Today we will again be covering the Zimmerman Trial live, all day, with streaming video. Continuing commentary will be posted in the Twitter feed of selected contributors below the first video feed, below.
The State is scheduled to begin its closing argument at 1:30PM today, and the defense tomorrow morning. By tomorrow afternoon the jury should have been charged and begun their deliberations.
Judge Nelson, Florida v. Zimmerman
We covered this morning’s charging hearing here:
Zimmerman Trial Day 13: Live Video, Analysis of State’s Closing Argument
And posted up a general overview of the various jury instructions here:
Zimmerman Trial: The Jury Instructions
We also have brief summaries of the previous day’s events Zimmerman Defense Rests, Closing Statements Start Tomorrow along with links to more detailed posts below the second video feed at the bottom of this post.
In addition, last night Professor Jacobson posted an analysis of the racial politics driving the Zimmerman prosecution, here:
Racial politics supported by State power come down on George Zimmerman
Also, a quick note, in thanks to the Professor and all of you I’ve put in place a 10% discount/free shipping coupon for Legal Insurrection followers interested in “The Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition”–use code LOSD2-LI at checkout.
Live Stream Video
WITH COMMENTARY FROM CHANNEL 9 IN SANFORD
[For live-stream video without commentary, see NBC live feed at bottom of this post.]
Twitter Feed:
(My tweets can be identified as coming from @lawselfdefense, or @lawselfdefense2 if I’m in Twitmo–follow both!.)
Tweets from @LegInsurrection/zimmerman-trial
Live Stream Video Alternative
LIVE-STREAM WITHOUT COMMENTARY FROM NBC
Thursday, July 11 Commentary
During the lunch recess, or immediately thereafter, we will TRY to post a mid-day update. We’ll then follow up with the usual detailed end-of-day wrap up, including video and embedded Tweets, at the usual time in the evening.
For all of our prior coverage on day-to-day events in court, as covered here at Legal Insurrection, click here:
ARCHIVE: Zimmerman Trial LIVE coverage all day, every day
For all of our prior coverage on issues specific to the Law of Self Defense as covered at my own blog, click here:
Law of Self Defense Blog: Zimmerman Trial
(NOTE: If you do wander over to the LOSD blog, be sure to come back to Legal Insurrection to comment, as nearly all my time is spent here for the duration of the trial.)
Andrew F. Branca is an MA lawyer and author of the seminal book “The Law of Self Defense,” now available in its just released 2nd Edition, which shows you how to successfully fight the 20-to-life legal battle everyone faces after defending themselves. Take advantage of the 20% “Zimmerman trial” discount & free shipping (ends when the jury returns a verdict). NRA & IDPA members can also use checkout coupon LOSD2-NRA for an additional 10% off. To do so simply visit the Law of Self Defense blog. I have also instituted a similar coupon for Legal Insurrection followers LOSD2-LI(Coupons works ONLY at www.lawofselfdefense.com.) “The Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition” is also available at Amazon.com.
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
Would appreciate hearing more from Andrew Branca about reactions of the jury.
Je pete dans votre direction, M. Tete de Pomme de Terre!
(I fart in your general direction, Mr. Potato Head!)
So anti-climatic. He wound down at the end after acting hysterically for so much of his closing. That was pretty awful, but then again he had little to work with.
I was expecting a lot more drawing out of sympathy for the family, considering it’s their only hope. “They can’t take his picture anymore” was the extent of it? Weird. Maybe that’s coming at the end.
Oh, it is. Rebuttal is when they really pour on the violins. This one, especially, will be short on substance and long on a style designed to tear at those hearts.
The guy isn’t pounding the table because he’s stupid, I tell you that. Mr. Blanca really oughtn’t be out there insulting the man’s intelligence. When Zimmermann is acquitted, the Left will inevitably latch onto that argument.
Mr. Blanca really oughtn’t be out there insulting the man’s intelligence. When Zimmermann is acquitted, the Left will inevitably latch onto that argument.
Birds of a feather.
Again, no theme, no coherence…pretty much no nothing except a lot of bald (heh!) assertions and a lot of histrionics.
NBC’s live feed camera is on the podium and blue background where MOM has been doing his pressers. Anyone heard anything about a presser today?
I keep waiting for, “Your honor, in light of Ms. Vito’s and Mr. Wilbur’s testimony… the State would like to drop all charges.”
awesome
Is it over?
Time to wake up now, BDLR finished.
I’m with Ragspierre. I can sum it up in one word: incoherent. There was no narrative (setting aside all the jokes about The Narrative.)
The state has no “A, then B, then C, then murder” story. They have a disjointed set of facts, and handful of half-hearted gotchas, and that’s it. As Jayne put it, “let me do the math here. Nothing into nothin’. Carry the nothin’…”
That closing was the worst, least believable attorney performance I ever heard.
Did the Kool-Aid drinkers love it?
“Did the Kool-Aid drinkers love it?”
Yes.
At minimum BDLR has proved what a “fcuking asshole” looks like.
OMG! You have to see what is happening on social media. Essentially, the reasoning goes as follows: The prosecution has shown that Zimmerman lied therefore he is guilty.
:facepalm:
Don’t you realize? That IS the state’s entire case.
Hell, they didn’t even prove that he lied – merely made the accusations!
And these people vote. And breed…
They breed? Like I didn’t make his nose breed enough.
My social media circle had a lot of people, mostly black, who discussed the case during the Rachel Jeanteal debacle. While they were clearly anti-Zimmerman at the time, they seemed to be aware the case was not going well for them. Since her testimony I haven’t heard a peep from any of them. I think they realize the evidence isn’t looking good for their preferred viewpoint.
That gives me hope that a reasonably sane jury will feel the same way.
D
i bet if i video taped what i did for the day, then gave it to the state to live, breathe and eat for a year, they could turn every other word in it into a lie too.
I hope MOM does the defense closing. If West does it, the state will object every 5 seconds and the judge will make it worse.
It has been reported MOM will do the closing.
Thank God!!!
MOM is doing the closing. I hope and pray the prosecution objects multiple times. I think that would seal it for the jury and remove all doubt of a not guilty verdict.
Well, I think BDLR did an excellent job today. A really good job. He very clearly established reasonable doubt about the facts in question …
… Oh, wait …
… uh huh …
… what’s that? …
… BDLR is working for the prosecution?!? And THEY bear the burden of proving the crime BEYOND a reasonable doubt!?!
Oh dear.
Nevermind.
|)
All emotion, no facts, no evidence, MORE reasonable doubt, MORE possibilities of what might have happened.
The opposite of what a competent prosecutor would argue.
Complaints over at the Channel 9 Sanford blog same as my concerns way upthread.
Scheduling seems awfully prejudicial against the defense. (as usual).
Not only does the prosecution dominate today with defense not having the opportunity to respond until tomorrow morning at 8:30, but after the defense closing the state gets to speak again and is the last thing the jurors will hear.
Talk about tipping the scales.
Any lawyer opinions on this?
The state always gets to have the last word to the jury, because the state has the burden of proof.
As for not letting the defense at least begin its closing argument today, one of the defense attorneys (IIRC, it was West) objected yesterday to the judge’s scheduling, saying it didn’t make sense to him. Nelson barked back at him that it did make sense to her, so that was the way it was going to be. (She really seems to hate West. I don’t know if there is some history between them or not).
So would it be better for the defense if they could have started today?
I sure would not want to have to take up my close after a break.
When I have the jury…and I REALLLLLLY want to have the jury…as I am presenting, about the LAST thing I want is to let them go.
I use a lot of eye contact, and a lot of near whispering as I close, and target points to individual people I’ve HOPEFULLY identified as needing to hear those points. Why near whispering…??? Who do you really rivet your attention on? Someone like BDLR?
OTOH, Rags, how would you like to follow BDLR? It would take 30 minutes just to wake them up again. Tomorrow morning they will be fresh and ready to go and excited about finally voting and going home.
Great insight. So it’s better to do the defense closing all in one shot without interruption.
Do you think MOM is worried by BLDR’s closing or is he feeling super confident?
LSM is quivering with joy over what they’re portraying as a huge win for the state.
EACELLENT point about the whispering. I have always done that throughout my entire adult life. If you want people to really listen to you, speak in a manner that requires them to put effort into hearing what you say.
Of course it helps if you actually have something of value to say. 🙂
I think it may work out to the defense’s advantage to start their argument in the morning. They have this afternoon and this evening to adjust their argument to address whatever points BDLR made that may have seemed to make an impression on the jury. They also have the chance to go online and read comments of the general public who watched today’s argument on t.v. — which may give the defense attorneys ideas about which things need to be explained better to the jury. (Lawyers typically spend a lot of time talking to other lawyers, and sometimes forget that not everybody spends their days immersed in this stuff).
Even though West did not want the jurors to go back to the hotel and sleep on Bernie’s argument, I don’t think it is necessarily a bad thing that they do. His argument was pretty bad, and I’m guessing that more than one juror noticed that.
Late in getting here, bu heard Nelson and West dated,had a fling or were somehow personally involved with each other apprx 7 yrs ago
Oh, I hope not.
If it’s true, those pretty blonde daughters dodged a serious genetic bullet, that she wasn’t their mom…..
If true- grounds for a mistrial on appeal if Z found guilty.
At this point, don’t expect that to happen. ot guilty or hung jury, odds on the first.
Absolutely the norm.
Thanks.
Think of it was a good thing. by now the Jury is deaf and tuned-out. I rather close to then fresh in the morning.. 😉
I was wondering about that, too.
I guess it really is a cr@p shoot.
As odd as many aspects of this trial have been, this is NOT one of them. This is the way it goes in every trial across the country. I think the jurors will be refreshed in the morning and ready to hear the Defense’s closing arguments. If the Defense had been forced to immediately follow BDLR, the jurors may have committed suicide.
I was working while I had the closing arguments on in the background and was trying to tune in when I had the chance, and all I kept thinking is, ‘Why is he just flat out yelling at me?” I understand a passionate argument and tone, but that is not the same thing as just yelling. He is terrible.
“the jurors may have committed suicide.”
Hehehehe.
Never mind the millions tuning in to the livestream. (I wasn’t one of them. I wimped out)
State has the burden, so they go last.
BDLR: “Why is he having to lie about the whole thing, if he wasn’t doing anything wrong in following this victim?”
I like how Bernie admitted (finally) that Zimmerman had not done anything wrong in following Martin.
But Bernie still seems to have trouble wrapping his tiny brain around the only other alternative: that Zimmerman did NOT lie about what happened.
Is the prosecution going for a sort of jury nullification? “Yeah, we know he can’t be convicted of the charges, but you need to strike a blow for the preferred political narrative.”
If the prosecution succeeeds in obtaining a conviction based on its theory of casting reasonable doubt on innocence, well, that is kind of a game changer for jurisprudence altogether, isn’t it?
I had exactly the same thought you did. No theory of what happened, no argument about how the evidence fits the elements of the charge. Just yelling f-bombs and profiling and then arguing for a “just” verdict.
Yes,
He actually told the jury that common sense was MORE important than the law!
Sounds just like the POS.
Can you imagine any other situation in which a bald, middle-aged white dude publicly referring to a 17-year old, at least 71-inch tall black male as a “boy” would not result in said white dude being verbally torn to pieces (if not physically assaulted) on the spot?
Everything about this (show) trial has been from some strange, inverted parallel universe.
Ironically, as I make the rounds of TV lawyer pundits I have heard more than one black refer to TM as “boy.”
Shout out to Andrew! Thanks! Got your book in the mail last night. Very prompt. Thank you. Can’t wait to dig in. I just wish I’d known about the NRA membership discount… I’m a life member. No worries though. It’s all good.
If there is a just God, this man will be set free.
One thing I’ve been hearing about – how GZ is now unemployable… that GZ will never find a job after the legal beating he’s taken here. I don’t think this is true. After all I’ve seen and heard here, hypothetically speaking, I’d hire him. He seems like a truly helpful and caring person that unfortunately had to fight for his life. Anybody who can hold out for 40 seconds of beating before finally grabbing his gun shows great concern for the sanctity of life. Finding people of such good character is not as easy as one might think. Again – from what I’ve seen I would not worry for one second about Zim’s character.
The problem is he will be harassed and threatened wherever he goes. Not too many employers are going to want to deal with all of that. If I were him I’d probably move out of the country somewhere.
He has a book to write and probably TV and movie rights to sell. My guess is he’ll net a couple million and sink into well-deserved, modestly affluent obscurity. I just hope he has good financial advisors and that when it comes time to buy a house, he chooses his neighborhood wisely.
Here’s how you close, IMNHO. (Others will disagree.)
You TELL the jury the story, using the evidence to your advantage.
You paint them a picture of the events, and you show that the other side is false in what they assert when it detracts from your portrayal.
As you close-close (and the State may do this tomorrow when they rebut O’Mara’s close) you have a blow-up of the jury form.
You TELL the jury, “When you come to this question, you answer YES, and remember, this is why”.
And then you go back and recap your story, and you tell them WHY they have to “do the right thing”.
Here’s my closing.
I would like to begin by thanking the prosecution for proving that there is plenty of reasonable doubt in this case. To convict someone of a crime, you have to be convinced BEYOND a reasonable doubt that they committed the crime in question. The prosecution has thrashed around for this entire trial trying to find a strategy that would help them convict my client. They’ve offered you multiple versions of how the shooting could have occurred; was he leaning backwards? Was he trying to end the fight? Was he trying to protect himself from the gun? I don’t think they really know the answer, but I’ll give them credit for trying at least.
The law, however, requires them to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that my client did NOT act in self defense. Since they have clearly not done that, and since all of the evidence, the witness testimonies, the autopsy, the forensic exam and all the experts have proven that my client did in fact act in self defense, I ask that you vote not guilty and end this travesty.
On that fateful night, George Zimmerman ran out of options, as Mr. Root testified, and was forced to shoot Trayvon Martin to save his own life. I believe the prosecution has run out of options and has been forced to admit that reasonable doubt exists. Mr. Zimmerman should be allowed to walk out of this courtroom a free man, burdened with the knowledge that he killed a man but comforted by knowing that his actions that night saved his life.
Thank you.
good
but consider opening with
Hello, thank you for your time. Unlike the prosecutor, here is what I have to say and then pause for a minute.
Then say that is right, all we have to say is NOTHING. The burden is on the prosecutor to prove the case. They did not. You must acquit him of all charges.
If there is any reasonable doubt, you must acquit. I will later go through a laundry list of where is is obvious doubt. You must acquit him of all charges.
Finally the key to the case is that my client was in fear of his life AT THE MOMENT HE SHOT. Nothing else matters, not the time he called, not the following – not stalking, not initial contact, even if you believe my client was at fault for all of those and there are reasonable doubt for all of them. You must acquit him of all charges.
The ONLY time that matters is when my client was having his head bashed in by a younger fitter stronger man, who was smothering him, and then reaching for his weapon for the final blow. There was no area to retreat, his back was to the ground. He was calling for help. It was his life or shooting. It was a reasonable use of force. You must acquit him of all charges.
Then go through the laundry list in a reasonable tone of voice. Each time a point of controversy is discovered, you must acquit of all charges.
End up with three things. We have to say nothing, the burden is on the prosecution. They did not do so and frankly insulted you. You must acquit of all charges.
If there is any reasonable doubt, you must acquit of all charges.
If there was reasonable fear of my client, you must acquit of all charges.
If any ONE of those three things are present, you must acquit on all charges..
Thank you for your time.
Regarding the Prosecution wrapping up it’s case — may I suggest a diaper.
That Depends.
It would have to be some kind of customized special order.
They don’t make diapers that big.
I don’t know about that. You could always ask Judge Nelson what brand she wears.
They are called Depends but I have never seen one large enough to fit Debbie
Haven’t you ever heard of Omar the diaper maker? The basic unit of measure he uses is the axe handle.
I’m not a lawyer. Why is a lawyer allowed to present evidence during arguments? Does anyone expect the jury to know the differences, or care?
They are allowed to show the evidence that was already admitted in the trial, and they are allowed to comment on what that evidence means and what weight they think the jury should give it. That’s the essence of argument. They aren’t allowed to introduce NEW evidence, and the jury is instructed that what they say isn’t evidence, but just a guide to use in interpreting the evidence.
Does this mean the defense could introduce the Trayvon’s pot smoking?
I didn’t hear the whole thing, and I’m curious about that to which you refer.
George should do the closing himself.. in spanish no less with a translator 🙂
HLN and CNN think Bernie is great!
Surprise
MSLSD, too. Of course, they love Rachel Jeantel, as well and are actively defending her right now!
Maddow is hoping to borrow Dee Dee’s neck to use as a hemorrhoid cushion.
Maddow’s working on a pretty good neck herself, I’ve noticed. /mee-oww/
You have to remember, this is the network that has given a talk show to a convicted liar who covered a Rachel Jenteal clone in dog poop and tried to sell it as rape.
Great! Ha! I wouldn’t hire Bernie to sweep the parking-lot!
One a “moral character” scale of 0-10 he gets a -1.
Of course they do – he was making all of the right gestures.
You know, the ones that the “good guys” do in all of the Hollywood movies.
This is all that this is to them – they already KNOW who the bad guy is. They invented him a looooong time ago, and the casting director (aka Prezdint Colorblind) pointed to Mr. Zimmerman and said “Go get ‘im”.
I am convinced. George Zimmerman killed JFK.
Sure there is no evidence that he did. But no one knows for sure what really happened. Therefore you must convict him.
And the fact that GZ wasn’t yet born, further solidifies your argument of guilt! GZ was studying how to kill in utero – case closed!
Well, if George didn’t kill JFK, why would he lie about it and deny it? Huh? You can’t fool me. BDLR taught me how to reason today.
Don’t give Bernie any ideas!
If the facts don’t fit… you must convict!
If the prosecutor is a clueless twit you must convict.
The reason this case seems bizarre is because most prosecutors don’t put truly innocent people on trial.
Is it just me or did that closing have a whiff of nullification to it?
Take a look at BDLR. Now take a look at the infamous BTK Killer, Dennis Rader:
http://www.biography.com/people/dennis-rader-241487
Coincidence? I think NOT.
Did anyone notice the subtle intimidation statement towards the beginning of his statement, that everyone was watching the jury?
Good Lord, that was awful!
And I do not believe that 204 lbs at 5’7″ is anywhere remotely close to FIT. Obviously he was fitTER than he was previously, but my 5’7″ hub is around 175, and prefers to be around 165. So 204 is STILL 30-40 pounds overweight!
Not that that was the worst thing, but just one of many ridiculous statements BDLR made that add to his ass-clownness (yes, I made up that word).
Welllllll… I ran the Marine Corps marathon at 5’7″ tall and 228 pounds. Overweight? Yes. Fit? 4 hours and 32 minutes fit.
So you think GZ was fit? I mean in the re-enactment video, he didn’t look obese, but I certainly wouldn’t characterize that shape to be “fit”.
The discrepancies come from the fact that BMI is a largely useless measurement because it doesn’t differentiate between fat and muscle weight. 5’7″ 210lbs is an obese BMI measurement but if you saw a man who had a low percentage of that weight in fat, you most certainly wouldn’t want to call him obese. That’s why measuring the circumference of the neck and waist while also considering weight is a much better measurement of how “fit” someone is.
That being said, Zimmerman certainly didn’t look fit, and wasn’t fit according to Pollack. He was mostly fat. “Soft” is I believe Pollack’s exact word. And TM did have some muscle tone and looked to be in much better shape.
I just have a problem with BMI being used to measure “fitness” because that’s mostly BS, IMHO.
You can safely bet your mortgage Bernie is a profiler too:
1. If Bernie was walking down a sidewalk at night and saw Trayvon in his hoodie, either alone or with other Sons of Obama, he would either cross the street, back track or call for police.
2. Bernie would be profiling his head off if some nice, sociable Trayvons paid him a surprise visit at his home late one night when he is home alone.
3. Bernie would not be very happy if his daughter brought Trayvon home and introduced him as her steady boyfriend.
A female BDLR Jr.? That’s disgusting. Please,this is a family site.
I’m NOT talking about skin color/race, but tattoos, gold teeth, fighting, burglary, bad attitude, drug use and his obscene attitude toward females – all evidenced by his tweets and school record.
Anyone who doesn’t “profile” is not reality based. We are constantly surveying our environment for cues about how to behave. That is a biological imperative. Those who don’t appraise risks do not survive.
I remember a story about Jesse Jackson, which I do not believe is apochryphal, in which he said that, when he was walking down a dark street at night, heard footsteps, and turned around, he was relieved to see that it was a white person. Of course, he lives in Chicago, but still…
“I remember a story about Jesse Jackson”
I heard that story and blogged it. And Jesse was a famous brutha.
I had the misfortune of meeting Jesse Jackson at a prize fight twenty-plus years ago. It’s the first and only time in my life that I have stared evil in the face. I say that without embellishment or hyperbole. Pure evil…
And, I swear to some random deity, he was accompanied by Tawana Brawley’s mother – who was wearing JJ’s solid gold Rolex. Cause bein’ a rebren pay good!
Their whole case seems to be that Zimmerman lied, but they have offered no proof that he lied. What inconsistencies there are in his story are minor, and they have suggested he lied about others but offered no proof.
They have offered no credible explanation for how Zimmerman got his injuries (he hit his head on a sprinkler? Really?)
A comment from the LAT: “Not knowing his assailant was armed, Martin reasonably resisted and lost his life. Concealed handgun carriers can bait, challenge or otherwise provoke then kill unarmed victims. Zimmerman certainly pursued and provoked Martin. Had Martin had known Zimmerman was armed, he would not have resisted. If you were black, would you tolerate armed Zimmermans loose in your neighborhood? Would you express outrage, violent outrage, or whatever may be necessary to protect your family? Concealed Carry Permits should be at least as stringent, thorough, and difficult to obtain and to maintain as police officer requirements.” Stupid is as stupid does.
and the elephant in the room is:
“It was not Trayvon Martin’s neighbourhood” He was the stranger in that hood.
But one of the home invaders was a resident of the neighborhood who was released, probably because he was a minor/first offense, then re-arrested later on other charges.
The community was right to be concerned, to form a neighborhood watch in order to feel safer.
These teenagers were using the neighborhood homes as their de facto ATM to get money for drugs, tea, skittles, tattoos and other necessities. This was the ‘his own business’ that Trayvon was minding when evil Zimmerman started nosing around.
The dead end street in the mountains I live on formed a neighborhood watch years ago after a string of break-ins. They even put up a sign at the beginning of the road stating the neighborhood watch is active.
Never been any problems on this street.
Of course, we have a state trooped on the block. Sure that doesn’t hurt.
But anytime anyone sees something or someone strange in the neighborhood the news spreads quickly.
That’s what makes me laugh every time Trayvon is characterized as an innocent boy. Is there any other demographic that is more scary than late teen/earlly twenty aged males? Of course not. That demographic commits more crime that any other. Give me a break.
Nancy Grace’s headline this evening:
“Prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman is innocent!”
Nah. Grace is a TM lover.
I’m afraid Nancy will just use an acquittal as fodder for a ‘ hey, another Tot mom ‘ series.
Jury members were taking copious notes throughout the trial and the moment they identify any one of BDLR’s many misrepresentations…..
It is impossible to predict whether there will be some sort of jury malpractice or crazy outcome based on issues outside the evidence, but if they go on the facts as established during the trial, I can see not a simple verdict of Not Guilty, but one of Oh HELL No, Not F**king Guilty.
I didn’t take notes, but I did pay close attention and have a decent memory. I caught more than one flat out misrepresentation in the closing today. I was surprised, though I’m not sure why. I guess it’s because I’m in a business where you can get into trouble if you misrepresent facts (I’m not a lawyer). When BDLR said GZ told his neighbor, “tell my wife I ‘killed’ someone.” That was one. The other was the Sean Hannity interview. He didn’t play the end in order. The way I remember it, is Sean asks, “Would you do anything differently?”, and THEN GZ answers, “No, It’s all God’s plan, etc”. Instead, BDLR plays the God’s plan part before he plays Sean’s question, then plays Sean’s question, and just plays the answer of “No.”
I’ve heard of the “Chewbacca defense” before (if you haven’t, you MUST google it). Was this the “Chewbacca prosecution”?
We’ve had 3 weeks, 6 jurors, 5 attorneys, one judge and dozens of witnesses to decide if GZ made a legal decision in pulling that trigger.
GZ, on the other hand, was disoriented from a violent punch to the nose and the violence that caused the lacerations to the back of his head. His initial instinct was to call for help and try to wriggle free, but the blows kept raining down on him. He continued this restrained response for 40 seconds. He eventually grabbed his gun and had just an instant to decide whether to pull the trigger to stop the violence before the next blow rendered him unconscious.
Unconscious would mean that the violent person on top of him would get the gun. Would GZ be killed by his own gun or the blows to his head? Would his gun be used in the next home invasion in his neighborhood?
or according to GZ
“Tonight you die m’f
You bring up a point I have previously made. if you carry a gun you have a moral responsibility to keep control over it. If you are being attacked and find yourself loosing consciousness you better be thinking about the need to keep control over that firearm.
BDLR: “GZ stalked and killed No_Limit_Innocent_Young_Boy
If GZ is found guilty of murder 2, and if the conviction is upheld by an appellate court, won’t that have a chilling effect on FL’s self-defense law? For example, wouldn’t one be foolish to defend himself if he has ever uttered “punk,” “asshole,” or similar pejorative toward one’s assailant? Wouldn’t one be precluded from defending himself from an assailant who is a minor, or an assailant who is unarmed? (Is a law needed requiring assailants to show proof of age and to disclose whether or not they are armed before he begins his assault?) How much of a beating would be required before self defense is allowed? How would one be able to exit one’s vehicle without presenting a threat? Would one need to announce to anyone in front of him that he is not in pursuit?
might want to check with Paula Deen about stating something under the stress of the moment 30 years ago.
People with CCW licenses will now need to carry in their pocket on the same side as the holster, a list with Banned Words and Phrases (H/T Greg Gutfeld).
You may only say: Please don’t assault me, sirrrrr!
The law already has an answer to all those questions.
The problem here is that for political reasons the state has decided to take a gigantic dump on the law.
Jury Verdict Announced:
Conviction for Murder in the Second Degree.
Defendant : Bernie DLR
Victim : Jimmy Hoffa
FWIW, A reporter on CNN said he spoke to MOM about the schedule and MOM was not happy with having the jury leave today with only impressions from the state’s case.
I know the lawyers on board say this is normal but it light of the fact the state had 9 days of testimony with 38 witnesses to the defense’s 4 days and 19 witnesses with Nelson rushing them, insulting them, ruling against them the entire time, how does this benefit the defense?
It just seems so friggin rigged to me.
Welcome to the world of defending the accused.
So, do you think Zimmerman would rather he let Trayvon beat him to death yet? Even if he is acquitted he has civil trials to go through and the always present threat to his life. He can’t even defend himself if he is attacked since we all know what the media will say then.
For the left, the process IS the punishment. That Lerner woman at the IRS just came right out and said it the other day.
If he’s found not guilty b/c of self-defense he’s immune from lawsuits.
If Zimmerman is acquitted, he is immune from lawsuits. Any civil trials he “goes through” will be him collecting money from the assholes who destroyed his life.
Is that true? OJ was found not guilty but lost the civil suit. Is this solely due to it being a self-defense case or is it the difference in state laws? Thanks for teaching me something BTW.
The civil suits he will be filing are not likely to be a walk in the park either.
And I would not completely rule out a federal civil rights prosecution if they think they can get some mileage out of it. There is an election coming up in 2014 and it was the 2012 election that was the impetus for this whole thing.
According to the prosecution, the only way George could have proven his injuries were “serious enough” would be to have died. Domestic violence and rape victims suffer the same scrutiny in court. You’re a liar with ulterior motives, and the only way to truly prove otherwise is to be in a grave.
I didnt seethe whole thing. Was there any argument about the identity of the voice in the 911 tape?
None at all. If you’re black, you know it was TM; if you’re a racist, you believe it was GZ.
So the motions all reference this instant case and the judge may consider motions in camera, so can we get John Lennon to sing
Instant Camera’s gonna get you?
I missed the part about De La Rionda (sp?) getting on the dummy. To be honest with you, I got sick of hearing him carrying on so. Then listening to some of Fox News folks, one said that he straddled the dummy and his knees were up by the dummy’s armpits, so it showed there was no way that GZ could have grabbed for his gun. And they were so impressed that De La Rionda showed that.
Now some of those people think that he did a good job on closing.
So I guess GZ couldn’t have shot him? Sounds like a win for the defense!
Fabi,
Yep, that’s what they were saying.
i bet the dummy is no where to be found in court tommorrow
FTR,
A courtroom reporter said one of the jurors refused to make eye contact with BDLR, another sat with her head down and the others were not taking notes.
Thankyou, Wyntre. I hope Branca can add to this.
Do you know the name of the reporter? Thanks!
No, sorry. She was a local Florida reporter and told her story in a segment of HLN with Joe Jackson?
One of the women on the HLN panel agreed with the reporter and said she thought the prosecution had done a horrible job and she noticed the jurors were scowling, frowning or looking bored.
It was on Ryan Smith’s show, 5 – 6 p.m.
That *sounds* promising, at least. Hoping for a sane result.
Can you imagine the body language as you were exposed to that harangue?
Would you be leaning in to hear him, or excavating the back of your seat to get as far away as possible?
That’s what the woman panelist said. The jury seemed turned-off.
I’m watching the fourth video clip (out of 18 or so) of BDLR’s close on Youtube. And, thus far, I’m noticing his sleight-of-hand tactics. Specifically — BDLR keeps on harping on in platitudes and generalities (“TM is dead because of the defendant’s actions; “TM is dead because the defendant profiled him;” “The fact that the defendant followed Martin demonstrates his ill will,” etc. etc.), but, BDLR has yet to offer any evidence or statement that Zimmerman instigated the violence!! All he is offering is that Zimmerman profiled and followed Martin, as if the instigation of violence can be inferred from those perfectly legal activities (combined with Zimmerman’s alleged wannabe cop attitude and alleged hatred of criminals), without the presentation of additional substantive evidence. Extremely sneaky and evasive tactics, in my opinion, that ultimately betray the total absence of evidence underpinning the State’s case.
Please let us know which video he skips around going, “La, la, la..” I want to see that but I can’t sit through two hours looking for it. Thnx!
If I find it, I’ll post it here, sure. The postings on Youtube are a total mess, as far as searching for clips in chronological order. The close has been broken down by various posters into 24 or so clips of 14 minutes or so of duration; very frustrating if you’re attempting to find a particular point in the presentation.
Where was his green and yellow basket (A Tisket, a Tasket)? Goes really well with skipping.
Lawyer wisdom:
If you have good law and bad facts, pound the law. If you have good facts and bad law, pound the facts.
If you have bad law and bad facts, you pound the table.
BDLR has punched through the table at this point.
Screaming at those women the way that he did will not have helped his case. Most are Moms, I can hear them in their heads going ‘ Use your inside voice, please…’
(But I did think it was decent of him to helpfully plant all that reasonable doubt and plow MOM’s ground in advance).
Or, in the case of non-PC moms, shouting, “Can it or take it outside!”
You left out Trayvon’s Corollary: when you have a gangsta mindset, pound the neighhood watch person.
And if you are Trayvon Martin, pound the creepy ass cracker…
Ka-ching! This is the 200,000th comment at Legal Insurrection.
Awesome! It is almost like I won a game show.
Almost.
I think you should ask for a free law class at Cornell for your prize!
I can even go to the Cow College. I bet I will do better than its alumni Keith Olbermann!
MOM’s entire presentation tomorrow:
Members of the jury you heard from BDLR yesterday. A rather fine presentation when the prosecution had no evidence of a crime, but you’ve got to give him credit for trying. That’s his job. Did you notice how the entire basis of his case is that George Zimmerman lied? Well, I noticed and I also noticed that Mr DLR kept referring to Mr. Martin as a “teenager” and a “boy,” but then one time near the end of he presentation he referred to Mr. Martin as a “17 year old man.” Was he lying when he called him a “man?” Of course not. It is common when speaking to use different terms when referring to the same thing. We all knew what he meant, and we are all imperfect humans. George Zimmerman is also an imperfect human. He didn’t lie when he used slightly different terms the many times he was asked to repeat what happened that dark, rainy night in February. He didn’t seek out Mr. Martin and if anyone is at fault for the situation escalating it is, sad to say, Mr. Martin. He could have easily just gone home. He was only a few few from his father’s home. Mr. Zimmerman shot Mr. Martin only because he was in great fear for his life. There is no evidence whatsoever to the contrary. Mr. Zimmerman is not guilty by reason of self-defense. At the moment he shot Mr. Martin Mr. Zimmerman believed he had no other way to save his own life. That is the very definition of the justified use of deadly force. Thank you for your service. I trust you will return with the not guilty verdict each of you would ask for if, God forbid, you ever found yourself fighting for you own life.
O.K., but such a brief closing risks the jury’s feeling that the defense was thumbing its nose at the prosecution and that they, the jury, were shortchanged. Too much of a risk in that.
MOM has three hours to use tomorrow, BDLR left only 25 minutes for Guy.
You don’t think THIS judge will give them the full hour and more?????
If she does, West will be entirely justified in giving her a titty twister.
Bernice
I love it when you talk dirty.
I couldn’t follow Curly’s arguments even though I was watching it live….the fumbling, bumbling slide show was the nuttiest thing I’ve ever seen…looked like it was designed for ghetto dwellers….
Seriously. My 10 year old has put better looking Power Points together. And more coherent ones.
Something just came to me while I was washing the dishes. What if the prosecution team minus Mrs. Corey fully understood that GZ was not guilty of this crime.
But they know that this is a political trial and they understand that it is going to go to a verdict or they will loose their jobs.
Basically they are in the position that they need to prosecute in such a way that even if the jury finds GZ guilty by some freak accident that the case could be easily overturned, but at the same time look like they are doing their job. It isn’t ethical but it would explain a lot about what we have seen during this trial.
People keep hoping for that….but when you watch the Prosecution in action, you can absolutely tell that is not what they are doing. Not in the least.
I’ve toyed with that theory myself.
But you have to look at the actual attorneys here. First, Mantai seems to be going for the throat on every argument, even to the point of stretching (breaking?) the truth. This last minute Child Abuse felony murder ploy seems like it as Mantai’s concoction from the beginning. That was a cold blooded calculation designed to get a conviction at any cost.
BDLR seems to be very passionate (at times) about how terrible it is what Zimmerman did. He seems to let emotion overrule his reason, which would explain a lot.
Attorney Guy, on the other hand, while quite effective, could sense that the state has no case here. But he’s more methodical, so he’s hard to read.
In short, it mostly appears that all the attorneys here are genuine.
They would only put politically reliable people on this case. These guys were not picked for their competency. BDLR is yelling and screaming for a reason.
That would assume a level of ethics on the part of Bernie and Angela. And that, as Perry Mason used to say, is assuming facts not in evidence!
MOM is exactly the right guy for closing argument. He has an almost Jimmy Stewart like demeanor that exudes kindness, gentleness, and trustworthiness. He perfectly embodies the concept of speak softly and carry a big stick, in this case the stick is the evidence.
If he raises his voice in passion, unlike BDLR, it will actually mean something to the jury. The sheer noise level of the state’s closing argument gave me the urge to reach for a mute button.
Juries are fickle things. In the unimaginable event that any of them need to be turned, O’Mara is the guy to do it.
MOM mirrors George’s mild-mannered demeanor. BDLR reflects TM’s hostility.
Great point!
Good analogy. MOM is the modern day Jimmy Stewart.
I hate to admit that a couple of times I actually did just that… hit the mute.
I couldn’t force myself to endure it. After five minutes (or less) I closed the window. Kudos to those who managed to survive with their wits intact.
O watched it. All of it. As i said before my brain kept saying, “Turn this crap off.” I couldn’t though. It was fascinating. I have never seen pure evil in action before, working plainly under the light of day.
maestro,
I think that O’Mara has a really nice voice. It’s not overly forceful, but it’s forceful enough to get this point across and make an impression. So extremely impressed with him.
Also, I don’t dislike West at all. He’s just different than MOM. I’m thinking that there’s something between the judge and him that we don’t know about, and they just don’t like each other.
They have been fighting with this judge and her biased rulings for months. I think he has just had enough.
Have not West and MOM had her bounced a couple of times in pre-trial rulings?
Mostly a lurker here, been following the trial. At this point I’d vote not guilty but I still have a few questions about the case and evidence that are unanswered and wondering what you would say would be the defense answer to them?
1: How come Martin didn’t have any blood on his hands or more evidence of punching and hitting Zimmerman?
2: Why wasn’t Martin’s DNA or fingerprints on the gun if he grabbed it as Zimmerman claimed?
3: Why wasn’t Zimmerman’s jacket more messed up if he’d been on his back being attacked?
4: If Martin was up against his armpits how did he see the gun behind him?
5: If Zimmerman was able to tell the cop the name of the street the next day how come he couldn’t identify it on the phone the night before?
As I said, even with those questions I don’t think that a)the state proved murder2 beyond a reasonable doubt or b)disproved selfdefense beyond one
But those are some nagging questions and I hope O’Mara deals with them tomorrow
If you have been following closely, you should realize that all those questions have been answered by the Defense’s expert witnesses. MOM will likeky review them all tomorrow for your benefit.
#1 and 2, from what some of MOM’s witnesses said the crime scene was not properly handled. For example, TM’s hands were not bagged as, apparently, is ME 101.
Also, the rain or dampness might have dissolved some blood evidence.
Finally, one witness (Root) said the person punching doesn’t necessarily damage his hands so it’s visible. Injuries could be beneath the skin.
See Root’s entire testimony.
thanks. I just don’t think the state proved their case beyond a doubt. What they said happened might have happened., it might not. They virtually admitted that what the defense said might have happened could also have happened. Since I can’t say for sure I’d have to vote Not Guilty. Just not enough evidence to convict.
wyntre,
And it’s my understanding, and someone can feel free to correct me if I’m incorrect, that once you die, you’re not going to show the bruising. Maybe if he had lived a while, then perhaps they would show. Also, aren’t bruising and abrasions the body’s repair system? I know that sounds weird.
I’ll take a shot at it:
1. It was raining very hard — and Martin’s hands were not preserved properly — hence no blood/DNA from Zimmerman. In fact, it was raining hard enough that the flashlight that Zimmerman was carrying didn’t have any DNA on it.
2. Tussling for the gun would tend to obscure any fingerprints — complicated by the very wet conditions.
3. The Jacket wasn’t being “punched in the nose” like Zimmerman was.
4. Martin probably felt the gun with his left leg as he had Zimmerman straddled – and to go for it required him to lift his left leg, which let Zimmerman get it first.
5. Memory after an acute event like shooting someone is typically quite sketchy immediately after the event, and recollection can improve over several days.
#5 also, it was nighttime. Daylight he had a chance to see a sign.
Please review the expert witnesses,
1. Vincent DiMaio:
LINK
2. Dennis Root: LINK
What the defense might have noted, if they conceded Zimmerman’s history that Martin was straddling Zimmerman with his legs by his upper thorax, is that Martin might have felt the presence of the weapon with his left thigh/leg. He didn’t have to see it to be aware that it was there. Root was eminently reasonable in testifying that it was a “fluid” time and that Zimmerman might have reached for his gun during that fluidity.
But if Martin’s thighs were straddling Zimmerman’s upper chest, then Martin’s head would have been above Zimmerman’s, i.e., they were not seeing eye to eye, if, as testified by the medical examiner, the bullet entered Martin from a 90 degree angle. So it seems to me that Martin was likely straddling Zimmerman in such a way that he could see Zimmerman’s face and was bending over him so that Zimmerman’s gun shot was the most expeditious available and entered Martin’s chest. If Martin’s thighs were straddling Zimmerman’s upper chest, Zimmerman’s most expeditious shot would have entered Martin’s abdomen.
One additional thought: since Martin was 5’11” tall and Zimmerman is 5’8″ tall, then, if Martin’s thighs were around Zimmerman’s upper thorax (“armpits” in the prosecution’s terms), then Martin could not have seen Zimmerman’s face so as to pummel his face with his hands, especially if he were leaning over Zimmerman so as to make the 90 degree bullet entry plausible.
I agree…that would have been a weird angle.
Others have given good answers, but here are some points that they haven’t made yet:
2. Zimmerman didn’t claim Martin actually grabbed the gun, or wasn’t sure he had laid hands on it, he said Martin had spotted the gun and was reaching *for* it, which prompted Zimmerman to draw and fire to prevent losing control of it to Martin. And as others have mentioned, the rain could make finding any DNA difficult even if Martin had touched it in some way.
3. How messed up *should* his jacket have been? Sliding on wet grass would make it wet (which it was), but not necessarily damage it or stain it much.
4. “Up against his armpits” isn’t necessarily accurate, although the prosecution tried to own that scenario. Plus if you’ve ever been in a fight, you know positions tend to shift as people struggle, it’s not all “he was exactly *here* the entire fight”.
5. This one (the “he knew the street name the next day!” one) really honks me off. It’s grossly dishonest of BDLR to wave that around as “proof” of “lies”. Zimmerman wasn’t sure of the street name the night of February 26 when he saw Martin. Zimmerman *did* know the street name the evening of the next day, the 27th. BDLR wants us to believe that it’s impossible for Zimmerman to have learned the street name in 20+ hours, which is ludicrous, especially since he had been grilled extensively by police in the interim, and surely would have been shown maps of the neighborhood (with street names on them) in order to be asked to point out what happened where. Likewise, Zimmerman could have seen the street name while being driven back to do the re-enactment, or had an officer prompt him with the street name he was at a loss for when giving his statement, or any number of other things. For BDLR to use “he knew it the next day” as thin gruel to accuse Zimmerman of gross falsification is inexcusable.
Re: #5 about remembering the street name. If I recall correctly wasn’t zimmerman given a map of the neighborhood at the police station after the shooting and asked to draw on the map where different events occured? It was a google maps printout so it should have had the street names on it. I believe the map has been entered into evidence. If so MOM should pound BDLR for “conveniently forgetting” about this tomorrow
As to 1 and 2, the absence of DNA doesn’t mean that contact didn’t happen. For example, the police officer that took possession of GZ’s pistol and stuck it in his duty belt didn’t leave behind any DNA on the gun, either.
3: More messed up than what? There were dozens of stains on it that were all tested by the crime lab.
4: It was a struggle. Positions change and are fluid. Have you ever tried to pin a grown man to the ground in a no holds barred fight to the death?
5: If you notice, on the tape when he was giving the name of the street while sitting in the car, they were sitting on the corner with the street sign right in front of them.
“1: How come Martin didn’t have any blood on his hands or more evidence of punching and hitting Zimmerman?”
Wouldn’t expect too much blood on his hands. Rain. Bruises take time to develop.
“2: Why wasn’t Martin’s DNA or fingerprints on the gun if he grabbed it as Zimmerman claimed?”
DNA doesn’t always transfer in detectable amounts. They didn’t report Officer Smith’s DNA either even though we know he handled the gun.
“3: Why wasn’t Zimmerman’s jacket more messed up if he’d been on his back being attacked?”
Not sure I would expect more that what was reported “wet and with grass”
“4: If Martin was up against his armpits how did he see the gun behind him?”
John Good (witness) described Martin on top but the pair moving from perpendicular to the sidewalk to on the sidewalk. Also, final position (after Good went in to call 911) was off the sidewalk a bit. So even though Martin was straddling Zimmerman, Zimmerman was trying to get out and Martin repositioning himself to stay on top. Dynamic and fluid struggle not a fixed scene with Martin on top with his knees under Zimmerman’s armpits.
“5: If Zimmerman was able to tell the cop the name of the street the next day how come he couldn’t identify it on the phone the night before?”
You can ask me right now what the name of the street that intersects mine is and I can’t tell you (honestly). If you ask, I’ll check a map, or when I drive by, take a look. No big deal I don’t need to know the name, I just know where to turn.
1: How come Martin didn’t have any blood on his hands or more evidence of punching and hitting Zimmerman?
The only place Trayvon was injured besides the gunshot were scratches on his knuckles. He would not have bruising because he died before the area could swell or bruise and the ME testified they should have examined beneath the skin if they wanted to find any damage to his fists since that is where it would appear. Trayvon fought a lot so he probably had pretty tough hands. Fighters typically do.
Also, Zimmerman testified that he spread Martins hands out to make sure he was unarmed and in no position to continue the assault. This would make his knuckles face up into the rain. He was also fingerprinted at the seen and handled quite a bit with no care taken to preserve any evidence. Obviously the medics were more concerned with seeing if they could save him.
2: Why wasn’t Martin’s DNA or fingerprints on the gun if he grabbed it as Zimmerman claimed?
There was unknown DNA on the holster or gun IIRC but Zimmerman never claimed Martin touched the gun or holster, just that he felt Trayvon was going for it once it was exposed. I am not sure they even found Zimmerman’s DNA or fingerprints on the gun. But the main point is the prosecution tried to refute a claim that was not made.
3: Why wasn’t Zimmerman’s jacket more messed up if he’d been on his back being attacked?
Not sure what more you expect other than it being wet and having grass on it. At any rate, if any fact has been firmly established it was that Zimmerman was on his back. Everything indicates that was the case.
I don’t think the Jacket BLDR showed is the same one from the night of the attack, I recall more of a parka, with black square patching on the shoulders and square pockets up front like a NorthFace.. but I could be wrong.
1: Blood doesn’t adhere well to skin. Even when dry, it has a tendency to simply flake off. In wet conditions, a thin layer of blood rinses off quickly and and Martin had his hands between his body and the wet grass. Also, except for the bloody nose, Zimmerman had few, if any cuts to his face. most of the injuries sustained there were soft tissue bruises. And, punching soft tissue is unlikely to break the skin on your hands. Though Martin had small injuries to his hands that could have corresponded to the hand striking a hard surface, such as a tooth. Then there was the fact that Martin’s hands were not bagged at the scene, allowing for degradation of evidence.
2:DNA does not magically stick to any and all surfaces. It is also easily washed off or degraded. Fingerprints are easily smudged, especially when the surface that the pads of the fingers are pressing against are pulled across the pad. And, it is unclear whether Martin actually got his hands onto the pistol during the struggle. Zimmerman said, in various interviews that Martin both grabbed FOR the gun and GRABBED the gun. It is entirely possible that in the excitement of the moment, Zimmerman, himself was not sure if Martin had grabbed the gun or not.
3:The back of Zimmerman’s jacket, according to police witnesses, was wet and had grass on it. Sufficient evidence that Zimmerman was on the ground on his back. If Martin was straddling Zimmerman, this would have severely limited his movement and this would have limited any other damage to the back of the jacket.
4:Some reports have Zimmerman wearing his pistol in the “appendix position”. This places the pistol in front of the hip bone, against the abdomen. The exact position of Martin’s buttocks, while straddling Zimmerman, is a matter of estimation. It could have been anywhere from the pelvic girdle [the hips] to the solar plexus. Also, It s entirely possible that Zimmerman may have moved slightly further out from under Martin during the beating or Martin may have slid down Zimmerman’s body. This would allow Martin to view the butt of the pistol. However, it is possible that Martin did not actually see the pistol, until Zimmerman had it in his hand and Zimmerman only thought that Martin had seen it prior to that time.
5:Stress. In a stressful situation, mental faculties and acuity are degraded. Also, differing lighting and weather conditions can make it more difficult to orient oneself. In rain and darkness it is very easy to become disoriented, especially if in a stressful situation.
Now, none of these questions are really relevant to the case, unless you are trying to find some way to blame Zimmerman, in direct opposition to all the available evidence. The evidence clearly indicates that Martin punched Zimmerman in the nose. It clearly indicates that Martin was astride Zimmerman and delivering multiple blows to Zimmerman’s face and head. And, based upon the location and nature of Zimmerman’s injuries it is no stretch to believe that he reasonably believed that to allow the beating to continue, he was likely to suffer grave bodily injury or death. There is no mystery to this case. It is a classic self defense case. The only reason that there is any “mystery” to it, because certain people had to transform it into some it is not; a murder.
re #2 wasn’t there TM’s DNA on George’s right jacket cuff?
4: If Martin was up against his armpits how did he see the gun behind him?
Again, no one claimed Martin had his knees directly in George’s armpits other than the prosecution in one of the many vaguely sexual positions they tried to find that would fit the facts. They went through a veritable Kama Sutra of grappling positions in their quest for one that would not match the testimony given by Zimmerman.
I did not see BDLR mount the doll (thank God) but fights are dynamic. You don’t say, “here you lay down while I mount you and hit you.” It has already been shown several times how if you are squirming to get away or if Trayvon were up with his weight on his knees with them about at the waist etc… then all of this could have happened. The knee in the armpit is just another bit of disingenuousness on the part of the prosecution.
I am not even sure what point they are trying to make there. Trayvon was shot so if they are saying Z already had the gun out then there is no way he takes a beating for a minute or so. If they are saying it wasn’t out then Trayvon is still alive and we can all rejoice. They don’t even know what point they were trying to make.
5: If Zimmerman was able to tell the cop the name of the street the next day how come he couldn’t identify it on the phone the night before?
If you have a car wreck at an unknown intersection what is the likelihood you will know the name of the intersection the next day? How would you learn that information? There is your answer.
Also the prosecution made a big deal of there being a house number nearby so Zimmerman would not have to go looking for an address, but that yet again addresses an argument that was never made. Zimmerman said he needed a street NAME. He can’t say “come to 8942.” What good would that do? The prosecution knows this and still makes a misleading argument in bad faith. This is the tactic they used to obfuscate all throughout the trial and it is yet another reason why they should lose their licenses.
5. When a prosecution witness was asked about this by the prosecution, she confirmed that the year before, the names on the streets had been changed and the new street signs had been put up in areas hidden by trees. After that, people just knew their own address and everyone was confused about what street was what.
Good for prosecution? It might explain why Trayvon was wandering around in the rain.
Bad for prosecution? It explains why Zimmerman would have had to walk to the corner to see the street signs to lead the cops in.
don’t expect to get an honest answer here – anything that goes against the verdict that people want to hear – not guilty – is either attacked or dismissed.
#5: because GZ did what he said he did. He looked for the correct street name the night of the fatal confrontation, and he was able to identify it the next day.
I really think the O’Mara close in the morning is a blessing. It may be inadvertent, but, hey…
If I had to close after BDLR, there would be a LONG pause, as I allowed the jury to recover. And stop clawing at the backs of their seats to escape.
Only when I saw that they knew that onslaught was over…and they had no further need to fear…could I begin.
Ragspierre, I have also seen you on Althouse. Do you have your own blog?
I do, but I kind of let it go dark. You have to put up good content every day, to get and keep any following, and I found that impossible by myself (or even with my good co-blogger, swede).
The first words out of his mouth should be “I am not going to yell at you.” Then he can reason with them and treat them like adults instead of naughty children who have to be berated for their ignorance.
1) It was pouring rain out, and TM ended up on ground with hands on wet grass then rolled over onto back hands still on wet grass and left like that for over 2 hours. Hands weren’t bagged. ME said that bruising happens over a couple of hours not right away.
2) GZ said he went for gun never said he grabbed gun.
3) What do you mean more messed up? His back was soaked and covered with grass
according to LEO’s
4) He wasn’t up to armpits. Thats what prosecution says.
5) He didn’t speak with police till 5 pm next day and went to work so he drove thru place and may have looked at street signs.
Tuned in to Fox Business News and learned that fertilizer companies are furiously engaged in a bidding war for rights to BDLR’s closing argument.
Haha… nice one!
At beginning of closing tomorrow MOM should look at BDLR and say your closing was retarded sirrrr.
What he should say, a la Vincent Gambini is: Verything that guy just said is bullshit.
I am still incensed by the MSM and DOJ involvement in this case. Where were they when this happened? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom
The victims weren’t hoodie-wearing, drug-swilling twins of Obama’s son. Easily explained, yet infuriating nonetheless.
Exactly Granny55. And what about this case?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wichita_Massacre
There are hundreds of race-related black-on-white violence that go unreported and certainly gather no interest from the DOJ. According to Eric “My people” Holder, whites cannot be hate crime victims by virtue of them being white.
Absence of evidence is evidence of… Murder 2.
OK, so….if George is (rightfully ) pronounced not guilty of any of the fabricated charges, do any of you all think Obama will invite Angela Corey, Crump, the Martins and George & family to a beer summit at the White House?
Boy o boy. When BDLR was asserting, “This case is important to the state..” today, I was thinking that MOM should counter tomorrow by affirming, “Yes, indeed this case is important to the state in so far as they have concocted their theory using a false narrative. They have cowed to the political and social pressures of outsiders for whom racial strife and dissension are like oxygen and support the basis for their very existence. You bet this case is important to the state because they were willing to subject an innocent person, a responsible, law abiding individual who exercised his constitutional right to life, his state statute right to defend himself meeting force with force just like anyone of you sitting on this jury today could.”
The ramifications of a guilty verdict for any of the proposed charges should strike fear in the hearts of anyone who could potentially become a victim of another Obama progeny look-a-like. But, there is certainly some strong evidence that that is precisely one of, if not THE underlying motives for this trial.
Makes sense, then, to stay away from anyone who resembles Sasha or Malia.
Incomplete thought in my post above: “….subject an innocent person to a socio-political show trial. Testimony and factual evidence presented in this case affirm that Mr. Zimmerman is a responsible, law abiding individual who exercised his constitutional right to life and his state statute right to defend his life by meeting force with force just like anyone of you ……..”etc.
Sorry for the mental gap
George only grabbed his gun once TM went for it.
thanks to all for the responses. One other thing, does anyone know where I could find transcripts or records of trials in FL where someone has been convicted of 2nd degree murder similar to the charge here or where someone was acquitted based on self defense?
It’d be interesting to compare.
I’d think that those convicted had much stronger evidence against them then GZ has. But it’d be nice to see an example of a conviction under 2nd degree murder and what the evidence in such a case actually looked like.
Same with the self defense to compare how GZ’s claims compare to others who’ve claimed self defense. Are his stronger? Is the evidence supoprting his claim typical of what you see? Stronger? Weaker?
Is anyone else worried that the jury may feel threatened by Martin supporters? Eventually their names and addresses and information will be public and if they acquit GZ they could be very vulnerable. If I was on the jury I’d defeitely be worried about a supporter of Martin’s coming after me and “avenging” Trayvon if I voted to acquit.
At least this should be over soon. Wouldn’t be surprised if the jury returns relatively quickly.
Got it. But, assuming that the jury takes its responsibility seriously, they will decide as a group that they have to do their legally mandated job. Were they to consider the personal risks to themselves in acquitting Zimmerman, that would definitely be disclosed eventually by a dissenter, notwithstanding whatever personal relationships might have been established during the course of the trial.
Just a question based upon a guilty verdict for Zimmerman:
You legally have your pistol while walking in your neighborhood and see a person of a different race, beating someone badly. Do you intercede or are you afraid that should you have to use your gun in self defense, the Feds will make sure you’re tried for murder?
Vignette from real life…
I don’t give a fig about race, and I first very calmly told the beater he could not do that.
The pistol was in my hand, behind my back. I never showed it.
He just stopped.
Glad you’re ok! I know that’s what my husband and sons would do.
Hopefully, they’re never in that position.
From the beginning of this case, I was very interested in when GZ pulled his weapon. There has been no evidence presented other than it was not pulled until the moment the fatal shot was made. This is a clear indication to me that GZ wasn’t acting as a wannabe LEO as oft claimed.
The irony is, had GZ displayed the weapon at some point before the claimed attack by TM, it’s possible (likely?) TM may be alive today, but I believe GZ would have broken the law in doing so.
I’m told that many CCW instructors will emphasize that the decision to pull your concealed weapon must never be taken lightly, as it will change your life, regardless of the outcome.
The timing is one of the key points of the case. The ONLY time that matters is when he pulled his weapon and fired.
Even if you believe the state that GZ did everything according to their weird tale of stalking TM down, the provocation changes and resaonable response changes.
When GZ was having his head slammed down, and being smothered, and finally when TM reached for the weapon, it is reasonable for GZ to have fear for his life.
Another key is that there must be no reasonable doubt. No one who heard the closing, let alone the main case could NOT have reasonable doubt.
There is almost something sadly pythonesque about your hypothetical argument.
On the one hand, I am supposed to laugh at someone saying my brain hurts unless CNN is covering it when, if I do, I am a racist.
I would not be surprised to hear BDLR say in rebuttal tomorrow that Travonn is like a bat’s piss, gold shooting forth while all around is dark.
Without looking, call out STOP THAT! I’M CALLING 911! and leave the scene.
After this case, who would want to be a witness, or even call 911?
I called 911 once in traffic when I saw someone weaving crazy around four lanes of 45 mph traffic, like they were drunk or falling unconscious; and another time when a woman on a motorcycle had a barefoot 3 year old (est.) in her bitch seat as a passenger. Wow. That would count as child endangerment or something, right? I doubt the police apprehended her. I would have had to follow her. She might have assaulted me.
So I was able to watch most but not all of the closing argument. My overall impression was that the same as the local channel nine’s legal analyst’s view: it was a klunker If I were O’Mara I would be thinking that the state left so much low hanging fruit that it is hard to know where to start.
Another bit of unscientific data: the HNL viewer is showing that 54% think the state’s closing was unpersuasive, to 35% who thought it was persuasive. This cannot be good for the state given the state’s burden and considering that viewers have not yet heard from O’Mara.
On the other hand, I have been watching the major news networks (CNN and Fox) and the majority view there is that it was an effective closing argument. Go figure.
BDLR noted the lack of blood at the scene. Mr. Martin lost a lot of blood. If the conditions dissipated Mr. Martin’s blood, why would the dissipation of Mr. Zimmerman’s blood be surprising?
Why would it be surprising that a memory lapse was refreshed at a later date, especially if one was purposively seeking the information? Further, if BDLR conveniently, and twice, cannot remember that Zimmerman said “shot” and mistakenly recalls that Zimmerman said “killed,” why would he not grant that Mr. Zimmerman could also misrecollect. That BDLR’s misrecollection of the record creates the illusion that Zimmerman lied about knowing Martin was dead at the initial interview, speaks volumes about the character of the man whose summation is focused on proving that the defendant is a “pathological liar”(for congruence with Serino).
Trayvon Martin’s bleeding was mostly internal, filling his lung and chest cavity.
“Skittles — he didn’t even steal — from 7-11.”
Tell me again, who’s the “asshole?”
Yeah, BdlR let his KKK slip show. We know how those black boys are about stealing stuff, right Bernie?!
He leaned heavily on sarcasm, as in that skittles schtick. Classless.
Nice catch. That one even made Twitchy.
(You were first though. And me. I caught it too. 😛 ).
Longtime lurker and now finally registered. I live close (a mere 10 miles or so) to this whole affair and am just speechless about what is going on.
This would have been a great platform for both the left and right to band together to show how reality can get so twisted when viewed through the lens of the internet or TV. /naive
We the people are so used to being lied to that when the truth is put in front of us, we assume it is a lie. “Yeah, that towing show is fake…I know that. But it keeps me from getting bored.” I don’t know how people can even stand “reality” TV.
I figure that the judge/prosecutors feel protected no matter what. If GZ is acquitted as he should be, they would not face any blame due to their behavior towards the defense. If they were to be punished in any way, the pro-Trayvon crowd would start all over again and proclaim racism since they were only trying to look out for/protect the blacks.
Same here, we’re about 2 miles from the apartment complex. And I work in Altamonte and have to listen to the same comments…’He said effing c**ns…should have stayed in his car…shouldn’t have followed him…” and on and on. Makes my teeth grind. I was listening on the way home to WDBO and that insipid Mel Robbins (sp?) show. Callers weighing in saying the same thing. More teeth grinding. But what’s worse is they don’t bother to correct the callers! They let them go on about Martin being stalked without saying there’s ZERO evidence of that or that George was told to stay in his car by a PO. Really? And I’ll never forget this so-called Harvard-educated lawyer chiming in right after it happened that George should be arrested immediately. You’d think a lawyer would understand something called probable cause. Guess that’s why she’s on the radio. UGH>
I especially liked the part where BDLR focused on the missing strawberries and proved beyond the shadow of a doubt and with… geometric logic the prosecution’s scenario.
Since I do not practice criminal law, this really has never come up.
In civil law, a dead victim is GOING to get a lot of exposition.
Here, not much at all.
So, criminal law types, how much of this could I get away with in closing…?
I paint a very sympathetic portrait of Zimmerman, which is really no great trick, reminding the jurors of the people they have heard testify on his behalf, and what we know about his conduct, and even his demeanor in the court.
“My client, Mr. Zimmerman, was interested in a career of service to others, to go with the way we’ve seen he lived. He was even, according on one State’s witness, wanting to be a prosecutor. I have not asked him, but I wonder if that dream lives any longer in his heart after this?
About Mr. Martin, the young man who was killed that night, we know so little. I think everyone in this courtroom has blanks in their portrait of young Mr. Martin. Perhaps everyone here would like answers that we just do not find in the evidence, so what DO we know?
He was a tall, strapping young man, and was athletic by some descriptions. He came from a broken marriage. While it was the middle of the school term, he was temporarily living with his father, who, on the night of this incident was out for a romantic evening.
Mr. Martin had gone to the store, leaving his younger sibling at home for some hours, to make a few purchases. Certainly nothing wrong in that. What we don’t know, because this is one of the blanks in this young man’s canvass, is what else had taken him out on a chill, rainy night on foot?
We had the chance to meet but two people in his age-group who knew him, and you remember their testimony. Who were his other friends? What did this young man like to do for recreation? What were his dreams and aspirations? Humans seem to naturally want to know these things.”
First, thank you so much for providing a place where a person could follow the trial sanely. I watched almost the entire time, and felt the most compelling evidence to me was barely commented on. When George said in his reenactment that he thought he might pass out, I felt that expressed perfectly someone who had crossed the line in their head that they feared for their life or great bodily harm no matter what their current injuries (as if you even know while still fighting). Once you are unconscious you can no longer defend yourself. I hope this get’s mentions tomorrow as I think it powerful to a layman….it was to me.
Can we have MoM put 40 seconds on a kitchen timer, show it to the jury, start the timer, put the dummy on the floor, straddle it, pound it until the timer goes off, and then get up, stop the timer, take a deep breath, and then give his closing?
Excellent idea, I’d suggest modifying that by attaching a watermelon as a head.
After the 40 seconds are up, reset the dummy with another melon and whack it with a flashlight and a tree branch.
Then just leave the room without a word 😉
They probably would never get away with it, but I would hire two MMA fighters (in protective gear, of course) to reenact the beatdown with full punches and head banging. Let the jurors see what a real ground and pound looks like and leave them with no doubt GZ was fighting for his life.
I thought the same thing except with the emphasis on one trying to smother the other while he yells for help.
Also, I don’t think most women understand just how violent a confrontation like this is that results in “minor” injuries. They would be too stunned to think even though they would be perfectly safe in their seats.
Long time lurker first time poster. Great analysis and insights here. I am an attorney by training, and I actually defended a few criminal cases early in my carrier and tried several of those before juries. I’ve watched some very very good trial lawyers – in criminal and civil cases – and BDLR is the worst sniveling excuse for a lawyer I think I’ve ever seen. MOM has to be THRILLED with that toadies presentation today.
So is the first time that we’ve seen the Chewbacca _prosecution_ being used? History being made?
“…ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!”
“Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I’m a lawyer prosecuting a major criminal case, and I’m talkin’ about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you’re in that jury room deliberatin’ and conjugatin’ the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must find Zimmerman guilty! The prosecution rests.”
Please make an effort to be more sensitive. If I had a wife, she would look like Chewbacca.
I think the whole ‘slight injuries’ play can be downplayed by using the following example (besides explaining that one needs NOT experience any injury before self-defense):
Jury, please imagine you are on the ground and you are being choked. you start feeling the pressure in your lungs and you are not able to grasp any air, 20 seconds later you are about to loose consciousness and a terrifying fear resonates in your chest as the lights dim out, you rear for the only and your last option (as your called for help before), and shoot the attacker saving your life. Still gasping for air the police arrive and take some pictures of you and you appear OK.
The next day you look fine as well, and have no scars. does that mean you shot without justification? how is THIS CASE different than that scenario.
So the prosecutor would have us believe that George carried his gun at the waist in the back of his body? Really???
Must-read analysis of Nelson’s outrageous performance by the brilliant Andy McCarthy.
(And he gives a shout-out to Professor Jacobson)
http://pjmedia.com/andrewmccarthy/2013/07/11/reversible-error-in-zimmerman-before-we-even-get-a-verdict/
“If the judge fails in her responsibility to make a good record, there is no limit on the imagination of defense lawyers to come up with ways the suppression of the evidence must have led to the conviction.
Given all that, Nelson’s failure to address the relevance of the evidence is a glaring default.”
**************************************
“Like my ever-astute colleague William Jacobson – the Cornell law prof behind the invaluable Legal Insurrection site — I think the judge has committed reversible error by excluding this evidence. But while Lumarque should certainly have helped Zimmerman, I am not quite as persuaded by it as Bill seems to be.”
Tomorrow the verdict may come (although slightly unlikely). Everyone should plan ahead to avoid, prevent, or resist potential violence.
I’m already planning an alternative route home from work, as I normally would be going through a zone of potential violence. I suggest everyone does the same.
I also encourage those with the training and the need, to prepare like these individuals during the Rodney King riots.
http://www.humanevents.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/58852252.jpg
Even if jurorsfinish deliberating Friday, they will likely postpone the verdict until Monday just to limit the riots to weekdays. A weekend riot would be worse.
I’m assuming this is because the potential rioters have regular 9-5 jobs? Hilarious! The rioters have never had regular jobs (if any job, ever) and will do as much damage on Monday as Saturday…
Talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations!
Preventing or resisting violence may find you put up on Second Degree Murder charges, so best try to just avoid I guess. If you see anyone being beat up by rioters, just run along home because it’s now illegal to come to their aid. Or maybe we should use the term UNlegal to refer to acts which subject you to legal persecution rather than legal prosecution?
I have tickets for Paul McCartney tomorrow night. Nats Park…SE DC…am a VA CHP holder, but that affords me no carry privilege in DC. Should I sell the tickets?
Yes. I’ll give you at least $15 each.
Just kidding! He blew the doors off at Bonnaroo – don’t you dare miss that show!
Big headlines up at Drudge. Not just the center photo of BDLR seeming to change his stance to a wish for manslaughter, there is also a headline that half-nelson has been put into an arm lock by Obama. Which is why she went off the legal rails, and attacked Zimmerman (before the close of the Defense case) … so you can see this video replayed. At Drudge.
Very frightening that an incompetent judge gets instructions from an incompetent white house.
I feel so sorry for what George Zimmerman has been put through. Hope MOM’s closing argument tomorrow registers well with the jury. I think BDLR’s performance today was a terrible insult to the legal profession.
Let’s the hope jury, when they come back with a verdict, don’t add insult to injury.
Greta Van Sustern says the defense should have objected to the lies BDLR spouted about GZ.
Is she right?
“Not only is it bad for a prosecutor to falsely tell the jury a defendant lied about something when credibility is key to guilt or no guilt in a murder trial …what in the world was the defense doing? They should have immediately objected and said ‘facts not in evidence and the prosecutor is misleading the jury’ and ask the judge to instruct the jury on this error (that they should disregard what the prosecutor said.) Instead the defense just sat there like potted plants.”
http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/2013/07/11/the-prosecutor-mislead-the-jury-and-the-defense-just-sat-there-and-did-nothing/
I think MOM will pick those apart tomorrow.
While understanding that NOT objecting is sometimes a very good strategy, one of the things I do fault O’Mara on is his lack of objections, and good objections. Very slight fault, btw.
I am WAY impressed at his ability to argue to the bench, and his brilliant use of “voice identification” witnesses who were REALLY there to tell us about Georgie.
IANAL, but I was thinking about that too. At first I thought the defense should have objected to some of the more egregious wild claims / scurrilous accusations / blatant misrepresentations, but after a while I was glad they didn’t.
As the old saying goes, when your opponent is in the process of shooting himself in the foot, don’t get in his way.
BDLR was so over-the-top that the best strategy was probably to give him all the rope he was willing to run with. The more egregious BS he spewed, the more the jury would get fed up with being treated like idiots who couldn’t remember what the testimony had actually been, and the more items the defense could put on their checklist to rebut in detail tomorrow to make the case that the prosecution doesn’t *have* a case if this stupid crap is the best they can sum up with.
Making up numbers and quotes — “Seventeen times yesterday afternoon the prosecution said ‘blah blah blah’ but the evidence from the telephone recordings and witnesses say that what was said was ‘not blah at all but this’. Eleven times they said that George said …. Nine times they said ….”
Pound them with it all at once. They’re lying liars who lied, lie, keep lying, and will probably continue to lie after I sit down. They keep claiming that my client is a liar. Perhaps they think he’s done what they continue to do. I don’t think my client has lied, but I know they have, and so do you.
Perhaps I should have interrupted with objections, but now you know, as we do, that what they have to say is lies.
There was an objection. One does not have to repeat it every time. The judge admonished the state and the defense can refer to it repeatedly in their closing.
Yet the jury formed their own opinion of the state closing and it was not favorable. That is more valuable than more interruptions by the defense.
I also wanted to take a stab at the list of question set forth above.
1: How come Martin didn’t have any blood on his hands or more evidence of punching and hitting Zimmerman?
In addition to the fact it was raining – I would specifically quote the woman who said it was coming down in BUCKETS in closing – I would remind the jurors of 2 pieces of evidence mentioned by the ME Di Miao.
First, when you are flat of your back the blood created by a punch to the nose will tend to flow back through your nasal passage and into your throat. I would then explain, [because I don’t think this part is in evidence] that as you struggle to breath you instinctively / inadvertently swallow the blood to clear the way for life giving air.
Second, I would point to the ME’s explanation that bruising occurs several hours LATER as blood sent to the damaged area pools and dies, darkening the skin in that area. Because Travon was shot through the heart blood stopped pumping quickly and bruises on dead people are much harder to detect. That’s why the ME said Dr. Bow Wow should have cut into Travon’s knuckled and searched for internal evidence of such bruising.
I might also mention Travon’s dark skin tone as a concealing mechanism.
2: Why wasn’t Martin’s DNA or fingerprints on the gun if he grabbed it as Zimmerman claimed?
Zimmerman never stated, with absolute certainty, that Travon grabbed the gun. Also, as noted by others, the crime scene processing was less than stellar and the BUCKETS of rain likely may have washed any DNA away.
3: Why wasn’t Zimmerman’s jacket more messed up if he’d been on his back being attacked?
4: If Martin was up against his armpits how did he see the gun behind him?
Zimmerman never stated that Martin mounted him at the armpits and stayed in that position throughout the fight. The fight was fluid and dynamic with ebbs and flows and lots of squirming by Zimmerman while Martin opened up a big ole can of Whoop Ass on him.
5: If Zimmerman was able to tell the cop the name of the street the next day how come he couldn’t identify it on the phone the night before?
Reasonable for the jury to infer he glanced at the sign to double check it the next day. On a dark and stormy night while driving around a looped neighborhood where the street names change but all are connected a little confusion is normal. Forgetting the name of a street but remembering it the next day hardly qualifies as proof, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, of any element of Murder 2 or Manslaughter.
Wearing a hoodie is not a crime. But throwing a nose-breaking, sucker punch while wearing a hoodie is.
Pinning someone down and pounding their head into the concrete and trying to suffocate them while uttering death threats and hate speech is a Felony Assault.
Would someone remind me if the memorable exchange between Judge Nelson and Zimmerman regarding whether or not he would testify (before the conclusion of the defense) was in the presence of the jury or not?
it was not.
It was not.
It was not. Jury was outside the room.
It still was improper. While not reversible error, it could add to the mountain of missteps leading to overturning a conviction.
“And some kind of Watermelon — or iced tea — or whatever it’s called.” Oops!
I have only begun to pay close attention to this trial over the past few days and am not an attorney. It has been enlightening to follow the comments of so many bright folks discussing this case.
I am deeply disturbed by the exclusion of evidence in regard to the contents of Martin’s knapsack that got him into trouble at school, and the gangster wannabe texts and photos on his phone. This was obviously a kid looking for trouble.
The notion of there being something wrong with Zimmerman looking out for his neighbors and their property is also ludicrous.
But I am also disturbed by Zimmerman’s testimony about the fight. The prosecutor’s questions about how Zimmerman was able to unholster his gun while being simultaneously pummeled by the straddling Martin MUST be answered. Without clarity on this point, I believe that a reasonable person begins to doubt this portion of Zimmerman’s narrative, and it starts to appear more likely that the gun was drawn before Zimmerman says it was.
In my opinion, if the defense in their closing arguments tomorrow cannot completely remove doubt about Zimmerman’s version of when and how the gun was drawn, Zimmerman is looking at jail time.
Nope. The jury has already seen how it happened several times and there have been ample explanations. No one even knows what the prosecution is trying to allege here. If the gun was out earlier then Zimmerman took a beating for nothing and he showed great restraint in not using it. There is no way he had it out from the start and Martin controls him well enough to do all of that damage without a shot being fired. He would have to control a wrist for 40 seconds while pounding George’s head into the ground and punching him. This is one of the least likely scenarios possible. Also, his DNA and fingerprints would be MORE likely to be on the gun rather than less in that scenario since they would be fighting over it from the get go.
If it was drawn during the fight then it makes no material difference. You should also understand that the prosecutor knowingly lied about the position of the gun according to what I have read on here even though I missed that part myself.
I also find it hard to believe that anyone takes that argument seriously since fights are dynamic and you would have to have a serious lack of imagination to not understand several ways in which it could have happened exactly as George said. If you are grappling with someone for 40 seconds what is the likelihood that you couldn’t at some point reach your firearm? What is the likelihood that your opponent does not discover it when you tried to wriggle free or when you reach for it?
In answer to gasman’s question and Voluble’s partial answer about “prosecutor’s questions about how Zimmerman was able to unholster his gun,” the statement about the prosecutor lying came from me.
BDLR made the statement that GZ’s gun was “back here,” while putting his hand on the back of his right hip (above his “right cheek,” if you will), and then intimated that to mean that GZ was lying about how/when he drew his gun. That “back here” came out of the blue, and has no basis in fact or witness statement. GZ said he carried in the front, appendix position. When the police arrived, and he indicated where his gun was, it was on the front of his hip. When the officer removed it from him, he removed it from the front of his hip. When John Guy danced with Mr. Doll, he indicated it was on the front of his hip. And yet, when BDLR gets up to screech at the jury, he suddenly says it was on the back of his hip, and “how did he draw it” and “he must be lying.”
It was rank bullshit. There’s really no other word for it. But it was just one of many factual errors in BDLR’s close, so it doesn’t surprise me that it slipped under the radar.
Excellent analysis if this were a trial aiming at a posthumous conviction of TM for beating GZ, because you argue for reasonable doubt as to GZ’s story. So maybe TM should be acquitted. However, this is a trial of GZ, and what is needed to convict him is that his story must be proved false beyond reasonable doubt. Saying parts of GZ’s story are questionable is not good enough for a conviction.
I disagree. I think if Zimmerman had begun the fight with the gun in his hand, he wouldn’t have still been holding on to it to fire the fatal shot. You don’t fight someone holding a firearm and not make getting that firearm your priority. You don’t ground and pound them. Zimmerman’s police interview said that as he slid on the ground his shirt and jacket came up, then TM put his hand on Z like he was going for the pistol and Z got to it first. This is completely believable in my eyes.
“The prosecutor’s questions about how Zimmerman was able to unholster his gun while being simultaneously pummeled by the straddling Martin MUST be answered.”
I don’t even understand the problem. Why *wouldn’t* you be able to reach your hip while being attacked in that fashion?
…Especially since Zimmerman’s account describes Martin noticing the gun (not sure if by sight, or feel via hand/leg) and starting to reach for it, which pretty much requires Martin to break off the “simultaneous pummeling” momentarily and lift up or slide down enough to create access to the firearm (for Martin, which also leaves it open and within reach of Zimmerman *and* reminds GZ he has a gun at hand, and it’s time to use it or lose it).
Where’s the problem again?
Does Florida have a judicial accountability law? If not, what options would be available to the defense should they want to pursue her for misconduct?
This idea that Zimmerman was just laying there not defending himself while Little Trayvon was pounding his head on the concrete could be correct. Perhaps he was stunned and going into shock. I drove past a man whose head was being pounded on the curb, the victim was staring straight ahead and his arms were almost limp. I had a child in my car so drove past, but then I started to back up and the gang fled. The man on the curb slowly got up and walked away. I think the defense teams fight expert said some people have that warrior spirit and some don’t, perhaps Geo Zimmerman is one of those who don’t. If he hadn’t had a gun then he’d probably be dead or v. seriously injured in which case I don’t think that Mr.”CouldabeenTravon’sDad” Obama would be so desirous of having offspring like Little Trayvon.
White House Distances Itself From Obama’s “If I Had A Son, He Would Look Like Trayvon” Comments…
The White House refused to answer questions regarding President Barack Obama’s stance on the George Zimmerman trial on Thursday in an unexpected move to distance itself from Obama’s previous comments.
“[Obama’s] comments are what they were, but we’re not going to say anything from here,” press secretary Jay Carney said.
When asked by reporters if the Justice Department will be watching the outcome and reporting back to the President, Carney said, “I do not know the answer to that question.”
Last March during a press conference in the Rose Garden, Obama responded emotionally to questions regarding Martin’s death.
“I’m head of the executive branch and the Attorney General reports to me, and I’ve got to be careful about my statements to make sure we not impair any investigation that’s taking place right now,” Obama said, prefacing his remarks.
“If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon,” Obama continued.
http://weaselzippers.us/2013/07/11/white-house-distances-itself-from-obamas-if-i-had-a-son-he-would-look-like-trayvon-comments/
Sure he’s not saying anything now, he’s done his damage…him
and Eric Holder of the UnJustice Dept.
Matt Drudge always has such a way with headlines & pics…..gotta love him
http://www.drudgereport.com/
I just peeked at Drudge, almost washed my monitor with Coke.
All it needs is the “Tra-La-La”…
IKR you gotta love it as it is really so spot on. Sadly though a man’s life is what those morons are playing with but thankfully there are now sites that recognize it for what it is and blast it. There was a time not long ago there would have only been the one view put out there
If Tiny Tim had a son with Ms. Potato Head, he would prance like BDLR.
No matter the verdict a question posed here many times will be answered. Commenters have questioned the females ability to divorce emotion from reason and logic, and since nearly everyone here thinks there is no case against GZ and an acquittal is in order, any verdict to the contrary would validate the premise.
Sorry but no. It would only prove that in this case 6 women were wrong.
Just want to say, I’ve enjoyed reading the intellectual conversations here and have been impressed with everyone’s professionalism. It’s been extremely informative and refreshing to have a conversation of facts without the emotions and name calling that one sees on other sites.
My wife can attest to the fact that I’ve been addicted to this site from Day 1!
Nelson’s inappropriate behavior and unprofessionalism a hot topic at HLN of all places.
I hope she is disbarred.
No chance, on what we know presently.
She MIGHT get “de-benched”, but I would not hold my breath.
D@mn! Knew disbarred was the wrong term. Thanks for providing the correct one.
De-benched? That’s the term? All I could come up with was…If a priest is defrocked, would a judge be disrobed?
That left such a painful mental image, I left it alone.
BDLR: “again, assuming something is not against the law by itself… unless you’re wrong.”
i’ve been lurking here since the beginning of the trial and watched most of the opening statements. now, i must admit, a great deal of my understanding of the trial is from the comments on this website and the excellent coverage by mr. branca, so i have an understandable bias. of course, IANAL, but i do have 2 sisters who have spent over 20 years working with/for defense attorneys. i’ve never been very interested in lawyering other than from a periphery, but this case blows my mind.
how a prosecutor can get away with stating that a wrong assumption is against the law without being reprimanded by the judge astonishes me. maybe the prosecution is allowed a great deal of latitude when giving a closing argument, but it’s appalling to an outside observer who expects the jury to hear truthful statements from the state.
I have been reserving my opinion about Judge Nelson, but here’s a convincing analysis by a heavyweight former prosecutor. I’m persuaded.
http://pjmedia.com/andrewmccarthy/2013/07/11/reversible-error-in-zimmerman-before-we-even-get-a-verdict/
Wouldn’t be at all surprised if Guy claims that Zimmerman, with malice aforethought, set out the can of Watermelon Cooler to bait his “punk trap.”
The other side’s defenders are claiming that Zimmerman put on weight so he would look physically unfit for the trial.
The other side’s defenders are rapidly convincing me that “Idiocracy” was a documentary.
Previously, as in at the beginning of the trial, much was made about the female jurors being influenced by the female judge. I think it has happened, but not in the way people supposed it would.
Have you ever met a woman who had a female boss- and LIKED her? I haven’t. Nearly every women I have met who has expressed a preference has said they prefer males as bosses. Who’s the boss figure in this trial? The female judge.
Women don’t like female bosses oftimes because they percieve them playing favorites. Has the judge been playing favorites? Uh, yes.
And, women who are average in appearance, which I vaguely remember reading, tend to dislike 2 types of women in general. Incredibly good looking women who know how to and do use their looks to their adavntage. And fat, obese bitchy women. Oops- we have the judge there.
And the prosecuting attorney? Yelling and screaming? Just like one of their (or their gf’s) ex-psycho boyfriends? No positive impressions there.
Throw those in with the factless presentation of the prosecution and you’ve got a not guilty vote coming up. From the description of the jurors demeanor during the closing arguemnt today, I don’t think they’re going to go for a guilty verdict without some actual facts, facts which they do not have.
Sorry to blow your anecdotal stats but not only do I love my female boss, I specifically sought a job at her company because I’d heard what an amazing person she is.
It’s certainly OK to speculate as to how the judge and prosecutor might be viewed by jurors.
But if I were a defense attorney (I’m clearly not), tonight would be spent reviewing the strengths of the other side’s arguments, not congratulating myself on how well I have done so far.
I still think that the prosecutor landed some punches today in regard to questioning Zimmerman’s version of how the fight went down. Just about everything else the prosecutor said today was a crock of you-know-what. I am just really concerned of the hay that can be made about the likelihood of Zimmerman successfully pulling a gun and shooting someone while being straddled. If someone is sitting on your pelvis, or abdomen, or lower thorax, and either has your arms pinned with their legs or not, think about what it takes to get at a holstered gun in your appendix area, get the gun around the other person’s leg and torso, and fire. Not an easy feat. I’m a gun owner. This seems like a difficult feat to me.
I just think that the jurors need to go into the jury room with a very clear view of how the gun was used, and not mulling over the plethora of questions that were raised by the prosecutor. In my mind, that’s the difference between a clean acquittal and weeks of jury deliberations about possible manslaughter.
For the most part, I think you’re right. Every once in a while, you’ll find women who like their female boss but in my experience, that’s the exception.
As a whole, we don’t like pushy, arrogant women and Judge Nelson is pushy and arrogant.
Ugh, so tired of the other side’s arguments. I know they’re entitled to their opinions. One example they’re now postulating is that Martin punched Zimmerman in the face because he (Martin) was in feat for his life, so it was self defense.
Sorry, this is O/T, but…
palate cleanser…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=686_cjVjYHM&feature=player_embedded
Sorta…
Palate cleanser/mind number
I’ll see you one black fem dingbat and raise you one white dim queen bee.
“Poverty in America,” she exclaimed. “Poverty. I’m saying the word on the floor of the House – poverty! Poverty! Poverty! Poverty! Poverty in America, seems to be a word that people get nervous about.”
(start at 1:43)
http://weaselzippers.us/2013/07/11/thought-of-cutting-food-stamps-sends-pelosi-over-the-edge-shreiks-on-house-floor-poverty-poverty-poverty/
Ragspierre, I feel I need to get this conversation back on topic.
Thus: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmg1aY6_AJI
My turn!
1: How come Martin didn’t have any blood on his hands or more evidence of punching and hitting Zimmerman?
His hands were not tested for DNA – only under his fingernails. You can also hit someone repeatedly without having bruises on your own hands; re: expert testimony.
2: Why wasn’t Martin’s DNA or fingerprints on the gun if he grabbed it as Zimmerman claimed?
He never said he grabbed it. He said he reached for it. DNA and fingerprints don’t jump…
3: Why wasn’t Zimmerman’s jacket more messed up if he’d been on his back being attacked?
Very subjective question. How messed-up do you think it should have been? Quantify please.
4: If Martin was up against his armpits how did he see the gun behind him?
What if he ‘felt’ the gun with his legs? And how do you know he saw it?
5: If Zimmerman was able to tell the cop the name of the street the next day how come he couldn’t identify it on the phone the night before?
GZ was looking for a house number, not necessarily the name of a street.