass and instill fear in the subject. He was following someone which is completely legal in the great old us of a.stalking how Peter is a misdemeanor of the 3rd degree and cyber stalking has now reached a felony in the 3rd degree. I might be wrong about the degree parts Im sure the lawyers will correct me. But as of my cybercrimes book written last year cyberstalking was made into a felony at the beginning of last year.
I see your point when you say he ‘may’ have been scared. I don’t think there is any way we will know if he was or wasn’t scared, but the fact that he did indeed have the upper hand the entire duration of the fight (until the end) and despite GZ’s continued screams for help TM showed no sign that he would make any effort to let up on the assault. It is not asking anyone too much to question TM’s intentions, common sense would have anyone believing that if GZ did not possess a firearm that night he may have suffered severe brain damage or death. What Trayvon Martin did was go far beyond any possible actions relating to self defense or reasonable fear for his safety.
GZ had NO facts about TM, only suspicion. There was NO crime committed that GZ was reacting to. Just a profile.
Oh, and the dispatcher who asked him to meet the responding patrol car and assist.
@sdk:
OK you’re a middle class white male U.K. ivory-tower socialist who looks down their nose at the U.S.
You undoubtedly work as an academic or perhaps government position.
You are insulated from reality and real life and are obsessively wedded to your pre-ordained political notions which simply do not allow for even the possibility that a 17 year old American black male should be held for his actions or decisions, because by definition, he is a member of an oppressed class.
Therefore, you cognitively “blank out” any contrary data.
You didn’t actually listen to the NEN call or watch the walk-through video, did you? GZ reports suspicious *behavior.* In all of GZ’s calls (5 previous calls since the August before), it is ALWAYS the dispatcher who brings up race. GZ ALWAYS describes the behavior as being suspicious. The state fought hard to get these calls into evidence and presented before the jury and I consider them exculpatory as regards racist motivations. In fact, the first two calls are before the NWP started and it’s his wife who had identified the suspicious people as being the ones she witnessed committing an earlier, recent burglary. The third call (first one after NWP started) it’s about an open garage door and not people at all–that was not usual for those neighbors at 11:08 p.m. to have an open garage door, and the car was in the garage. The fourth call, two men were loitering in their car at the gated entrance to the neighborhood. The last call, a guy was casing a house, going up to the house, down the side, and going back again–casing it.
Sounds like a good neighbor to me.
And your legal options would be (1) stand your ground and say “take off eh!” or (2) retreat.
That is why there is such a rift in this case. Middle class white guys experience with police is much different than urban minority.
And YOUR expertise here is….????
There is no expertise. sdk is simply one of these Euro-know-it-all ultra liberal or socialist guys who have never really lived in the real world and has been educated and socialized to view all things through a racial lens.
Anything that conflicts with that narrative has to be denied and excluded as a possibility.
sdk is incapable of EVER admitting that a black youth could be an aggressor because you see it’s never really the black youth’s fault due to the history of slavery Jim Crow and racial discrimination in the U.S.
Britain is one of the most virulently racist, classist, and xenophobic places I’ve ever been. It’s awful. Yet sdk stands in judgment of GZ. Ohhhhh kaaaaay.
@sdk:
I was right.
You seem to think the trial of GZ is a mechanism to work out your political viewpoints about the state of race relations in America including your biased and racially prejudiced preconceptions of white and black in America.
Anything that conflicts with your fossilized preordained prejudices must be denied existence.
You refuse to entertain even the possibility that TM could have been the aggressor because your entire political world view of whites being the aggressors against blacks and police being oppressors of blacks would crumble.
Work in the offshore oil and gas industry. Have time to read though.
@sdk: Reading books about life doesn’t count as real life.
The jury is required to put itself in the place of the defendant GZ not the decedent TM. You refuse to honestly do this because you have the racist bias that TM was automatically the victim and GZ automatically the aggressor because TM was black and GZ was a “white Hispanic.”
Ask one of your friends on the oil rig assuming you actually work on one to straddle you over a concrete sidewalk and start slamming your head into it and then get back to us and see if you’ve changed your POV.
And it might have the beneficial side effect of knocking some sense into you too LOL.
No racial bias. I used to teach high school though, and it is sad to see this tragedy; for both GZ and TM.
Yeh. It IS sad. And it is replicated virtually every day in our very populous nation.
Course, nothing like this happens in GB or Europe. Heaven forfend…
@sdk:
O.K. you worked in a high school. Fine.
You work in oil and gas now. Fine.
You read a lot of books. Fine.
When was the last time you ever strolled through the crummy part of town, at night, alone?
When was the last time you were ever physically threatened by anyone other than your mummy, daddy, wife or mistress giving you a paddling? In a situation that might well present you with a life or death choice?
Do you have any family in the military or law enforcement? If so have you ever actually talked with them about their experiences in facing dangerous situations and the snap decisions that sometimes must be made in a split second with very little information?
Did you actually LISTEN to those folks or did you apply your know it all attitude to those conversations too?
GZ’s decision wasn’t made sitting on his butt reading a book somewhere and the stakes didn’t matter.
He was actually out there alone at night getting the crap beat out of him and thinking he was going to die that night.
An experience that you thankfully have never ever had.
As a white middle class educated male you obviously have never actually had any experience with how the TMs’ and Jeantels of the world live. You have as little knowledge of them as you do of the George zimmermans of the world.
You are indeed fortunate to be insulated in your little cocoon where you can completely disregard the reality that others face on a daily basis because it is of no real consequence to you.
Reality is quite a bit different though.
This isn’t a tragedy. There are no tragic elements. “Oedipus” is a tragedy. “Macbeth” is a tragedy. “Götterdämmerung” is a tragedy. This is street thuggery. And of course fantasy, as you continue your bizarre claim that when Martin is banging some guy’s head into the sidewalk, he’s doing “nothing wrong”.
Lived all over the world, actually.
Swell. Here’s a biscuit…
Do not pay as much attention to World new. Focus on America, country of my birth.
@sdk:
Whatever, most people who are born in and educated in the U.S. as you claim to be don’t generally use the “British” form of spellings, so you must have at least spent a great deal of time in the U.K.
So, since you are being evasive, I am trying to get you to admit that you simply don’t think young black males such as TM should be held accountable for any anti-social activity because of the history of racism by whites against blacks in America. TM and all others like him get a permanent “mulligan” from you.
Correct?
Incorrect?
FYI, if anybody here is a member of the NRA (National Rifle Association, one of the largest civil rights organizations in the United States, for those of our visitors from other lands), be aware that there is a $5 off coupon available for a break on the now-shipping “The Law of Self-Defense, 2nd Edition.” The coupon works ONLY at http://www.lawofselfdefense.com, NOT at Amazon. Combined with the 20% discount we’re running for the duration of the trial, this amounts to a total of 30% off the list price. Oh, AND free shipping.
Just input the coupon code “LOSD2-NRA” in the cart, where indicated, to get the discount.
(And, no, there is no truth to the rumor that inputting “sdk-wp” into the coupon field results in an order of magnitude increase in the price of the book. But only because I hadn’t thought of it. 🙂
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
Hey, Andrew, I don’t have an “all states” search subscription, so maybe you can help here…
Is a JOA at the stage we were at Friday reviewable by Florida appellate courts if granted?
Speaking generally (I don’t practice law in Florida, and don’t have time to look it up), I would think it surely is. But I don’t see how they’d ever get to it. There are so many grounds on which to reverse a conviction, they need never get to this one.
In any case, winning on appeal will be a total loss for George Zimmerman, he won’t survive a week in genpop.
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
The sdk surcharge made me laugh. I was going to write crack up, but sdk would think I went insane. It means something different in British slang.
This is a wonderful site that I have been viewing for quite a while and since I was banned recently from another site for expressing pro-GZ opinions it is like a breath of fresh air!
If the defense isn’t using SYG as a defense why is the prosecution making a big deal with it? Does SYG go hand in hand with self defense or is there no fine line between the two?
SYG, “Stand Your Ground”, involves the 4th Principle of the Law of Self-Defense, “Avoidance.” This centers on the traditional “general duty of retreat” that required that you take advantage of a safe avenue of retreat before resorting to the use of force, and particularly deadly force, in self-defense.
Back in the days before efficient and convenient projectile weapons an assault victim was most likely to be threatened with a blade or club. In this context it was common for the government to demand that you take advantage of a safe avenue of retreat before you meet force with force, because safety could be secured merely by moving outside of contact distance.
The development of portable firearms changed all this, of course–one could no longer acquire a position of safety by simply back out of contact distance, because firearms have “reach”. Over time, the “general duty of retreat” became a minority position, particularly here in the United States.
Today, only 17 states still maintain a “general duty to retreat”. Even among the strictest of these states there is an exemption for when you are in your home, commonly referred to as the Castle Doctrine (although even this very limited exemption might not be available if your attacker is ALSO lawfully in the residence). Most of these 17 states also have additional exemptions to the general duty to retreat, such as when in your home, vehicle, etc.
The majority of states (33, obviously) have avoided the incremental approach to exempting the general duty to retreat by simply putting in place a blanket exemption–you need not retreat from an unprovoked attack anywhere you have a right to be. None of these states actually call their statutory scheme “Stand Your Ground,” and many have had this broad exemption in place for many years–even decades–before Florida adopted their “SYG” provision.
With that as background it should be obvious that SYG can only have relevance where there existed a safe opportunity to retreat. Even when there was a general duty of retreat, it only applied when there actually existed a safe avenue of retreat. No safe retreat, no duty. If no duty, no need for an exemption to the duty. If no need for an exemption, no need for SYG.
In this instance Trayvon Martin had mounted George Zimmerman “MMA-style,” as testified to by the only eye-witness other than Zimmerman himself, and initiated a brutal aggravated assault from which Zimmerman could not safely retreat.
Base on these facts in evidence, Florida v. Zimmerman is not, and never has been, a SYG.
The State is pressing SYG just as they are pressing many other irrelevant issues–it’s the “throw everything at the wall and see what sticks” school of prosecution.
All this and more can be found in “The Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition,” http://is.gd/oRSUSc
(NRA members use coupon LOSD2-NRA at check-out for additional $5 discount, free shipping.)
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
Mr. Branca, you are eminently patient to explain this yet again for the new site visitors.
If you look at the photos of the injuries to George’s face you can see there are several more marks. In fact one on his lower face almost looks like a bite mark even tho I’m sure it isn’t . I hope someone took photos of his face once punched areas turned into bruises
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/05/24/update-26-part-2-trayvon-martin-shooting-a-year-of-drug-use-culminates-in-predictable-violence/
Eye-opening info about lean/purple lean, as well as Trayvon Martin’s drug use and potential drug dealing.
I heard MOM at the press conference say something that he would welcome going into the history of his client because then the gloves are coming off.
The skittles and Arizona Watermelon have a whole new meaning in this case to me now.
THC and THC metabolite levels in TM’s blood were consistent with having used marijuana 12 hours before. That would be around 7 a.m. – a wake and bake. TM was probably ready for his next high and went shopping for the other ingredients he needed for Purple Drank. It’s plausible and even likely if you look at the frequency of his tweets referring to getting high and trying to score prescription codeine cough syrup and using Purple Drank.
Liz, I am sort of a news junkie, yet I have never heard this info about Trayvon and his “lean” mentioned on any broadcast network. Would Fox even be afraid to discuss this?
Back in the day, if I was buying Boston baked beans candy, Funyuns, Mountain Dew, Pepsi, and powdered donuts, my friends knew I was ready to party. LOL
FYI, I’ve posted up the Introduction to “The Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition,” in its entirety at my blog, so folks can get a sense of the nature of the book before making a decision to buy. Also, they may just enjoy the introduction, who knows. 🙂
Regardless, you can find the introduction here: http://is.gd/PRKNEQ
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
I have an evidentiary question about the coroner’s notes. Since he testified that he doesn’t remember anything and that his testimony is based entirely on his notes, why did the judge not order a copy of the notes be entered as evidence? I thought that any testimony based on a written record made the written record admissible.
Also, any notes that a public employee generates are a public record, aren’t they? Or does the Earnhardt rule exempt a coroner’s notes?
Judge Nelson said after being used in court they would be destroyed but west was quick to comment they were part of the witnesses testimony and she shut up real quickly they will be in seal tell a later time after the trial and/if appeals process is over.
They can recover tertiary touch DNA (I shake hands with you, you touch murder weapon, my DNA on murder weapon). They can recover DNA from Otzi, who died on a mountain pass in the Alps 5,000 years ago. According to Zimmerman, Martin had his bald head in his bare hands and repeatedly bashed it into the concrete. According to Zimmerman, Martin had his hand over Zimmerman’s mouth, smothering him. But somehow there was no DNA transfer to Martin’s hands or to the sleeves of his sweatshirt. Unless the Florida rain that night was aqua regia, Martin should have been swimming in Zimmerman DNA. Zimmerman is lying.
–bks
So is it your position that, despite the fact that witnesses saw Martin sitting on top of Zimmerman and punching downward, and that they arrived at the scene of the altercation seconds after the shot, that Marting never laid a hand on Zimmerman, and that Zimmerman somehow managed to punch his own head and strike his own head on the pavement without any of the witnesses seeing any of this?
Witnesses are notoriously unreliable. Today there were witnesses who claimed they saw the plane that crashed at SFO “cartwheel”. And that
was in plain daylight! There are no injuries to Martin’s hands. Most likely John Good has the two parties reversed. After all, it is Zimmerman who had the MMA training in ground-and-pound. See also the famous Simons&Chabris experiment:
http://www.livescience.com/6727-invisible-gorilla-test-shows-notice.html
Zimmerman’s nose could have been bloodied by the recoil of the handgun. The abrasions on his head are unremarkable. They could have been inflicted by a branch on a tree. Has Zimmerman *ever* had an X-ray to prove that his nose was broken? It would not be dispositive at this time, but it would be supportive.
–bks
No. Zimmerman’s injuries were all inflicted by the well-known Everglade Yettie.
Or is it Yentl… I can never keep those straight.
Injuries so inconsequential that the only reason he went to a doctor’s office was to get an excuse for work. Even at the doctor’s office he never saw a doctor, just the physician’s assistant. How unfortunate for Zimmerman that he *never* saw a doctor and had a thorough exam with x-rays. What bad luck not to have DNA, not to have injuries to Martin’s hands, not to have visited a doctor. A cynic might think he’s lying.
–bks
Sayyyyy…
Did you ALSO know that “steel doesn’t melt”…???
And buildings don’t just fall.
TX great post. BKS you’re just being annoying now. Don’t get upset when you become a punching bag. Many of the posters here understand the law and logic — while your “case” is entirely speculative and full of “facts” not in evidence.
“No DNA here there everywhere” — perfect example. NOT finding DNA proves … that there was no DNA there. That’s it! YOU engage in SPECULATION — that “IF GZ’s story was accurate, THEN there MUST BE DNA” which is NOT NECESSARILY TRUE.
Don’t you understand that? If not, condolences.
Whoops wrong spot.
A physician assisant isn’t some gopher. They can do EVERYTHING a Doctor can do, except prescribe controlled substances.
IIRC GZ went to the doctor to get cleared for work, not to get excused from work. His employer insisted on it. Personally, I have always found PAs to be especially attentive and see one regularly. I even refer to her as “doctor” out of the respect I feel she is due.
Another friggin idiot shows up.
That’s a lie. The coroner testified to two abrasions on his right hand that could have come from punching someone.
So you think that a man who testified that the black man with the dark coat was on top and the lighter man with the red coat was on the bottom?
You’re an idiot.
There is zero proof of that. Another lie by someone desperate to find something, anything to hold on to to justify their racism.
Try sticking to the facts of the trial racist.
You’re clearly an ignorant fool. A 380 has insignificant recoil and the weapon was nowhere near his face at the time the shot was fired – or have you forgotten that Trayvon was shot in the chest? Do you seriously want to argue that Zimmerman’s face was under Trayvon’s chest at the time of the shot?
On the moron index you score a negative 10.
Come to my house so I can put those unremarkable abrasions on your head and we’ll see if your opinion changes.
And Trayvon’s gunshot wound could have come from Argentina.
Look at the photograph. Then I’ll send you photos of when my nose was broken. And yeah, I had xrays, cat scans and tons of other tests.
If you still feel it’s not a broken nose, you just lost another ten points on your already negative score.
Now go away moron.
The truth is painful, isn’t it? That’s why you feel compelled to call me names. All I’m saying is that the DNA evidence proves that Zimmerman was lying. That doesn’t mean that he’s guilty of 2nd degree murder, but he’s lying for sure. There is just no way that there could have been a struggle like Zimmerman described without enough DNA to be picked up by PCR. No way.
–bks
“The truth is painful, isn’t it?”
Hey, that is a testable hypothesis.
Post some, and we can see if it smarts any.
TX great post. BKS you’re just being annoying now. Don’t get upset when you become a punching bag. Many of the posters here understand the law and logic — while your “case” is entirely speculative and full of “facts” not in evidence.
“No DNA here there everywhere” — perfect example. NOT finding DNA proves … that there was no DNA there. That’s it! YOU engage in SPECULATION — that “IF GZ’s story was accurate, THEN there MUST BE DNA” which is NOT NECESSARILY TRUE.
Don’t you understand that? If not, condolences.
“Most likely John Good has the two parties reversed.
So you think that a man who testified that the black man with the dark coat was on top and the lighter man with the red coat was on the bottom?”
The first forensic report said the pistol was in contact with the hoodie
The ME said the shot to the chest was 4 inches to 4 feet away, so likely 4 inches
How do you get 4 inches between the hoodie and the chest?
Martin bending over Zimmerman, so baggie hoodie is hanging down loose.
380 is 9x18mm. Various names, .380ACP, 9mm Browning Short, 9mm Corto, etc; all the same animal.
Zimmerman’s gun is chambered in 9x19mm, a.k.a. 9mm Luger, 9mm Parabellum.
Still negligible recoil, of course.
Lack of DNA is evidence of nothing. There are a million different possible reasons for the absence of DNA…you don’t get to choose your preferred reasons and call it a fact.
Broken noses are COMMONLY diagnosed without x-rays. Why? Because treatment is the same whether a fracture is confirmed or not. X-rays are generally only necessary in a case where the fracture caused a deformity that might need surgical intervention.
The absence of evidence is not evidence.
Well, obviously I meant 9mm. The principle is the same. A 9mm has a very light recoil. The likelihood of the recoil causing a shooter to hit themselves in the nose AND break their nose is beyond miniscule.
Readers can judge for themselves whether the recoil was enough. Here’s a video of a one-hand shot with a Kel Tec PF-9
http://youtu.be/ABlqkoG-5XY
–bks
That’s proof of nothing. First of all, he’s shooting at a paper target, not trapped under another body. Secondly the video doesn’t show the weapon hitting his nose.
The guy shooting at the target is not chasing someone in the dark while under the influence of Adderall and Temazepam.
–bks
U don’t take them at the same time first of all. Adderal makes u concentrate better for people who need it. Temazpan makes u sleep because adderal gives u insomnia, those mess would knock him out in a matter of about 20 minutes or a little longer.
Ya not happening, pocket guns like those are meant to have small recoils so the don’t pop out of ur hand when they are fired. Now the ammo on the other hand zman was shooting with 147 gran hollow point which isn’t a very large recoil of ammo. I shoot plus ps out of my 9 all day long that have less recoil then that guy in the video but then again he is also holding that camera to.and to ur DNA issue, gz has said in every statement he reached for the gun. Wouldn’t that mean to say he hadn’tt touched it yet. And even if he had the rain and the officer mishandling of the gun. So every officer said no major inconsentancies with his statements. You will not tell the same story the same way twice according to the officers so minor is not a cause for concern. If u lie there would be more or a lot less as it had been rehearsed like ms Fulton on the stand
Three things about your suggestion the gun recoil broke GZs nose:
1. It would have been physically impossible for that to happen with the wound placement.
2. If there was even a miniscule possibility that could have happened, the state would have put on an expert to testify to that.
2. Because of your insistence that TM never touched the gun because none of his DNA was identified on it, you then have to admit GZ never shot the gun: none of his DNA on the trigger, remember. Some creature from another dimension who doesn’t leave trace DNA must have pulled that trigger.
And the wizards missed officer Smith’s DNA on the gun, and Zimmerman’s DNA on his flashlight.
Have you ever fired a 9mm pistol? I don’t need to watch a YouTube video to give you my opinion. You’d have to be extremely incompetent to break your own nose with a 9mm pistol. Your argument reminds me of when Joe Biden recommended that women shoot shotguns because AR-15’s have too much recoil. Laughable to anyone with even a passing interest in firearms.
I’ve fired 10s of thousands of rounds of 9mm ammo through pistols, and well over a hundred thousand rounds of 45ACP, in a rather lengthy competitive shooting career.
There’s a reason the State didn’t argue to the jury that Zimmerman’s broken nose could have been caused by his 9mm Kel-Tec having recoiled into his face.
That’s because the notion is ridiculous, and they’d look like idiots for proposing it. Anyone who has ever fired a 9mm handgun would know this instantly.
But what about the jurors who have NEVER fired a 9mm handgun?
For those jurors, their “knowledge” of firing handguns of the caliber used here is almost certainly limited to watching actors fire handguns on television shows and movies. Somehow, not one of them ever seems to object to the recoil (nor muzzle blast in enclosed spaces, but that’s another matter), much less risk smashing their face with the recoil of their own gun at each shot.
Such fantastical efforts to “prove” George Zimmerman a “liar” and a “murderer” merely highlight the utter lack of direct evidence on any of those points, and the fact that the overwhelming majority of reasonable circumstantial evidence also supports the defense.
Of course, if one wants to believe–in the utter absence of any supporting facts in evidence–that Zimmerman’s nose was broken when his pistol recoiled into his face, or the sidewalk hurled itself from the ground into the back of Zimmerman’s head, or that the clinically obese 28-year-old Hispanic “chased down” the 17-year-old athlete and then attacked the athlete’s fists with his face . . . well, it’s your right to make an utter fool of yourself.
And our right to think you an utter fool for having done so.
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
If he was shooting a 50 I could see a broken nose happening but not a 9 when I can shot it with one hand and control recoil while shooting a .22 in the other. I must be someone who has considerable talent. Lol
Apparently it is for you.
Oh, I’m not calling you names, son. I’m identifying who you are.
Pay attention to the trial. The testimony explained it. Some of the evidence was mishandled causing DNA to be degraded. In other cases (such as the gun), DNA evidence is unlikely. In some cases, the rain washed all the blood off, so there was no DNA left.
You think the rain would wash blood off the sweatshirt? Please try to be serious. You can’t get blood out of a shirt in a washing machine! If it was raining bleach you might have an argument. The DNA results prove that Zimmerman was lying.
–bks
What that whole series of experts prove is that lab…like many others in small cities…is a cluster fluck.
Our crime lab in Houston was so bad, it was shut down. And Houston is a BIG city, with LOTS of bidness for a crime lab.
You’ve been watching too many CSI episodes. (Hint: most autopsy suites look like abattoirs…but the abattoirs are cleaner).
I don’t watch CSI. I have spent 20 years working in molecular biology labs. The DNA evidence proves Zimmerman is lying.
–bks
So are u saying while it is raining and I went up and said hi and shook ur hand and then u continued to sit outside in the pouring rain my DNA would still be on the palms of your hand?
You better watch the DNA tech’s and ME’s testimony, pard, before you embarrass yourself further.
I have a daughter that manipulates chromosomes like they were Lincoln Logs.
Her lab and the Sanford crime lab are not exactly the same.
Again, go watch the testimony. See if you think these lab techs and he ME are anything like you imagine.
Ha, ha, ha, what did you DO in those molecular biology labs, mop the floors?
I did my graduate work in molecular biology at Harvard University, and I call bullshit on your bullshit.
But we needn’t even go there. Every forensics person called by the State–BY THE STATE–who even mentioned the subject of DNA evidence conceded that (1) a person can touch an object and not leave DNA; (2) a person can touch an object and leave DNA but not in sufficient quantity to be detected; (3) a person can touch an object and leave DNA in sufficient quantities for detection, but the DNA sample can be obliterated by wiping, rinsing, and other environmental confounders of detection (several of which were present in this case).
All of which means what anybody with an ounce of common sense already knows–the ABSENCE of DNA tells you nothing whatever. The only time DNA evidence is interesting is when it’s found somewhere it’s not supposed to be.
What’s “bks” stand for, anyway? “Bullshitter Knows Shit”? Because that would make perfect sense.
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
Note to swimmerbhs, what I’m saying is right up above:
https://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/zimmerman-trial-day-9-families-feud-over-scream-identification/comment-page-4/#comment-442228
–bks
I have been watching it while I’m not at work an or or two every few days so I have watching 99%. Me was not remarkable as he could not actual answer a questions that were ask. DNA expert stated that weather is a factor in it. Was pouring rain according to the weather, so weather played a roll in y there is nothing. And the mishandling of evidence could also lead to it liked believe u said earlier. I actually think the DNA guy sad he couldn’t exclude martins DNA from the holster. Which we all know wouldn’t have touched the body of Martin.
note to Andrew Branca, Save it for the courtroom. If Martin grabbed your head and smashed it into the sidewalk, your DNA would be all over his hands, and you know it. As I said, it’s not enough to convict Zimmerman of 2nd degree murder, which might be an overcharge, but Zimmerman is lying about the fight. And, BTW, why does everyone on this site have to include a gratuitous insult?
–bks
Dude! I never insulted you gratuitously.
You EARNED every one. I just gave you your props.
Okay his fingernails were the only think the collect DNA on from his hands, zman didn’t have a scratch so how would zmans DNA get under the fingers, I have been part of a clinical trial at fsu for the criminology school where the tested how DNA might get under the fingers. All the results pointed back to being scratched.
Again, a stupid post, because it is ILLOGICAL. NOT finding DNA doesn’t PROVE anything. There is no CERTAINTY that DNA would be found given the facts in evidence and the testimony. As someone else pointed out, the DNA of the officer who handled GZ’s gun WASN’T FOUND EITHER.
Stay in the lab, and out of the courtroom, ok.
“If Martin grabbed your head and smashed it into the sidewalk, your DNA would be all over his hands, and you know it.”
NO, YOU “think” that. It is not CERTAIN, as in “know.”
“And, BTW, why does everyone on this site have to include a gratuitous insult?”
See above.
God you are insufferable. It was raining. When blood is wet, it washes off just like any other liquid. If it dries, sure, it’s difficult to wash out.
Trayvon’s sweatshirt was still wet when the lab tech got it. Any DNA that was left was degraded, just as he testified.
You may be a biology tech, but you clearly don’t know much about crime labs and forensics.
“How unfortunate for Zimmerman that he *never* saw a doctor and had a thorough exam with x-rays.”
Yeah. It is also real unfortunate he did not keel over and die from a subdural hematoma.
‘Cause THEN ying-yangs would need to find some other extraneous BS to pick at.
There is a HUGE misconception out here about what a physician assistant is and does. PAs are not gophers, or medical assitants, or anything like that. A PA is a post graduate level medical professional that can do nearly anything a doctor can do. The only thing that a PA cannot do that a doctor can is write a prescription for a controlled substance.
They can perform surgery, do exams, order xrays, and write prescriptions.
FYI, I’ve now also posted up the Table of Contents to “The Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition,” in its entirety at my blog, which includes a list of all the detailed tables covering the law of self defense in all 50 states. Totally free to view, of course.
If interested, you can find the Table of Contents here: http://is.gd/t6hjTx
Don’t forget, NRA members use the “LOSD2-NRA” coupon at checkout for an additional $5 (~10%) off (on top of 20% “Zimmerman trial” discount) and free shipping.
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
@bks
Because you’ve earned it.
@swimmerbhs
Geez, do you guys take a course in how not to pay attention?
First of all, the collected from all five fingers into one evidence bag, eliminating the possibility that they could identify something specific from a particular finger. Second, by scraping all five fingers, they could have lost evidence from previous fingers before getting to the last one.
Finally, the ONLY DNA evidence found under Trayvon’s fingernails was his own.
Geez this is tiresome.
lol im on ur side, and crime detection and forensic is a really fun class actually because we shadow csi from tallahassee police department and leon county sheriffs office, or any other law enforcement department that we want for the last 2 months of the class. we have to do a certain amount of hours to pass the class.
And, just now I posted up the list of the defense teams prospective (potential) witnesses, direct from the mandatory discovery file. You can find that here:
http://is.gd/Wbfbnm
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
Thanks Andrew, but I can only view the first page, the ‘next page’ arrow isn’t working for me (may be my problem)
And I’m reading Robert Zimmerman’s book about his son’s “malicious prosecution” (available on Amazon only $3.99) and he mentions that George had a lot of black friends and acquaintances, including the fact that George’s date for the HS prom was a black girl.
And so I was wondering if any of those people would be on the witness list — maybe even to recognize the screams as coming from him (that would be dramatic testimony).
OK, I was able to download the pdf… thanks
Just keep in mind that this is the list from the mandatory discovery file, but it’s dated back in March 21. The defense could easily have added (or dropped) witnesses since then, but this is the most recent list I have in my posession.
Also, the sequence of people listed has no relationship to the order in which they might be called.
Finally, any of the State’s witnesses that the defense might want to call do NOT need to be on this list, they’re still fair game.
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
Andrew, no experts of any kind? I find that odd. Or is that a different list?
See my post immediately above yours for further explanation.
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
DNA Reliability weak points
Errors can occur if DNA samples are damaged or contaminated from improper handling. Limited amounts or mixtures of DNA profiles can increase misinterpretation of results.
Houston Police Department Crime Laboratory
Houston shut its police crime lab’s DNA division for several years after 2002 because of problems with the education and training of examiners, misleading testimony and improper evidence storage, leading to at least three exonerations and retesting of thousands of cases.
SOURCE: National Research Council of the National Academies.
The Washington Post. Published April 16, 2012.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/local/forensic-analysis-methods/
Also, as to fingernail DNA, when you punch someone, you’re fingers are curled under and into your palm.. no DNA there..
Another Also: a Google search turned up advice to smash a first blow to the nose with the heel of your hand, to protect your fingers…
Again, a stupid post, because it is ILLOGICAL. NOT finding DNA doesn’t PROVE anything. There is no CERTAINTY that DNA would be found given the facts in evidence and the testimony. As someone else pointed out, the DNA of the officer who handled GZ’s gun WASN’T FOUND EITHER.
Stay in the lab, and out of the courtroom, ok.
I live in UK now and my PC has UK dictionary.
Prosecution thought it did and that is why they had a DNA expert testify. Did TM grab the gun as GZ said? DNA says no.
And did officer Smith remove Zimmerman’s gun after cuffing Zimmerman. DNA says no (in sdk-wp’s warped understanding of science and logic).
Did Zimmerman pull the trigger of his gun? DNA evidence “says no” ….
The prosecution is stipulating that the conditions of self defence that defence brings to bear apply to TM – even more so.
This will be the prosecution trajectory.
However, GZ was the aggressor – got out of his vehicle to pursue TM, who he had been monitoring/watching.
Did TM consider himself in danger? Prosecution will contend affirmative. He saw a “creepy” guy get out of his vehicle and pursue him. Force is understandable to defend from this unidentified aggressor.
Serino confirmed that when then confrontation did occur, GZ had the opportunity to clarify the situation and state who he was and what he was doing.
TM: “You gotta problem” (sic)
GZ: “No”
GZs answer is a lie – incorrect. He DID have a problem. He had been describing it to 911 dispatch!
GZs problem – “They always seem to get away with it.”
I assume he means criminals who have got away with it. BUT, TM had not committed any crime. He was a law abiding pedestrian – minor – who had walked to a 7-11 and buy stuff.
GZ had IDd TM as a teenager to dispatch. However, later said that TM was older.
Why was GZ in the condition to have to use a gun in the first place? He ignored policy and advice from both his training and experience, and most notably minutes before from the (911) dispatch.
No imminent threat of harm means no justification for TM to use force. The fact that he left safety to return to and confront GZ also makes it clear that even the ‘creepy pursuit’ was not considered an imminent threat
Completely irrelevant. Whether or not GZ is neighborhood watch doesn’t give TM the ‘right’ to fight him.
Conjecture, you are making assumptions about the reason that GZ got out of his car, there is nothing on the NEN call that shows that GZ got out of his car to track down and confront TM. In fact the audio evidence better validates GZ’s story: he got out of the car to look up the street name, and was headed back to his car when TM confronted him.
GZ clearly describes suspicious behavior from TM on the phone call with the dispatcher. The dispatcher also believes the behavior is of concern to the police so he sends a unit to respond. If you are trying to show that GZ ‘profiled’ TM here, than so did the dispatcher.
Nothing about Martin’s conduct suggests he was apprehensive.
He had only to go a few yards to his father’s door.
He had only to hang up with DeeDee, and BOTH could have phoned the police.
He could have raised the alarm in the neighborhood, calling for help.
(Ha!)
You are generally full of crap.
“You got a problem?” can be said in a confrontational manner, especially when used as an opening line to a stranger. IMO, GZ’s response of “no” was not a “lie,” it was a non-confrontational reply that in essence conveyed “I don’t want any trouble with you.” IMO, GZ was surprised by TM and was trying to back down when he was struck. And there has been no evidence presented otherwise.
Also, it occurred to me yesterday that GZ told Manalo to “tell her I just shot someone” which supports his story that he didn’t realize TM was dead as he didn’t say “I just killed someone.” If GZ were lying, the pieces wouldn’t fit together so well. His story, or stories, would be more like Casey Anthony’s imaginary friends.
Of course TM knew GZ was lying. Why would have GZ got out of his vehicle and followed him? What was the reason – problem?
Maybe he got out of the car because the dispatcher asked GZ where TM went, and GZ wanted to figure out which street he ran down. After all that’s what GZ testified to, and the NEN call validates. Which is plenty more evidence than you have that GZ got out of the car because he had a ‘problem’ with TM.
Actually, while it’s true that GZ was trying to figure which way TM went, he could have just as easily been someone who was lost and trying to find an address.
This notion of yours that staring at someone and monitoring their movements is reasonable cause for self defense is absurd. As a woman, if I had a bullet for every time some guy stared at me and monitored my movements, there would be a lot of dead bodies. It’s a ridiculous premise and thankfully the law knows better.
The main justification for GZ pursuing TM was that HE WAS NW.
GZ was armed for a confrontation. How could he be “scared” when he was armed and chose to pursue independently?
GZ is very simply the aggressor at every turn. If he is not NW, maybe HE IS THE CRIMINAL, at least from TMs vantage point.
First off, you can’t be a criminal “from TM’s vantage point” otherwise you are just granting TM permission to profile GZ. Secondly, as many people have already pointed out, there is nothing criminal about following or confronting a suspicious person in your neighborhood, and you do not need to be a member of the neighborhood watch to follow or confront a suspicious person in your neighborhood. If I saw someone walking down the street in my neighborhood, looking stopping and looking at each house they passed, and I went outside and said “hey what the eff are you doing here?” they would still have no legal justification to punch me.
Watch Motion for Acquittal:
Motion for Acquittal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btd_kNw72TM
I guess YOU hope all the six women are ex-vets trained with the use of hand guns?
And really, your and my opinion really do not matter too much in the outcome of the trial.
It comes down to how 6 jurors see the evidence, really.
The video only shows the direction the prosecution is going.
Nope, I don’t have to hope that, because the Prosecution never tried to make the inane argument that GZ broke his nose with his own gun. But if they did, I’m pretty sure that the defense could find any number of expert witnesses to testify to the fact that this is nearly impossible with a 9mm hand gun. At which point I think the six jurors would find the expert witnesses more believable that a youtube video.
Even though I was raised around guns, I’m not very knowledgable about them. But instinctually I knew that the recoil causing GZ’s broken nose theory was ridiculous. GZ and TM were too close for one thing. And I doubt GZ had never fired his pistol, so he was probably accustomed to its kick.
First off, you can’t be a criminal “from TM’s vantage point” otherwise you are just granting TM permission to profile GZ.
Because it’s GZs right to profile an unarmed teen who at the moment of discussion WAS NOT committing any crime?
Secondly, as many people have already pointed out, there is nothing criminal about following or confronting a suspicious person in your neighborhood, and you do not need to be a member of the neighborhood watch to follow or confront a suspicious person in your neighborhood.
My main point is that GZ not identifying himself was principal to the event escalating to using a gun. YOU DO have some right to be concerned if there is a stranger pursuing you? You could be in fear?
If I saw someone walking down the street in my neighborhood, looking stopping and looking at each house they passed, and I went outside and said “hey what the eff are you doing here?”
That’s assault. Battery is when it is physical. It certainly is confrontational.
they would still have no legal justification to punch me.
There is a trial.
That is NOT assault, moron.
You are deeply confused about the law. Well, among other things.
I’m not saying that GZ can profile TM. My justification for GZ’s use of self defense does not rely on GZ profiling TM as a criminal. It relies on TM providing an imminent threat of harm to GZ by smashing his head against the pavement.
If someone was pursuing me and I was in fear, I probably wouldn’t turn around and invite them to throw down against me. Especially not if I was standing on my doorstep. I would however go into my house and call the police to inform them that a ‘creepy dude’ was following me.
As for your main point being that the event would not have escalated into a situation where force was justified if GZ had identified himself. Whether or not GZ was NW has no bearing on either TM’s or GZ’s right to self defense. If GZ had not been NW he wouldn’t have had any less of a right to watch TM like a creepy dude, and TM wouldn’t have had any more of a right to beat him up for watching him.
Being ‘confrontational’ is not an assault and does not justify self defense. Once again you are missing the perceived threat of imminent harm, this seems to be a common theme in your arguments.
I guess we will wait for a verdict. But, you are placing all the responsibility on a teenager visitor of the neighbourhood.
GZ did not follow his training and protocol.
Training and protocol is irrelevant for NW. NW are acting as citizens, the only thing that is relevant is the law. And no I am not placing all responsibility on a teenage visitor to the neighborhood. And as far as the verdict is concerned I don’t care about doling out responsibility, and neither should the jury. The law is blind to who is ‘responsible’ for the altercation. The law is an emotionless tool that only ‘cares’ whether or not any of its rules were broken by GZ. And what everyone here is trying to explain to you is that GZ did not break any laws when he shot TM in self defense, and that is all that matters in this trial.
Says the man who thinks challenging a person at night is “assault”.
Totally lacking in discernment. And willing to spend hours putting it on display.
The facts that the events moved to trial and also that the motion for acquittal was denied simply demonstrates that many people hold an alternative perspective.
Don’t hang your hat on the motion being denied. The procedural standard for GRANTING such a motion at that juncture makes success nearly impossible.
Yes. There are people who are highly invested emotionally in this case, on both sides.
Many of them are completely irrational. And will expend hours showing it.
Politics. The case was only reopened for political reasons. They were grasping at straws and hoping that they would uncover new evidence that would affirm their political narrative, but they haven’t. Notice that the state prosecutor that fought so hard to bring this case to trial, and filed the original motions to do so, long ago distanced herself from the case. Trust me if the state had a good case here, Angela Corey would be leading the charge. The judge denied the motion for acquittal for the exact same reason: politics.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0784/Sections/0784.048.html
1) An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.
(2) Whoever commits an assault shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
“Ohey, whatcha doin’ out there…” is not assault, moron.
Nothing we know of Zimmerman doing was assault, either.
You are free to fantasize all you wish.
We are free to point at you and laugh.
1) An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.
Notice the words in bold. I’ve mentioned them several times already. Now let’s break this down:
Someone following you, is not an imminent threat of violence. Someone asking you a question is not an imminent threat of violence. Someone lying to you is not an imminent threat of violence. Someone lawfully carrying a firearm i a holster is not an imminent threat of violence. Someone punching you in the nose is battery. Someone smashing your head into concrete is aggravated assault. Some of these things are not like the others.