Trayvon Martin Case

it totally changes the agreed upon rules of combat i thought all guys understood.


Dude, FFS! The first rule of Fight Club!

Heck!

id like to know the exact routes each took as well and exactly what zimmerman did from the time he left his truck to the fight.

i read the article linked by someone were it tries to re-patch zimmerman and martin's foot steps but .... it was highly bias towards zimmerman with huge leaps in logic and fact twisting.

to answer you question FD - if guess bc of zimmerman's confrontational words used on the dispatch call as well as the dispathcer telling him to not follow martin.

plus he did get out of his truck which is more than "observe and report" and seemingly followed martin - now im sure the counter argument to that would be that he had to get out of his truck to further "observe" martin bc he went on a foot path where zimmerman couldnt visually follow him in his truck ..

This is one thing that drives me nuts. What makes you think that Zimmerman did NOT heed the 911 dispatchers advice to stop following Martin? To me, it clearly sounds like Zimmerman stops following Martin once the dispatcher suggested he shouldn't.

OTM - lets suppose the facts were:

1) Zimmerman reported a suspicious person to 911; 2) Zimmerman followed and even initially ran after said suspicious person once the person starting running; 3) Stopped following the person perhaps because of a 911 operators non-legally bonding recommendation; 4) Was attacked from behind by someone that was likely the same suspicious person from 1-2 minutes earlier; 5) Was reasonably fearful of life or significant bodily injury during attack; 6) Shot assailant because of fear

Would you still think Zimmerman was guilty of murder? If not, what would have to change for you to find Zimmerman guilty?

Also what confrontational words did Zimmerman use to the 911 operator?

This is one thing that drives me nuts. What makes you think that Zimmerman did NOT heed the 911 dispatchers advice to stop following Martin? To me, it clearly sounds like Zimmerman stops following Martin once the dispatcher suggested he shouldn't.

OTM - lets suppose the facts were:

1) Zimmerman reported a suspicious person to 911; 2) Zimmerman followed and even initially ran after said suspicious person once the person starting running; 3) Stopped following the person perhaps because of a 911 operators non-legally bonding recommendation; 4) Was attacked from behind by someone that was likely the same suspicious person from 1-2 minutes earlier; 5) Was reasonably fearful of life or significant bodily injury during attack; 6) Shot assailant because of fear

Would you still think Zimmerman was guilty of murder? If not, what would have to change for you to find Zimmerman guilty?

Also what confrontational words did Zimmerman use to the 911 operator?

1) I never said Zimmerman didnt stop following Martin once he asked not to. If he did or didnt, we dont know.

2) zimmerman said Martin was running to the back entrance .. I assume this means away from Zimmerman

3) why do you assume zimmerman stopped running after martin?

4) there is no evidence to support Martin attacked zimmerman from behind. The girl's testimony who was talking to martin at the time said she heard another voice say "what are you doing here"or something along those lines ...... also zimmerman in his own video re-enactment never said he was ambushed or blind sided. Zimmerman said they were face to face.

not sure why or where this "attacked from behind" thing came from. 100% not true fro everything ive seen.

5) just because you are getting punched in the face doesnt mean you get to kill someone.

6) maybe manslaughter 1 or 2 if that is available.

I understand i apparently have a different opinion on this case than most others .. i refuse to accept the fact that you can shoot someone bc they are winning a fist fight.

what ever the jury does, i am fine with it.

George Zimmerman's 911 call transcribed - National unsolved cases | Examiner.com (http://www.examiner.com/article/george-zimmerman-s-911-call-transcribed)

read the dispatch transcript then watch zimmerman's re-enactment video.

zimmerman makes so many false or misleading statements in the re-enactment video

he says the dispathcer told zimmerman to get to somewhere where he could see where martin went = false

he sd he told the dispatcher martin was circling his car = false

he sd he had to get out of his truck to look for a street sign = really? thats the reason why you got out of your truck in you gated community? because you didnt know where you were in a neighborhood you citizen patrol? so you didnt get out of your truck to perhaps ... i dont know ... follow or confront this suspicious character?

George Zimmerman Re-enactment (Full Video) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VakGZgJxTi4)

i had to stop watching the reenactmetn video but ive seen it before ... imo he is guilty and is either out-right lying or at least severely minimizing his actions.

Is anyone else surprised at how inept the Prosecution is?

JR? You'd have done a better job, right?

Is anyone else surprised at how inept the Prosecution is?

JR? You'd have done a better job, right?

I am becoming convinced this is all a show. The public outrage over this case was so quick and powerful I think it may have forced local law enforcement to push through a trial when they had a weak case. I'm not so sure this even goes to trial in a vacuum (simply based on the available evidence).

Don't confuse that with me thinking he is innocent. I strongly believe he bears a mountain load of the responsibility for the entire situation. I am not presently convinced he has been proven legally guilty of anything though. Which is unfortunate because I think he is probably guilty.

OTM - To a certain degree, you are correct and I am in full agreement with you. You cannot resort to deadly force simply b/c you are losing a fight. You can, however, resort to deadly force w/out being guilty of manslaughter or murder if (1) you are losing a fight, (2) in fear of your life - and (3) are not responsible for starting the fight.

If you start a fight, begin to lose it but have no reasonable fear for your life, and kill someone, that's murder 1 (By the way, this is the scenario applicable to my following G84C, him starting a fight, me kicking his butt and him shooting me. So long as all I do is kick his ass in a fight and pull off when he inevitably starts screaming for help).

If you start a fight, begin to lose and have reasonable fear for your life, and use deadly force, that's murder 2 (This is the scenario applicable to my following G84C, him starting a fight, me going beyond just beating him, and him shooting me);

If both parties enter into mutual combat (e.g. - two guys in a bar say "let's take it outside"), one begins to lose but has no reasonable fear for his life and kills his opponent anyway, murder 2.

If both parties enter into mutual combat, one begins to lose, has reasonable fear for his life and kills his opponent, manslaughter.

If a party does not start the fight, begins to lose, then has reasonable fear of his life, and kills his opponent - innocent.

[Disclaimer: I am not a criminal lawyer. The various degrees and factors going into determining the "level" of a homicide are dependent on State law and are not particularly straightforward. The breakdown above is based on some research I had previously done and my understanding of certain basic principles].

Here, there is clear evidence of a fight between Martin and Zimmerman. For any charge to stick, however, the Prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that either Zimmerman started the fight or there was an agreement (tacit or otherwise) between Z and TM to enter into mutual combat. Unless I missed it, there is simply no evidence of who started the fight (who moved it from a verbal confrontation to a physical one). There is lots and lots of speculation based on what people believe the parties were thinking or who the type of person they believe TM or Z to be.

I simply don't think the evidence to date does (or ever will) show how this fight started. B/c of that, I don't think, as a matter of law, the prosecution can prove its case. To me, it's that simple. For those who say, well, it's Martin's word against Z and Martin is dead. True enough. But unless you are willing to radically and fundamentally change the burden we place on the State when trying to deprive a person of their life or liberty, it's the price we pay for requiring innocent until proven guilty. Worse men than Z have been found innocent of much worse for lack of the dead witness.

However, I am sure that the prosecution is hoping for folks like you, OTM, on the jury. "There's a dead kid. I don't care about legal elements, burden of proof, or innocent until proven guilty ... You can't kill shoot a kid just b/c you got in his face and he may have over reacted. Hell, for all we know, you started the fight. You better prove to me you didn't start this and that you really were in fear of your life."

Until the EMT and Good testified, I think the prosecution has a good chance of accomplishing (what I presume to be) its goal. Before then, they had Z following and confronting Martin, confusion, a fight and a dead kid with Z ending up on top.

After the EMT and Good, the details changed a bit. Good made it clear there was a point where TM was on top and appeared to be hitting Z with Z clearly yelling for help. The EMT testified that a person in Z's condition and on his back would have blood running down his throat, be likely feeling the effects of brain or concussive injuries and would probably be in reasonable fear for his life. IMHO, These two witnesses provided enough evidence to create a prima facia showing of reasonable fear of life on Z's part -- without the need for Z's testimony -- such that the burden again shifts to the State to prove Z wasn't reasonable in that fear.

Maybe your view prevails OTM. Perhaps, despite the lack of evidence, the State's burden to show who started this fight, and the protections against self-incrimination, maybe emotion prevails and Z's failure to testify dooms him.

Personally, I hope the rule of law prevails and that innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by the State through legally admissable evidence remains the standard.

I am becoming convinced this is all a show. The public outrage over this case was so quick and powerful I think it may have forced local law enforcement to push through a trial when they had a weak case. I'm not so sure this even goes to trial in a vacuum (simply based on the available evidence).

Don't confuse that with me thinking he is innocent. I strongly believe he bears a mountain load of the responsibility for the entire situation. I am not presently convinced he has been proven legally guilty of anything though. Which is unfortunate because I think he is probably guilty.

I agree with this 100%.

My personal speculative belief is that Z aggressively confronted TM and a pushing and shoving match ensued which escalated into a beat down by Martin.

Is anyone else surprised at how inept the Prosecution is?

JR? You'd have done a better job, right?

It seems more like they have very little to work with.

My personal speculative belief is that Z aggressively confronted TM and a pushing and shoving match ensued which escalated into a beat down by Martin.

I believe from what we know so far that Martin didn't like the creepy looking cracker following him, was emboldened by a sense of outrage and weed, and confronted Zimmerman. He physically attacked Zimmerman and then Zimmerman overreacted and used his firearm.

Whatever the verdict it's a useful example of why we need to institute Lombroso Centers (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/23/books/review/the-anatomy-of-violence-by-adrian-raine.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0) to identify and neuter the intrinsically violent.

Yes, I'll volunteer myself first, if it helps.