89 replies to this topic

[Johnny Henning]

Not really - if the court determines he was the aggressor - and since, so far, the judge denied the motion to dismiss on grounds of probable cause and as of yesterday she denied bail, it's looking much more likely that Zimmerman's defense may not be protected by the stand your ground statute - then he would have to actively prove that his life was in danger, that he tried to get away and that Martin attacked him with sufficient force to threaten his life - and not just think he was threatened either. The jury would have to believe that Martin could have killed him.

That's the thing. No evidence has been released from Martin's autopsy or from the examination the paramedics gave to Zimmerman, has it? If there was a fight anything like Zimmerman described, there would be physical evidence.

Personally, though, I don't think Zimmerman's telling the complete truth. I think it's much more likely Zimmerman made a grab for Martin when the young man started to walk away from him in the mistaken belief that he had the right to hold the boy there until police arrived - or just out of impulse. Martin fought to get away and Zimmerman shot him thinking he had that right.

That's just my personal feeling from everything I've read. Zimmerman is not a psycho or racist, but he was zealous in his perceived responsibility as a neighborhood watch captain and he had a history of aggressive and violent behavior. His story doesn't quite fit. He calls 9-1-1, makes an angry frustrated comment about how these guys always get away, then, armed, he follows Martin against the operator's instructions - against the instructions he received when he volunteered to be part of the watch - that doesn't exactly match up with the idea that he would just give up and walk away, and it especially doesn't follow that Martin would then come after him after expressing his fear of the man on his cell phone call which ended right before the shooting - again giving the impression that Zimmerman never lost sight of Martin.

Now, because of this I couldn't be on the jury, but I think I've looked at all the reports with a pretty even hand regarding Zimmerman and Martin, and I've given Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt, but I still think he is guilty of an unlawful use of force - maybe not "murder" but it just doesn't seem like self-defense in any sense. Self-defense would include not running after people you have no evidence are involved in a crime while you are carrying a gun.

The thing is, I can sympathize with Zimmerman in this situation. I can see how I could make the same choices and mistakes. At the same time, I think - or I'd hope I'd have the ability and consciousness to take responsibility for those bad choices when they led to a completely avoidable and tragic death like this.

[Arjan Dirkse]

It's probable that none of us are clairvoyants; so we don't know for sure wether Trayvon Martin was a Saint or not and we don't know for sure wether Zimmerman was an agressive, reckless bastard or someone who made an unfortunate decision, to follow around someone when he shouldn't, and saw no other way to survive than to shoot a teenager.

I think it will really come down to a thorough investigation, what can be found out about the exact actions of the two. Was Zimmerman seriously hurt from the fight? Did Zimmerman come over threatening? For instance did he close Trayvon Martin into a corner, which would give Martin reason to believe he was going to have to fight for his life against some kind of psychopath who wanted to kill him? Or did he follow him much more discretely, at a reasonable distance?

[Ricardo_C]

Personally, though, I don't think Zimmerman's telling the complete truth. I think it's much more likely Zimmerman made a grab for Martin when the young man started to walk away from him in the mistaken belief that he had the right to hold the boy there until police arrived - or just out of impulse. Martin fought to get away and Zimmerman shot him thinking he had that right.

That's just my personal feeling from everything I've read. Zimmerman is not a psycho or racist, but he was zealous in his perceived responsibility as a neighborhood watch captain and he had a history of aggressive and violent behavior. His story doesn't quite fit. He calls 9-1-1, makes an angry frustrated comment about how these guys always get away, then, armed, he follows Martin against the operator's instructions - against the instructions he received when he volunteered to be part of the watch - that doesn't exactly match up with the idea that he would just give up and walk away, and it especially doesn't follow that Martin would then come after him after expressing his fear of the man on his cell phone call which ended right before the shooting - again giving the impression that Zimmerman never lost sight of Martin.

I think that's as close to the truth as we'll get without a full honest account from Zimmerman himself.

[Arjan Dirkse]

I think it's much more likely Zimmerman made a grab for Martin when the young man started to walk away from him in the mistaken belief that he had the right to hold the boy there until police arrived - or just out of impulse. Martin fought to get away and Zimmerman shot him thinking he had that right.

it's possible, but you need to have more than a hunch...If it can somehow be made clear that Zimmerman tried to stop Martin from escaping, then he's probably guilty of manslaughter

[Todd Gambrel]

That's the general idea when someone is murdered in cold blood and the killer has a smoking gun in his hands saying 'it was me that shot him'.

Actually, "In Cold Blood" is already disproven, as the worst Zimmerman will probably get is Manslaughter or reckless homicide, neither of which projects "In Cold Blood".

And, theoretically, if it is manslaughter, than it's not "Murder" either.

[Arjan Dirkse]

Yeah, but there's the question of disproportionate response. And I keep wondering that if Zimmerman was beaten so severely that he was in fear of his life, wouldn't a hospital report have surfaced by now?

I'd hope the hospital values the patient's privacy and doesn't give that stuff to the press...but it should probably be used in the trial yes.

[Christian U]

And, theoretically, if it is manslaughter, than it's not "Murder" either.

I don't think there's any chance this was murder in the sense of being premeditated.

[Johnny Henning]

it's possible, but you need to have more than a hunch...If it can somehow be made clear that Zimmerman tried to stop Martin from escaping, then he's probably guilty of manslaughter

No, the jury needs to have more than a hunch. I have my opinion from everything I've read, and trying to give both Martin and Zimmerman a fair look - especially Zimmerman actually. We, as individuals, are not obligated to prove the case in an imagined court of law - we can and do come to conclusions on our own.

To address what Jim pointed out earlier, this isn't just a discussion of the legal merits of either case, but also about our own feelings and perceptions of the event from the shooting itself to the police response to the media and public reactions. I think it is necessary to recognize that, first, Martin was simply a young man walking down a street where he had every right to be and he also had the right to be free of any threats to his safety. Second, everything that happened stemmed from Zimmerman's decision to follow him while carrying a gun.

Even if Zimmerman's actions cannot be proven unlawful - even if he reacted in self-defence - I think it is obvious that his bad choices from the moment he made the call to pulling the trigger make him morally responsible for Martin's death. I think it's hard to argue that isn't true.

[Arjan Dirkse]

No, the jury needs to have more than a hunch. I have my opinion from everything I've read, and trying to give both Martin and Zimmerman a fair look - especially Zimmerman actually. We, as individuals, are not obligated to prove the case in an imagined court of law - we can and do come to conclusions on our own.

I agree with that, that was sort of what I meant - you need more than a hunch in order to convict him. Of course as individuals we are entitled to come to whatever opinion we like, for whatever reason we like.

[Johnny Henning]

And I think the moral discussion - who bears the responsibility? - is much clearer and more relevant. I think Zimmerman bears moral responsibility, but I think Florida's laws on use of lethal force and gun rights also were a strong influence on Martin's death. I also think race relations played a large part in the public outrage even if race wasn't a big factor in the event, and I'm certain our media and press have been more detrimental to finding the truth than helpful or reasonably responsible.

To me, those topics are more important than the actual legalities of the trial will be.

[The Lorcan Nagle]

Absolutely, but that's a tough one to figure out without witnesses. It's not like you actually have to let yourself be beaten half to death before it's justified to defend yourself. Even with a gun, I'd say that if somebody attacks you in earnest, you should be able to use it the moment that happens. Otherwise, it may easily be too late. "Use it" meaning, of course, that you draw the gun and tell the guy to move away and go home really quickly.

Yeah, and that's the crux that this case hangs on. Zimmerman claims that he feared for his life. That could be genuine, a misinterpretation of events, or a flat out lie like "It's coming right for us!" in the hunting episode of South Park. That said, I think that one way or another he should be tried for criminal negligence, as it was a series of bad decisions on his part that lead to the altercation.

Yeah, that's exactly the kind of detail that'll hopefully come out in trial.

I'd hope the hospital values the patient's privacy and doesn't give that stuff to the press...but it should probably be used in the trial yes.

You are familiar with 1: The sheer bastardry that counts for a news media in the US these days and 2: The bare faced greed and desire to be famous, even as an "anonymous source" that defines a significant percentage of the human race?

Martin died because he approached a man who had stopped following him and began to beat him senseless.

That sentence of mine is what the prosecution has to disprove, because that is currently the story.

Martin wasn't a hardened, dangerous man by any stretch of the imagination but the word innocent doesn't exactly describe him to the T either. I find it amazing that folks can twist reasoning to fit a model where an attacker can punch and slam someone's head into the ground and he's considered to be Saint Peter.

You're doing exactly the same amount of twisting here, Todd. There's exactly as much to support Zimmerman's claims as there is to refute them right now.

[Todd Gambrel]

You're doing exactly the same amount of twisting here, Todd. There's exactly as much to support Zimmerman's claims as there is to refute them right now.

Which was kind of my point towards Jim.

[The Lorcan Nagle]

Two wrongs never make a right.

[Johnny Henning]

But three lefts would.

[The Lorcan Nagle]

Woah

[Christian U]

Dude!

[Chewy Sun]

Unless the compelling evidence comes from the medical examinations, the dead body examination........ right now, the best way to figure out Zimmerman's fate is audio analysis of the second 9-11 call from a neighbor.


In that tape, one of the two men are yelling for help. If it is determined that it was Martin yelling for help, Zimmerman is going to jail, because then his story no longer has any merit, as Zimmerman has repeatedly claimed he was yelling for help. This would mean that the only evidence valid is that Zimmerman was armed and shot Martin, which means although the various mindsets of murder 1, 2 cannot be proven, it can be proven that "but for" Zimmerman's actions, Martin's death would not occur. That means manslaughter, but there may be other evidence more to prove 2nd degree (if they can prove Zimmerman acted with no regard to Martin's life).


If the screams for help was determined to be Zimmerman, then unless more evidence shows up, Zimmerman will probably not be convicted due to the fact that Zimmerman's testimony would be effective and up to the jury to decide whether this testimony is believable.


Chewy......................................if inconclusive...... then Zimmerman better get a consultant to coach up his testimony, because it will all depend on whether the jury believes him on his word alone.

[Christian U]

Chewy......................................if inconclusive...... then Zimmerman better get a consultant to coach up his testimony, because it will all depend on whether the jury believes him on his word alone.

That's the problem, isn't it? One man is dead, and the jury can judge him only from his reputation (which I suppose is one of the aspects the prosecution would focus on). The other is alive and is saying exactly what he would be saying if he was guilty, but also exactly what he would be saying if he was innocent... In this kind of case, I suppose it often has to be in dubio pro reo.

[Johnny Henning]

Unless the compelling evidence comes from the medical examinations, the dead body examination........ right now, the best way to figure out Zimmerman's fate is audio analysis of the second 9-11 call from a neighbor.


In that tape, one of the two men are yelling for help. If it is determined that it was Martin yelling for help, Zimmerman is going to jail, because then his story no longer has any merit, as Zimmerman has repeatedly claimed he was yelling for help. This would mean that the only evidence valid is that Zimmerman was armed and shot Martin, which means although the various mindsets of murder 1, 2 cannot be proven, it can be proven that "but for" Zimmerman's actions, Martin's death would not occur. That means manslaughter, but there may be other evidence more to prove 2nd degree (if they can prove Zimmerman acted with no regard to Martin's life).


If the screams for help was determined to be Zimmerman, then unless more evidence shows up, Zimmerman will probably not be convicted due to the fact that Zimmerman's testimony would be effective and up to the jury to decide whether this testimony is believable.


Chewy......................................if inconclusive...... then Zimmerman better get a consultant to coach up his testimony, because it will all depend on whether the jury believes him on his word alone.

On the other hand, it could be physically impossible to analyze vocal patterns recorded on a phone from that distance to say with any forensic certainty who they belong to or who they don't. It's not like they were fighting on a soundstage with state of the art recording equipment.

If I were Zimmerman's lawyer, I'd definitely challenge the prosecution to show precedence and evidence that analysis can be certain enough to meet the standards for a murder trial considering the potential sentence. Also, you could probably always find an audio expert who would show the jury that it was Zimmerman, was not Martin or is completely impossible to analyze for certain.

[Will Carper]

For those who accept Zimmerman's defense, or find his defense believable... uh, what would Trayvon's motive be in that situation? To attack a bigger guy who had had already left him alone? To beat this guy with lethal force?

I think it's odd that in looking for Zimmerman's humanity, Trayvon gets reduced to a thug.