home

Week Two of Testimony in George Zimmerman Trial

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 08:39:06 AM EST
Tags: George Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

After losing the battle to present expert voice testimony, the state's first witness is FBI senior scientist Nakasone, who is testifying as he did before, that the 911 call by Jenna Lauer in which cries for help and the gunshot can be heard, is inadequate for analysis. Prosecutor Mantei is trying to get him to say he can determine age by pitch. Nakasone so far isn't going along. He's giving him a little bit on familial (lay) voice identification, but I don't know what that gets him. Zimmerman has as many lay witnesses that will say its his voice as the State has that says its Martin's voice.

Here's a thread to discuss today's developments. You can watch live here. For more detailed analysis, visit our forums. You can find the discussion of today's witnesses by name here.

< Trayvon Martin's Cell Phone Records | Monday Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Week Two of Testimony in George Zimmerman Trial | 209 comments (209 topical)
    HUGE day for the defense IMO (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Cashmere on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 05:05:43 PM EST
    1.  The prosecution played the tapes of Zimmerman being interviewed.

    2.  O'Mara was masterful in his cross.

    3.  The prosecution, once again, had to get "testy" with the witnesses thay called (for the state)!

    4.  I realize the state seems to be calling witnesses that would typically be for the defense, likely to get an advantage... but it does not seem to be working for them.


    In additon, Serino's suggestion (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 05:51:33 PM EST
    he should have explained himself to Martin is silly. It's exactly what the Watch and police tell residents not to do: Do not engage the suspect, report him.

    Zimmerman never confronted any of the others he reported. He always called the non-emergency line and asked for an officer to be sent out, even when he was reporting someone who matched the description others had given to police of perps of recent burglaries.

    Maybe the dispatcher should have been clearer when he asked "which way is he running?" GZ thought the dispatcher wanted him to find out.

    Serino's suggestions.. (none / 0) (#43)
    by rob411 on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 06:08:42 PM EST
    Presupposes the knowledge that Trayvon was an unarmed kid who lived in the neighborhood.

    It's absurdly irresponsible advice. O'Mara should ask Serino or ANY police representative whether they'd recommend prople call out to suspicious characters.

    "If you see someone behaving suspiciously, call us. And we see no.harm in calling out to them and introducing yourself. They'll really appreciate knowing you called the cops on them"

    Parent

    Serino sees (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by John Shaft on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 06:30:59 PM EST
    TM as a dead teenager on a slab in a morgue. He is questioning how a person who has mentored African-American kids never thinks to roll down his window to ask TM a question. Instead, he rolls up his window, locks his door & waits until TM runs & then follows him.

    Parent
    African American kids (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by rob411 on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 06:59:23 PM EST
    Maybe Zimmerman, unlike Serrino, evaluates people by context, not by ethnic stereotypes. Why should Zimmerman have assumed that a suspicious character he'd just reported to police would be as approachable/safe as the kids he mentored?

    How insulting would this sound to you?
    GZ - I wanted to play it safe, you know, not talk to suspicious characters I've just reported to the cops
    Serrino - But you're used to such people, right? Didn't you mention that you mentored black kids?

    The irony is so thick here, you could cut it with a knife. To be fair, though, I don't think that's what Serrino meant. He wasn't thinking of the suspicious character, he was thinking of what, in retrospect, was an unarmed kid from the neighborhood who may very well have been like the kids GZ mentored.

    I understand Serrino's emotion but if his words are used as
    ammunition against GZ, it's fair to point out their implications.


    Parent

    Actually, (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by John Shaft on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 08:02:12 PM EST
    the irony is that GZ even mentioned that he mentored African-American kids.

    Parent
    John, I have no doubt (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by rob411 on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 08:55:48 PM EST
    you're honestly and sincerely puzzled about the context.

    Well, I appreciate your intellectual curiosity. Here:
    https:/www.txantimedia.com?p=999

    Unfortunately, Zimmerman seems to have forgotten to note the race of these kids he was mentoring but Serrino helpfully dug out this important detail.

    Parent

    Slight correction (none / 0) (#90)
    by rob411 on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 09:00:11 PM EST

    The correct link.

    Parent

    perhaps (none / 0) (#133)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 07:56:29 AM EST
    instead of thinking of Martin as a dead black kid on a slab, he should forget his color and do his job as an investigator and think of the crime.  In that case he would be thinking of him at least partly as a kid sitting on someone and punching him in the face.
    It is his job as a cop to investigate a series of events and not to romanticize one of the participants.

    Parent
    Don't forget that this was during (none / 0) (#123)
    by f2000 on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 01:15:55 AM EST
    the confrontational interview. Serino testified that they say things that are not true or pretend to have evidence that they don't have. In that light, his suggestion that he ID himself to Martin isn't necessarily a suggestion that he actually should have done that.

    It is also, I think, potentially prejudicial to the jury to hear the detective say those things. I get that the defense had a turn to point out why they were said, but they can't not have an impact.

    Parent

    I just finished watching (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 12:29:52 AM EST
    Both Singleton and Serino were immensely helpful to the defense. Mark O'Mara was excellent in his cross-examination. Rather than challenge them, he embraced them and got them to state Zimmerman's statements contained no significant differences or inconsistencies and he expressed no ill-will, hatred, etc.

    Once again, the state got stung by its own witness (Singleton) and looked silly when it asked her "isn't it true your opinion is unimportant, it's what the jury thinks that matters."

    The upshot is as a result of the state's calling Serino and Singleton, Zimmerman's statements are now in evidence, along with their testimony they found no significant inconsistencies. There is no need for Zimmerman to testify now.

    Great work by O'Mara getting Singleton to say   he didn't come across to her as having ill-will or hatred, and getting Serino to acknowledge that GZ's calm demeanor could be the result of the injuries he sustained and trauma he was experiencing.

    Singleton was also helpful in her testimony about how GZ reacted when she told him TM had died, which he had not known at the scene.

    Really good day for the defense.

    If the state had not called Singleton or Serino... (none / 0) (#157)
    by Cashmere on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 11:29:22 AM EST
    and therefore not placed into evidence Zimmerman's statements, could the defense do so when they present their case (including the statements)?  I keep hearing that this was a mistake by the prosecution as there is really no reason for the defense to have Zimmerman testify now, but wonder why the defense could not use these statements when it is their turn.  Is it because they are in discovery, but the judge might not allow them to be introduced as evidence if the prosecution objects?

    Also, if you watched today, was it odd that Bernie was allowed to object the following day to Serino's testimony yesterday, and get the judge to agree with him, and have the statement in question read aloud to the jury where they were instructed to forget it was ever said and anything pertaining to it that led up to this?  

    I find this judge to be very biased towards the prosecution but I admit to having bias myself.

    Parent

    "Self-serving hearsay." (none / 0) (#158)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 11:32:32 AM EST


    Parent
    OK.. I understand -- I googled it.. (none / 0) (#162)
    by Cashmere on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 11:43:27 AM EST
    A self-serving declaration refers to a statement made by a party in his/ her own interest at some place and time out of court. It does not include testimony which the party gives as a witness at the trial.

    Self-serving declarations are hearsay. "The purpose of the rule rendering hearsay evidence inadmissible is to prevent manufacturing evidence; hence self-serving declarations are excluded by courts". [Hill v. Talbert, 210 Ark. 866 (Ark. 1946)]

    ** Then it truly was an error by the prosecution it seems.

    Parent

    There must be portions of (none / 0) (#168)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 12:11:10 PM EST
    Zimmerman's prior statements the prosecution considers important evidence to prove the case.

    Or the prosecution decided to put everything in front of the jury and let it decide.

    Parent

    Yes - I know it will shock you (none / 0) (#169)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 12:20:03 PM EST
    but there seem to be two sets of people - those that find GZs interviews with Serino to be good for the defense, and those who don't.

    O'Mara is certainly very good at making the most of them (today, I paraphrse ' Dont you guys in the police department say stuff like hey a-holes, what's for dinner, in a non-hostile way?'  , but I myself have always found GZs story incredible on a number of points.  

    Parent

    To Teresa @ #208. I didn't catch all (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by Angel on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 04:26:19 PM EST
    of the comments by the Prosecutor, but they had some class tests and certificates that GZ received, and I believe a textbook, but they said they also had a witness statement (the class professor).  I think it is about more than SYG, it's about GZ's understanding of interrogation techniques as well as criminal law, etc.  They are going to argue that admissibility tomorrow morning.  I don't think GZ knew at the time of his questioning if it would be self-defense or SYG.  

    Anne writes: (5.00 / 1) (#215)
    by woodchuck64 on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 07:01:37 PM EST

         If Zimmerman wasn't on patrol that night, who was?  Were patrols scheduled and assigned, and if not, why not?  Did Zimmerman know whether or if someone was on duty that evening?  Did residents ever call the watch volunteers - did they have contact numbers for them?  Did George have contact info for his fellow watchmen?  Did he ever consider calling them as he was on his way to the store?

    Neighborhood watch is not necessarily formal with patrol and guard duty; anyone and everyone is supposed to be keeping an eye out for suspicious characters.  


         What were the protocols the watch group was encouraged to follow and maintain?  While they were encouraged to call the NEN for any reason, were they ever advised to do more than that ?  What was the watch group's position on whether its members should be armed while on patrol?  

    A random google search pulls this phrase: "Neighborhood Watch uses two principles: Know your Neighbors and Report Suspicious Activity."

    I'm sure being armed is not recommended, but it's still legal.


         If Zimmerman wasn't on duty, and was just on his way to Target, how slow would he have to be driving to notice enough on a dark and rainy evening?

    I'm sure a good NW is never "off duty".  Zimmerman was on extra alert because 3 weeks before, a burglary suspect got away, see http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/4/25/214812/118/crimenews/George-Zimmerman-s-Life-and-the-Neighbo rhood-Burglaries


         Why do so many people treat this event as if it began with Martin attacking Zimmerman, and ignore what transpired before that?  Why is it that the reasons Zimmerman had for following Martin in his car, and getting out of his car to follow him without ever identifying himself are deemed benign, but Martin's reasons for reacting as he is accused of are loaded with intent to harm?

    Simply because it is legal to get out of a car and keep an eye on someone, but it is not legal to physically assault someone.  The former activity is done by NW people all over the country every day in crime-ridden neighborhoods.  The latter activity is always and everywhere wrong.


         Why is Zimmerman the one who gets to be concerned that Martin is armed, but Martin isn't given the benefit of that fear with respect to Zimmerman?

    Because there's no evidence that Martin attacked Zimmerman because of Zimmerman's weapon.  Indeed, that would be unlikely in my opinion, you don't attack someone who's holding a gun on you, you back away slowly, uttering conciliatory speech.  


         We know it wasn't illegal for Zimmerman to get out of his truck, just as we know it wasn't illegal for Martin to take whatever route he wanted to back to where he was staying, but why are people unable to even admit that if Zimmerman had so much fear for his safety, then getting out of his truck was only contributing to the chances that he would have reason to be fearful?  I might even go as far as to ask why people don't see that Zimmerman created the conditions that put himself in jeopardy.  How much should his actions weigh in the eventual outcome?

    Whether or not Zimmerman feared for his safety, he took his duty to stop crime in his neighborhood more seriously than his own fear, you have to admit that's true.  If you claim that Zimmerman created the situation, you must also admit that many Neighborhood Watch people do similar things every day, keeping an eye on and reporting suspicious characters.   Perhaps Neighborhood Watch should be on trial, not GZ?


         I keep thinking about the jailhouse convos between George and Shelley - the same mournful, hangdog face we see on the news belongs to the same person who was squirreling away money and playing with passports and punking his lawyer - and the court ; would the person who did that think he was smart enough to have a story that put him on the right side of a self-defense, SYG scenario?

    "Squirreling away money" is misleading (see http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/6/18/225020/679/crimenews/George-Zimmerman-Jail-Transcripts-and-B ank-Records).  The paragraph fairly drips with contempt for GZ, which I'm not sure is warranted unless you are already certain he killed Martin in cold blood.


    The bottom line for me is that George Zimmerman is the poster boy for why guns don't make people smarter, or even smart.  They made him brave enough to set in motion a series of events that ended up with someone dead of a gunshot; he may have a right to carry a weapon, and he may have all the legal papers allowing him to do so, but unless and until gun ownership comes with an automatic hike in IQ, these kinds of things will keep happening, more people will die and more families will be devastated.

    Now, bring on the "1" ratings...

    The IQ comments are unnecessary.  While I agree with you that guns are far more dangerous than people give them credit for, the idea that IQ is what matters to safe gun ownership is flat false.  If the events that GZ described happened exactly as stated to anyone, Albert Einstein included, Martin would still be dead.  The primal brain takes over during a violent physical confrontation in the dark, no one has time to think.

    (But that's why I agree with your opinion that gun laws are ultimately to blame for this tragedy.)

    Here are the things that trouble me, (3.67 / 3) (#195)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 02:16:18 PM EST
    and questions I can't answer:

    1.  If Zimmerman wasn't on patrol that night, who was?  Were patrols scheduled and assigned, and if not, why not?  Did Zimmerman know whether or if someone was on duty that evening?  Did residents ever call the watch volunteers - did they have contact numbers for them?  Did George have contact info for his fellow watchmen?  Did he ever consider calling them as he was on his way to the store?

    2.  What were the protocols the watch group was encouraged to follow and maintain?  While they were encouraged to call the NEN for any reason, were they ever advised to do more than that ?  What was the watch group's position on whether its members should be armed while on patrol?  

    3.  If Zimmerman wasn't on duty, and was just on his way to Target, how slow would he have to be driving to notice enough on a dark and rainy evening?

    4.  Why do so many people treat this event as if it began with Martin attacking Zimmerman, and ignore what transpired before that?  Why is it that the reasons Zimmerman had for following Martin in his car, and getting out of his car to follow him without ever identifying himself are deemed benign, but Martin's reasons for reacting as he is accused of are loaded with intent to harm?

    5.  Why is Zimmerman the one who gets to be concerned that Martin is armed, but Martin isn't given the benefit of that fear with respect to Zimmerman?

    6.  We know it wasn't illegal for Zimmerman to get out of his truck, just as we know it wasn't illegal for Martin to take whatever route he wanted to back to where he was staying, but why are people unable to even admit that if Zimmerman had so much fear for his safety, then getting out of his truck was only contributing to the chances that he would have reason to be fearful?  I might even go as far as to ask why people don't see that Zimmerman created the conditions that put himself in jeopardy.  How much should his actions weigh in the eventual outcome?

    7.  I keep thinking about the jailhouse convos between George and Shelley - the same mournful, hangdog face we see on the news belongs to the same person who was squirreling away money and playing with passports and punking his lawyer - and the court ; would the person who did that think he was smart enough to have a story that put him on the right side of a self-defense, SYG scenario?

    The bottom line for me is that George Zimmerman is the poster boy for why guns don't make people smarter, or even smart.  They made him brave enough to set in motion a series of events that ended up with someone dead of a gunshot; he may have a right to carry a weapon, and he may have all the legal papers allowing him to do so, but unless and until gun ownership comes with an automatic hike in IQ, these kinds of things will keep happening, more people will die and more families will be devastated.

    Now, bring on the "1" ratings...

    I'll start the ratings off with a 5 because I (5.00 / 0) (#196)
    by Angel on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 02:27:07 PM EST
    agree with all your wrote.  

    Parent
    Well, let's see, w/respect to the actual trial... (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 02:28:49 PM EST
    1. Irrelevant to self defense
    2. Irrelevant to self defense
    3. Irrelevant to self defense
    4. Irrelevant to self defense
    5. Irrelevant to self defense
    6. Irrelevant to self defense
    7. Irrelevant to self defense


    Parent
    You might add (none / 0) (#202)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 03:01:06 PM EST
    5)....I might even go as far as to ask why people don't see that Zimmerman created the conditions that put himself in jeopardy.  How much should his actions weigh in the eventual outcome?

    He was asking for it.

    Parent

    You decide (none / 0) (#1)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 09:37:09 AM EST
    here is video of GZ talking

    http://tinyurl.com/petusoa

    here is a short audio of TM:

    http://tinyurl.com/k2zhlao

    Zimmerman's gun (none / 0) (#2)
    by citizenjeff on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 11:39:08 AM EST
    At this point, could the prosecution still argue that Zimmerman brandished or otherwise displayed his gun before Trayvon hit Zimmerman, even though it has not produced such evidence in discovery?

    They May Have To (none / 0) (#3)
    by RickyJim on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 11:55:58 AM EST
    And then try to explain why Zimmerman took a beating without firing a single shot.

    Parent
    Thanks, RJ (none / 0) (#4)
    by citizenjeff on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 12:41:05 PM EST
    I'm trying to get clarity on what the prosecution is not allowed to present as evidence because they didn't disclose it in discovery versus what could be introduced even though we haven't previously heard about it.

    Parent
    Beating (none / 0) (#8)
    by MKS on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 02:28:18 PM EST
    It was one minute from Martin hanging up the phone until he got shot.

    That one minute sequence would include (according to Zimmerman during thr re-enactment) Martin confronting Zimmerman with "Do you have a problem with me;" Zimmerman saying, "I don't have a problem with you;" Martin saying something in response; Zimmerman reaching into his pocket; Martin punching Zimmerman; Zimmerman falling down; Martin punching Zimmerman while on the ground; Zimmerman's jacket rides up exposing the holstered weapon; Martin reaches for the weapon; Zimmerman gets the weapon first, draws it, and shoots Martin.

     

    Parent

    There is plenty of time for that (none / 0) (#145)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 09:12:05 AM EST

    And a bit more

    Parent
    O'Mara (none / 0) (#5)
    by MKS on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 01:55:01 PM EST
    got the first officer on the scene to state that he saw Zimmerman's holstered weapon when Zimmerman  raised his hands--it pulled up his jacket....

    Parent
    What does that prove? (none / 0) (#7)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 02:13:10 PM EST
    Not being antagonistic - just curious why you characterized it as "an admission"?

    Parent
    In my opinion (none / 0) (#9)
    by MKS on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 02:31:52 PM EST
    it was not hard to brandish the weapon.

    Zimmerman in the videotape says he was reaching for a "cell phone" when Martin hit him.

    Parent

    It was in a waistband holder, I believe (none / 0) (#11)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 02:44:54 PM EST
    From the transcript of his initial interview, he says he did re-holster it. I don't know if you saw that part or not.

    Zimmerman:  So, I was walking through to where my car was and he jumped out from the bushes and he said, "What the f**ck's your problem, homey?" and I got my cell phone out to call 911 at this time.

    He says the same thing a bit later in the interview:

    George Zimmerman: I saw him coming at me and I went to grab my phone. I don't remember if I had time to pull it out or not.

    Investigator Singleton: Okay, you attempted to try to recall the -

    George Zimmerman: To call the police.

    Investigator Singleton: -to call the police, right.

    George Zimmerman: 911 this time.

    Investigator Singleton: Okay.

    George Zimmerman: 'Cause the first time I called non-emergency.

    Investigator Singleton: But you're not sure if you actually got it out of your pocket or not? Oh, okay and that's when it was, that's when he slugged you.

    George Zimmerman: He just hit me, yeah.

    I'm no expert, but wouldn't your cell phone be in a different place than a waistband holder firearm?  (I guess his phone could have been in his pants pocket, so it would be close, but I was thinking his phone would have been in a jacket pocket or something).

    Parent

    Zimmerman says he (none / 0) (#12)
    by MKS on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 02:58:21 PM EST
    was reaching for his "cell" phone.....

    Zimmerman later says he was struggling with Martin over the firearm when  he was on the ground....

    In my opinion, the evidence is consistent with a struggle over the gun from start to finish....or some points in between.....to answer a question upthread about a contention that Zimmerman brandished the weapon before Martin hit him.  

    Parent

    there is no evidence or claim (none / 0) (#25)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 05:22:10 PM EST
    Zimmerman brandished a weapon. That is speculation that is completely contradictory to the known evidence. Future  comments speculating he brandished a weapon will be deleted as falsehoods.

    Parent
    Not speculating he brandished weapon (none / 0) (#101)
    by citizenjeff on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 10:16:12 PM EST
    I'm asking whether or not the state is still allowed to argue - even though they produced no such evidence in discovery - that Zimmerman somehow intentionally or unintentionally displayed his gun, and Martin was therefore entitled to attack him in self-defense. Or is the state simply not allowed to make that sort of an argument anymore?

    Thanks in advance for any response I might get.

    Parent

    Sorry cause (none / 0) (#77)
    by lousy1 on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 07:48:27 PM EST
    I know you can't reply.

    But it is inconceivable to me that two men ( or eventwo kids playing batman) would grapple with free hands for at least 30 seconds if one had a gun. Obviously the gunman would either shoot his assailant or at least strike with the weapon. Trayvon had no wounds except to his knuckles and the gunshot.

    The only possible way an struggle could persist requires that the unarmed combatant could negate the weapon by controlling the wrist or forearm of the armed combatant.

    According to eyewitness testimony and the grass stains on TM's pants, he was wailing away with both arms while sitting on GZ's chest. It is unimaginable to me that if a gun was drawn he would not be trying to control or disarm GZ with at least one hand and probably both.

    No bruises  were found on GZ arms or wrists during a detailed physical exam by police on the night of the incident

    Parent

    Martin's knuckles were not injured (none / 0) (#93)
    by unitron on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 09:31:42 PM EST
    He had a small abrasion on his left ring finger in the area where a ring would have been had he been wearing one, but his knuckles themselves were not damaged.

    Parent
    not true (none / 0) (#144)
    by morphic on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 09:08:01 AM EST
      The undertaker obviously lied. The autopsy report has broken skin on Trayvon's knuckles.

    Parent
    30 seconds (none / 0) (#112)
    by Char Char Binks on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 11:49:29 PM EST
    Is that the limit you're putting on grappling before the gun comes out?  Then I guess GZ is guilty by at least 20 seconds.

    Parent
    Zimmerman says (none / 0) (#14)
    by MKS on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 03:12:33 PM EST
    to the detective that he called for help when he was on the ground and a resident came out and said he would call the police.

    Zimmerman says to the detective that he wanted help, not have the resident call the police--because the police were already on their way and need not be called.

    That is inconsistent with Zimmerman saying he was reaching to get his cell phone to call the police on the 911 number when Travyon punched him.....If the police were already on their way when he was on the ground, they were already on their way when Zimmerman said he was reaching for his cell phone when Trayvon punched him....

    Zimmerman said he could not make the call when Martin punched him.  So, he did not complete the 911 call....

       

    Parent

    How (none / 0) (#20)
    by Pugfrench on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 04:37:18 PM EST
    Is it inconsistent? When he was reaching for his phone he may have felt that the situation was threatening and he wanted the police to know that the situation had changed because the suspicious person had confronted him. That probably seemed like an emergency to him, worthy of calling 911 about, not just the NEN number. When he was calling for help he feared for his life and needed immediate aide, not whenever the police who responded to the NEN call felt like getting there. In the time it took the police to be there he could be dead, so he wanted someone, anyone, to intervene immediately. I imagine that a 911 call gets a faster response than a NEN call about a suspicious person. He was reaching for his phone because he feared violence, when he asked John for help the violence had already started and he feared serious injury or death.

    Parent
    Exactly (none / 0) (#58)
    by cazinger on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 06:46:46 PM EST
    Exactly what I was gong to say.  NEN calls are exactly that - NON-Emergency.  You have no idea how long it is going to take to get a response.  Not that the police are slacking off, but 911 calls certainly take precedence.  So as the situation escalates; from wanting the police to simply check out a suspicious person, up to this person is now confronting me in a threatening way, and then on up to this person is beating the cr@p out of me and slamming my head against the sidewalk - the natural progression of asking for help would also escalate; from NEN call, up to 911 call, up to "HELP!!! ANYBODY!!!  I NEED HELP!!!"

    Parent
    Finally the evidence you need to hang him (none / 0) (#70)
    by Jack203 on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 07:26:41 PM EST
    Between this and the fact Zimmerman apologized brought up by another pro-persecution poster....I don't know which is better evidence.  Brilliant!

    Parent
    Trayvon (none / 0) (#102)
    by morphic on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 10:20:00 PM EST
    took off running when he saw Zimmerman was on the phone, and apparently decked him when Zimmerman reached for his phone. If someone's sitting in a vehicle talking on rhe phone, there's not much to be scared of, if you're innocently just walking.

    Parent
    The videotape of Zimmerman (none / 0) (#6)
    by MKS on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 02:12:22 PM EST
    at the scene re-enacting the event shows Zimmerman stating that he was standing face-to-face with Martin, Zimmerman was reaching into his pocket (he says) to get his cell phone, and then Martin punched Zimmerman in his face as Zimmerman was reaching into his pocket.

    Parent
    Gosh, it's almost like (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 02:43:59 PM EST
    Trayvon Martin might have been afraid that this creepy guy who had been following him for no apparent reason was about to shoot him...sort of like someone else who expressed concern:

    Zimmerman: He's got his hand in his waistband.

    Zimmerman: Somethings wrong with him. Yup, he's coming to check me out, he's got something in his hands, I don't know what his deal is.

    Apparently, in some neighborhoods, reaching for one's cell phone can be harmful to one's health.

    Parent

    So afraid (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Jack203 on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 07:27:54 PM EST
    he was back at the T 3 minutes after he left there the first time.

    Parent
    Don't get Kdog started. (none / 0) (#167)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 12:07:47 PM EST


    Parent
    At the re-enactment (5.00 / 0) (#152)
    by John Shaft on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 10:31:15 AM EST
    scene - GZ says he told the dispatcher to have the police meet him at his truck, but he actually told the dispatcher to have the police call him. GZ even makes sure the dispatcher has his phone number.
    At that point, it is possible GZ continued down the T & did not start to return to his truck. This could be where TM says something like "$hit the ni$$er is behind me"
    So, it would appear to TM that GZ is still following him & he freaks out & the fight starts.
    And, as far as TM not going straight home - anyone ever hear "I know where you live"? Generally, if you suspect someone is creepy you don't want them to know where you live.
    I hope the Judge gives the jury instructions for manslaughter because GZ is not w/out guilt in how this unfolded.

    Parent
    You have no shame. (none / 0) (#163)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 11:48:34 AM EST
    This could be where TM says something like "$hit the ni$$er is behind me"



    Parent
    If all he was planning (none / 0) (#13)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 03:03:46 PM EST
    on doing was calling on his cell phone, why did he get out of his car in the first place?

    Parent
    he reached for his cell phone when (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 05:27:52 PM EST
    Martin approached him and got confrontational, demanding "What are you doing around here?" (Rachel) or "Do you have a problem?" (Zimmerman.)

    He got out of his car because the dispatcher asked him which way Martin ran, and he couldn't see from where he was and he couldn't drive any further because of the cut-through. He was trying to answer the dispatcher's question.

    Zimmerman to Serino on Feb. 27:

    George Zimmerman: When he came up to me, he said you got a problem? And I said no. And
    then I went to reach for my phone, to find my phone to call 911 instead of a non-emergency.


    Parent
    There was no "approach" on the part (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 11:39:55 AM EST
    of Zimmerman?

    None whatsoever? So, the suggestion is that he was only even in the vicinity of Martin because it was so dark that he couldn't be sure Martin was even there?

    Parent

    And he had the loaded gun (1.00 / 1) (#164)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 11:53:12 AM EST
    so that he could use the gun flash for light in case the street lights went out?

    Parent
    Well there are "cell" phones (none / 0) (#15)
    by MKS on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 03:14:40 PM EST
    and there are "cell" phones...

    Zimmerman says he had previoulsy called the non-emergency number, and then when he was face to face with Trayvon, he wanted to call 911....

    Parent

    exactly because (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 05:54:34 PM EST
    when reporting a suspicious person, they are told to call the non-emergency number. When reporting a threat, they are told to call 911. Martin had turned into a threat when he confronted GZ, and he reached into his pocket to call 911.

    Parent
    I get that argument (none / 0) (#91)
    by ZucchiTadre on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 09:15:24 PM EST
    but why would Trayvon be lurking in the shadows as Zimmerman walks by at the T and then comes walking back.

    Parent
    to jump George (2.33 / 3) (#120)
    by lily on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 12:44:09 AM EST
    Trayvon was known by his friends to enjoy fighting

    Parent
    What witness testified to that? (5.00 / 0) (#143)
    by IndiDemGirl on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 08:55:35 AM EST
    There are a lot more disturbing incidents in Zimmerman's past than in Trayvon's.

    Parent
    you might think so (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by lily on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 10:01:59 AM EST
    but in my judgement a teen caught with a backpack full of stolen jewelry including diamond wedding rings is far more suggestive of criminal activity than protecting your friends from a unidentified ABC (underage alcohol) agent physically removing and pushing around your friend.

    see Diwataman video and listen to FDLE interview George friend about the two incidents you are referring to.
    link

    The restraining orders were taken out by both his girlfriend and himself. Not interesting to any fair minded person, sounds like a dysfunctional relationship not DV.

    Parent

    The details are fuzzy (1.00 / 1) (#92)
    by MKS on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 09:22:48 PM EST
    but it was clear Zimmerman continued to follow Trayvon.....

    Parent
    How do you follow someone... (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by unitron on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 09:34:54 PM EST
    ...who has disappeared from view?

    Parent
    I don't know how this is "clear". eom (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Cashmere on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 10:33:30 PM EST


    Parent
    Zimmerman admitted (1.00 / 2) (#105)
    by MKS on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 10:50:56 PM EST
    in his interviews that he followed Trayvon.  Rachel Jeantel testified that Trayvon said Zimmerman continued to follow him.

    Parent
    Correct (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by ZucchiTadre on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 10:57:58 PM EST
    Zimmerman did say that he was following him but stopped before reaching the T when the dispatcher said "we don't need you to do that".  Z responds "Okay" then continues to walk past the T to get an address. He doesn't know where Trayvon is, at least he can't see where is now.  That much we know.

    On his way back Trayvon pops out of the shadows and confronts Z... Why didn't Trayvon run home?

    Parent

    I keep hearing that... (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by MikeB on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 07:57:01 AM EST
    .....even as late as this morning, but where is that evidence? When he was going after Martin (when Martin began running), you could hear wind noise and Zimmerman breathing heavily. It was that sound that caused the dispatcher to ask if Zimmerman was following Martin. When the dispatcher said he didn't need to follow Martin, the wind noise stopped and Zimmerman's breathing went back to normal in seconds. You can hear that on the tape, but this line keeps getting repeated.

    What am I missing?

    Parent

    I've been watching the testimony again today. (none / 0) (#16)
    by Angel on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 03:38:00 PM EST
    Here are some things that I find questionable, and all of this is strictly my opinion and I think is factually correct.  Note:  the defense hasn't been up  yet to cross the latest witness, Det. Serino.  

    GZ was pressed about why he never identified himself to TM as living in the neighborhood or as neighborhood watch, he said he was afraid to talk to the guy.

    GZ told the investigators "I wasn't following him, I was just walking in the same direction."  

    Asked why he didn't confront the guy when he walked near his car, "I was afraid, fearful."  Investigators then asked about him "Jumping out of the car as soon as the guy started 'running'."  They said, "That isn't fear."

    GZ said the taped 911 calls of the person screaming didn't sound like him (he said this unprompted if I recall correctly).  The screams also don't match what GZ said he was screaming which was Help Me, the screams were something different.

    GZ didn't tell investigators in the beginning that the guy was running, he said he was walking.  Investigator didn't like that change in story.

    GZ said the reason he found TM suspicious was because he was "standing around in the rain."  Funny when you realize that GZ says that he was standing in the rain waiting for the police (that was when he was supposedly trying to find the street name which he couldn't remember).  So, it's suspicious for TM to stand around in the rain but it isn't suspicious for GZ to stand around in the rain!  

    His reason for needing the flashlight doesn't jive with me.

    At one point GZ admitted that he was following the guy.  

    GZ said something in the interview about the incident that happened 3 weeks prior and the state is (I think) planning to use that to indicate that GZ was after TM because he thought he was the same guy who was supposedly hanging around a house in the neighborhood 3 weeks prior.

    GZ could not give an answer to the question of why did TM confront you?  What prompted that?  He couldn't give an answer.  I think this is very important.

    "That doesn't even sound like me" (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by skepticalsports on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 05:54:26 PM EST
    I think you correctly identify most of the sticking points so far, though there's nothing there that would preclude reasonable doubt yet.

    On the "That doesn't sound like me" point, however, I had the opposite reaction. I thought it was one of the most convincing details in GZ's favor I've seen so far:

    GZ had been saying that he screamed for help since his first interrogation. Basically, the prosecution's theory of the case is that GZ was lying about this all along, knowing that TM was actually the screamer. Under that theory, when Serino played the audio for him, Zimmerman spontaneously admitted that the scream didn't sound like him, why exactly?

    I mean, this is a huge lie. With his livelihood in the balance, I find it really implausible that he would comment on how the scream didn't "sound like him" (at least while still maintaining that he was the screamer). I'd think that's about the last thing anyone in that position would ever admit. When you're protecting a huge whopper, you're pretty careful about it, over-defensive even. You'd think someone lying in that spot wouldn't even hesitate to say "Yep, that's totally me."  

    He wasn't tripped up or given the scream under controlled circumstances or false pretenses, and he stuck with his story. The more plausible explanation is that he didn't even know that the identity of the screamer was in question, and was commenting on how strange it is to hear out loud, like how people think they look and sound weird on camera (the kind of thing a lawyer would remind you never to say).

    And presumably Serino took it that way as well, considering he didn't pursue it any further at the time.

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#83)
    by lousy1 on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 08:20:08 PM EST
    Would you recognize your scream of terror?

    I can't say I would or that I can even remember   screaming since childhood. The screams are consistent with the  FBI investigation which exposes GZ as a bit of a milquetoast.

    If GZ was not confident that was the screamer  he would avoid the - if doesn't really sound like me aside.


    Parent

    When recorded, many people are jarred by (none / 0) (#132)
    by melamineinNY on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 07:54:35 AM EST
    hearing their own normal speaking voice because it doesn't sound like they think they do.

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#84)
    by lousy1 on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 08:21:50 PM EST
    Who would recognize their own screams of terror?

    I can't say I would or that I can even remember   screaming since childhood. The reaction is consistent with the  FBI investigation which exposes GZ as a bit of a milquetoast.

    If GZ was not confident that was the screamer  he would avoid the "it doesn't really sound like me", aside.

    Parent

    How should he know (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 06:02:04 PM EST
    why Martin attacked him?

    Martin had run off by the time he got out of the car. He ran towards the back entrance. That's what the other suspicious persons did after the burglaries on 8/3 and 2/6. They ran to the nearby apts.

    If he thought Martin had done the same thing, he had no reason to be fearful any more. He also thought that's what the dispatcher wanted him to do when he asked "Which way is he running?" He wasn't following him as in pursuing him, he was trying to figure out which way he went.

    The same kid that GZ reported seeing on 8/3 was in fact a perpetrator of both the 8/3 and 2/6 home invasions. In both cases, the perps ran away to the nearby apartments. The kid GZ reported seeing in the neighborhood on 8/3 and 8/6 matched the description the victim gave of the perpetrator. He  was finally arrested after the Feb. 6 burglary when latent prints on the wall he jumped over and came back a match. He was also found in possession of property from one or both homes.  He was on juvenile probation for other burglaries. He gave false identification to the police. He ultimately pleaded guilty to both robberies and then some in adult court, and is doing 5 years in adult prison now. Who handled his case? Judge Nelson. He also lived with his parents who rented a home in the complex.  

    Martin didn't just stand around in the rain. He was standing on the lawn of a home Zimmerman knew wasn't his home. It is also the residence by the shortcut that allows people to bypass the gated entrance. He had something in his hands and a hand in his waistband, he was looking at the houses, he was staring at Zimmerman, and Zimmerman thought he looked like he was on drugs (probably because he couldn't see that Martin was on the phone. Think how odd people look when they are talking on the phone and you can't tell because they are using a headpiece. They look crazy, like they are talking to themselves.)

    Zimmerman considered other possibilities, like maybe he was working out, but he wasn't wearing workout clothes.

    He did exactly what the police instructed residents to do: call the non-emergency number and report the person.

    Parent

    I Think He Knew Why (none / 0) (#65)
    by RickyJim on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 07:01:20 PM EST
    We heard in court today interviews where Zimmerman related he stopped near Taffe's house to observe Martin standing in the rain.  Then he drove to the Clubhouse where Martin, obviously remembering the Ridgeline, approached and gave Zimmerman a tug of his waistband.  Then Zimmerman, fired up, drove past Martin on Twin Trees Lane and when he lost sight of him stopped near the cut through.  Then Martin came out of the darkness and circled the truck and ran into the cut through, turning right on the dogpath, an action Zimmerman could see well in the field of his headlights.  Martin, thinking he had ditched Zimmerman, continued wandering around the dogpath, on the phone, when he encountered again, this time on foot, the same "creepy sexual predator" he recognized as the driver of the Ridgeline from his close encounters with the latter.

    Zimmerman knew he was acting more provocatively than usual.  On 2/2, while walking his dog and observing the suspect near Taafe's place, he moved out of the guy's view to make his NEN call.  On 10/1 when he noticed two suspicious guys in a white Impala near the gate he was a paragon of caution.

    Dispatcher: They are in a Chevy Impala? Did you get a license plate?
    George: A white--no. It is a white Chevrolet sedan. It is either an Impala or a Lumina. I think it
    is an Impala.
    Dispatcher: Can you still see them?
    George: No, ma'am. I didn't want to attract attention.

    Yet Zimmerman claimed to Serino and Singleton that he had gone over it a million times in his head and couldn't figure out why he annoyed Martin.

    Parent
    Circled Ridgeline (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Char Char Binks on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 12:03:32 AM EST
    If I were trying to get away from someone, I don't think I would first circle his truck.

    Parent
    why not just use the words Trayvon would (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by lily on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 12:54:46 AM EST
    to describe his intention in intimidation the cracker on the phone. He probably told RJ that the guy was not security but he is checking me out and might be calling the cops.

    George violated the first precept of thug rule
    'what ya looking at" that disrespect cost him dearly

    Parent

    Didn't know why he annoyed Martin?? (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by melamineinNY on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 08:40:05 AM EST
    Naive man with a gun, not a good combination. Yet it remains that Martin too, was naive and belligerant, starting with his circling GZ's truck, if not before that. Clearly his intention at the time was not to go straight home. Yes he has that right, but aggression seems to have been his reason not to.

    Parent
    Quite a list, but... (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by woodchuck64 on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 07:27:38 PM EST
    not too troubling.


    Here are some things that I find questionable, and all of this is strictly my opinion and I think is factually correct.  Note:  the defense hasn't been up  yet to cross the latest witness, Det. Serino.  

    GZ was pressed about why he never identified himself to TM as living in the neighborhood or as neighborhood watch, he said he was afraid to talk to the guy.

    That would have required GZ walking right up to TM and would definitely have been confrontational.  I don't think NW rules let you do that.


    GZ told the investigators "I wasn't following him, I was just walking in the same direction."

    To look for a street sign, address, yes.  But I also think it would be reasonable for GZ to try to keep an eye on a person who suddenly breaks into a run.


     "Jumping out of the car as soon as the guy started 'running'."  They said, "That isn't fear."

    This isn't even slightly strange.  Once a person you think is potentially dangerous runs, he demonstrates that he not a direct threat to you.  But running also confirms guilt in most minds and encourages pursuit, or at least observing which way the person ran.


    GZ said the taped 911 calls of the person screaming didn't sound like him

    We often say that when we hear ourselves on tape.  I would certainly say that if I heard myself screaming in fear since I've never done that before, much less heard myself on tape doing it.  I would be tempted to deny it outright, it's not something a man is supposed to be heard doing.


    The screams also don't match what GZ said he was screaming which was Help Me, the screams were something different.

    Jonathan Good, closest to the action, confirmed that they were cries for help.


    GZ didn't tell investigators in the beginning that the guy was running, he said he was walking.  Investigator didn't like that change in story.

    TM was walking at the beginning.  He ran later.


    GZ said the reason he found TM suspicious was because he was "standing around in the rain."  Funny when you realize that GZ says that he was standing in the rain waiting for the police (that was when he was supposedly trying to find the street name which he couldn't remember).  So, it's suspicious for TM to stand around in the rain but it isn't suspicious for GZ to stand around in the rain!  

    I'm mystified why you would find it suspicious for a neighborhood watchman to
    stand in the rain doing his job by reporting a suspicious character.  

    Sure, if TM was also a neighborhood watchman, it might not be suspicious, but GZ already knew that TM was not part of his neighborhood.


    GZ could not give an answer to the question of why did TM confront you?  What prompted that?  He couldn't give an answer.  I think this is very important.

    GZ did give an answer most consistent with the events: he didn't know why TM confronted him.  The attack was unprovoked and took him by surprise, as seems obvious by his injuries.  GZ had a gun, don't you think if he saw this coming he would have pulled it out and at last threatened to use it before he got injured?


    Parent

    Assumption is not knowledge (none / 0) (#95)
    by unitron on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 09:42:12 PM EST
    "...but GZ already knew that TM was not part of his neighborhood."

    The witnesses from that night did not, for the most part, know or recognize Zimmerman, and apparently he didn't know them, so he's not quite the expert on who is and isn't a part of that neighborhood that he thought that he was, and further, as the guest of a resident, he had as much right to the common areas as Zimmerman.

    Zimmerman wasn't wrong to be suspicious, but he wasn't right to be sure that he was right.

    Parent

    That's something that bothered me - (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by melamineinNY on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 07:59:41 AM EST
    that GZ seemed too confirmed in his mind that TM didn't belong there that he wouldn't give him a straight answer. But when I then review TMs actions that night, believing GZ, it was almost as though he was going out of his way to act suspicious and to provoke GZ, starting with when he "circled" GZs vehicle after knowing he had caught his attention. When I have a destination in mind, I don't obsess about whether I've caught someone's attention, for starters.

    Parent
    He was standing (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 09:23:43 AM EST
    On the lawn of a neighbor whom Zimmerman knew was not at home - in the rain and dark.

    And at least one witness knew him - she was the president of the HOA and worked with Zimmerman as part of neighborhood watch. (She also testified that after seeing a picture of him, taken shortly after the police arrived, that she didn't recognize him because of his injuries -  this was someone who knew him and didn't recognize him)

    Parent

    Angel's sarcasm (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by citizenjeff on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 10:25:38 AM EST
    "So, it's suspicious for TM to stand around in the rain but it isn't suspicious for GZ to stand around in the rain!"

    Neither Zimmerman nor anyone has claimed that the defendant wouldn't have looked suspicious to someone who didn't know him and who saw him standing in the rain on or near property that had previously been robbed.

    Parent

    A concealed gun carried by a fearful man (none / 0) (#18)
    by melamineinNY on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 04:20:54 PM EST
    What kinds of decisions is he going to make when the boy/man who's acting suspiciously, approaches him and asks why he's following him? GZ was too afraid of him to tell him the truth, that he was NW and needed to ask him what he's doing in the neighborhood. His transparent lie, that he wasn't doing anything, was an act of fear-inspired aggression, especially when he reached for his potential weapon, as perceived by TM, though it was only a cell phone according to GZ.

    TM was also fearful. And suspicious and belligerent, maybe in part because he wasn't carrying "security," yet he went out of his way to avoid going "home" and away from what we might believe he perceived as a threat.

    Parent

    What Trayvon thought is irrelevant (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Payaso on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 04:48:52 PM EST
    If he hit Zimmerman because he mistakenly thought that GZ was reaching for a weapon, that doesn't change the fact that TM hit GZ.

    Fear is an emotion that exists in the mind of the person experiencing it.

    Parent

    Irrelevant? (none / 0) (#23)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 04:58:43 PM EST
    Not so sure, about that.  So far the evidence does not back it up, but if Zimmerman cornered Martin, and Martin believed that he was going to die because Zimmerman was reaching for his gun, he could have defended himself and killed Zimmerman justifiably.

    IOW if Martin thought that Zimmerman was going to kill him then Zimmerman would have been the aggressor, by provoking Martin  imo.

    But it does not look like the state is going to press this argument,  we'll see.

    Parent

    zimmerman (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by morphic on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 06:18:26 PM EST
    couldn't corner anyone in an open area.

    Parent
    please please please (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 06:24:19 AM EST
    learn something about the law.  This is a trial to determine what was in the mind of GZ and if it was reasonable for him to feel the way he did.  In other words would other reasonable people fear for their lives in the same situation.  
    There is no point in trying to justify TM's actions and making that part of the case.  Your argument has nothing, nothing to do with the law.  You can not say, oh well TM was justified in attacking GZ because TM felt threatened, therefor GZ had no right or less right to defend his life.  That's crazy.  It makes zero sense and it is just not close to anything resembling logic.

    Parent
    Save Your Cheerleading (none / 0) (#138)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 08:17:04 AM EST
    I was responding to Payaso's comment, not trying to justify Martin;s actions. So save your emimty for those who are playing your game.

    My comment was about law, not cheerleading, and I believe correct in response to Pasayo's comment.

    Parent

    It would be a more relevant argument (none / 0) (#27)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 05:29:21 PM EST
    if TM was alive and on trial for assaulting GZ. It would be part of his self-defense case.

    Not sure how far the prosecution is allowed to go down that road.

    Parent

    Not Necessarily (none / 0) (#29)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 05:31:57 PM EST
    If there were witnesses, or evidence that backed up Zimmerman being the aggressor, provoking enough that a reasonable person would believe that they were in mortal danger.

    But, from what I have read there is no evidence to back that version up.

    Parent

    Since GZ (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by lousy1 on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 08:26:51 PM EST
    gave a spontaneous accounting of the events of that evening before he was aware of any potential witness or video that might contradict him we should  conclude he is either the luckiest man in Florida or that he is telling the truth

    Parent
    Another possibility... (none / 0) (#96)
    by unitron on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 09:46:39 PM EST
    ...he is telling what he honestly thinks is the truth, but had some trauma-induced short-term memory loss, and his brain filled in the gaps with bits and pieces of previous memories.

    Parent
    I don't believe it's relevant at all (none / 0) (#32)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 05:37:38 PM EST
    The only relevance is what GZ's perception was and if it would be that of a "reasonable and prudent person" would perceive as an immediate threat of death or grave bodly harm.

    (I can't link to them, but Jeralyn has posted the statutes before).

    Trayvon Martin's perceptions of the events that night (or more precisely, what the State wants you to believe were his perceptions) are irrelevant.

    Parent

    If evidence is presented to the jury (none / 0) (#75)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 07:40:08 PM EST
    supporting them concluding Martin was afraid Zimmerman would imminently inflict bodily injury or death on Martin, in my opinion, Martin was entitled to meet that threat with equal or lesser force.

    Parent
    If true, that would simply mean (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by rob411 on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 08:47:52 PM EST
    that, were Trayvon alive today, he would be acquited of any criminal charges.

    And, that is relevant to Zimmerman's claims of self-defense because...well, actually it's completely irrelevant. Would that be the point you were trying to make? :-)

    Parent

    It is relevant as to whether defendant (none / 0) (#89)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 08:59:02 PM EST
    Zimmerman had a legitimate right to self defense using deadly force.

    Parent
    The state may not be able to press this argument.. (none / 0) (#47)
    by Cashmere on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 06:20:02 PM EST
    because they have no evidence of this.

    Parent
    Well Yes (none / 0) (#54)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 06:29:57 PM EST
    But I was responding to this hypothetical which there is zero evidence for:

    What Trayvon thought is irrelevant If he hit Zimmerman because he mistakenly thought that GZ was reaching for a weapon, that doesn't change the fact that TM hit GZ.
    Fear is an emotion that exists in the mind of the person experiencing it.

    Were there evidence that Travon was mortally terrified, that would not be irrelevant.

    The fear of death, even if it winds up being unfounded, is relevant as long as a reasonable person would believe that they were in mortal danger.

    Parent

    I understand your point...but... (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Cashmere on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 06:54:02 PM EST
    You were responding to lack of evidence with more lack of evidence, so they are both "speculations" I believe.  (IANAL)

    What I am so intrigued by with this case (as I have not paid much attention to other cases in the past) is how the jury may rule based upon their own speculations in the end.  

    From what I understand, even if Zimmerman followed Martin, as his defense has been on the record, admitting that he did, that is not against the law.  So right now it seems that the big "debate" is over who started the confrontation, and that is pure speculation by all from the evidence that has been presented (unless one believes that RJ truly heard Martin say "a little "get off" "  while she was in the bathroom with her bluetooth, doing her hair).  

    I guess what I am trying to say is that it is up to the jury and how can they help but make their decision without their own speculation, unless they are truly advised properly by the judge (which I believe will happen), and let their own speculations go.

    I don't believe anyone should be convicted based upon speculation.  

    Parent

    Not Speculating (none / 0) (#66)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 07:01:21 PM EST
    Sorry if that is what you though I was doing.

    My only point is that what someone thinks, and in the example, Martin, is relevant. In no way am I suggesting that Zimmerman was the aggressor or that Martin believed that Zimmerman was the aggressor.

    There is no evidence for me to suggest that is the case.

    Parent

    "Reasonable fear" is a state of mind (none / 0) (#86)
    by Payaso on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 08:35:27 PM EST
    It is possible for two people to both be in reasonable fear of the other without either party being guilty of a crime.

    An example would be two undercover cops shooting at each other because they both thought the other was trying to rob them.

    Parent

    This is the best starting point - (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by melamineinNY on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 08:28:34 AM EST
    to assume both were afraid and one initiated an assault. The only question is, who? And from the evidence so far, it was TM.

    Parent
    Serino and Livingston's (none / 0) (#19)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 04:29:08 PM EST
    interview of Zimmerman asks the questions I have too, as you listed. I am satisfied that the issues got put before the jury via playing them that interview. Listening to that interview last year myself was what made me doubt Zimmerman's credibility and reasoning for having to use deadly force.

    Another note from O'Mara's cross of Serino - if GZ had a flat affect after the event, why is it indicative of anything that he did not indicate hostility towards Martin at that point?

    Parent

    Did you listen to Serino's testimony? (none / 0) (#129)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 06:55:51 AM EST
    If you only watched that police interview and do not know why they question people they way they do, then I can see why you think Zimmerman is guilty.

    However at the end of his testimony he admitted that he believed that Zimmerman was telling the truth.

    He also explained that they question everyone as if they were guilty. If you watched any police interview you would likely believe the person was guilty..... but now I understand why people here are so obsessed over the fact that Zimmerman got out of his car. It is because the woman playing bad cop kept harping on it, trying to trip him up.

    Parent

    At the end yesterday he said he believed (none / 0) (#166)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 12:07:23 PM EST
    GZ was telling the truth regarding hoping there is a video recording. I never heard him say he thought GZ was always telling the truth. In fact today he said there were several areas he would have explored further if he had had a another chance to interview him.

    Parent
    How (none / 0) (#21)
    by Pugfrench on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 04:42:52 PM EST
    Is he supposed to know why TM confronted him? He didn't say, " Hello sir, I believe that you may be following me, therefore I am going to punch you." Or, "since I think you are following me you must be a homosexual, which I disapprove of, so I am going to beat you." Or maybe GZ forgot that part after having his head beat. Who knows?

    Parent
    "GZ said the taped 911 calls of the person (none / 0) (#82)
    by gadfly on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 08:16:28 PM EST
    screaming didn't sound like him ..."

    This is not surprising since everyone's natural voice sounds differently when filtered through their own skull and facial bone structure than the real voice heard externally by unfettered ears.

    Parent

    yup (none / 0) (#130)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 07:06:44 AM EST
    every time I hear myself on tape whether it is singing or talking, it is a shock.  I am in my 50s and have hear myself many times since I have been in theater and music.  But it still never sounds like me.

    Parent
    I need and editor (none / 0) (#136)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 08:09:38 AM EST


    Parent
    lol (none / 0) (#137)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 08:10:22 AM EST
    and I still need an editor.

    Parent
    I think O'Mara is very good...eom (none / 0) (#17)
    by Cashmere on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 04:10:25 PM EST


    His really is a good examiner (none / 0) (#30)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 05:35:45 PM EST
    He is very subtle about getting them to where he wants them to be, by asking them to confirm things that are maybe just a shade closer to what he wants than is what they said on direct.  Not enough for them to argue and say, 'no that's not what I said' but still not exactly what they said. Then Bernie has to get back up and argue with his own witness.  

    Parent
    Yes.. That is what I am see when I have the chance (none / 0) (#80)
    by Cashmere on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 08:04:17 PM EST
    to watch or listen.  His demeanor is "calming" or "soothing". He is not confrontational and gently puts the witness at ease while he asks crucial questions.

    Parent
    yes he's very zen (none / 0) (#110)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 11:38:11 PM EST
    lawyers in Florida say that about him

    Parent
    He is good (none / 0) (#104)
    by lolaatlarge on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 10:38:06 PM EST
    Notice he's the good cop, who does the questioning of witnesses who are not hostile, who are just telling the truth as they know it, or may even be leaning a bit toward defense. West takes the ones who are hostile to the defense, or so it seems to me. They seem to be playing good cop/ bad cop. They are running quite a game on BDLR.

    Parent
    I was thinking the same thing (none / 0) (#31)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 05:37:38 PM EST
    The prosecution essentially got GZ on the stand, and had Serino and Livingston cross-examining him. I don't think he comes off well at all.

    My opinion of course.

    More detail (none / 0) (#34)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 05:47:56 PM EST
    His self defense plea as I understand it depends on whether a reasonable person would have felt his life threatened under the circumstances. He shows again and again that he is more fearful than IMO a reasonable person would be - brings a gun to Target, thinks a guy walking slow in the light rain (at that point in the evening)  is suspicious looking, and most of all won't ask the kid a question from the safety of his car.  He says he thinks his head got hit 25-30 times when that seems highly unlikely given his injuries. All of this points to a mindset that exaggerates threat.   I don't believe his account of the initial encounter either.

    That said I think it is a very tough call, and I don't envy the jurors. It is very subjective as to what they find 'reasonable'.

    Parent

    ruffian (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Jack203 on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 09:56:25 PM EST
    "brings a gun to Target"

    I'm not a gun person by any stretch of the imagination.  And I do believe if GZ didn't have his gun on him, both TM and GZ would be alive today. In my book, it raises an eyebrow, but not too much more.  I don't live in a crime riddled community either.

    "thinks a guy walking slow in the light rain (at that point in the evening)"

    I think the reasons given by GZ were sufficient.

    "and most of all won't ask the kid a question from the safety of his car. "

    If TM approached GZ feigning having a weapon in his waistband.  I wouldn't either. No way.

    "He says he thinks his head got hit 25-30 times when that seems highly unlikely given his injuries. All of this points to a mindset that exaggerates threat."  

    Probably an exaggeration.  And there were most likely more.  That doesn't mean the majority of his story didn't happen the way he told it. In fact, the majority holds up extremely well with eyewitness and the known timeline.  If you're giving an interview to police that may charge you with manslaughter, you are going to err on the side of benefiting your story, and not the other way around.  Look at the hoopla made by the persecution over his comment that the scream didn't sound like him. (Meanwhile he has adamantly claimed the screams were him at the scene, and dozens of times during the interview/written accounts)

    "I don't believe his account of the initial encounter either. "

    I do.  If GZ had the initiative and/or was the aggressor, the end result of the fight make little sense.   If GZ was the aggressor, there would be tell tale signs that he had serious mental issues dealing with anger, racism, lack of self control.  His life the previous 7 years is the exact opposite.  TM's life the last 6 months was a trainwreck.  He was spinning out of control.
    Giving the benefit of the doubt to the out of control 17 year old is a recipe for being wrong.

    And being over a reasonable doubt (> 95%) is just insanity.

    Parent

    Maybe so (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 09:41:00 AM EST
    .

    And I do believe if GZ didn't have his gun on him, both TM and GZ would be alive today.

    Maybe so.  OTOH, you and I are speculating, and George was from his perspective suffering an unprovoked violent attack with no sign of stopping.  Would you feel better about George if he waited until he lost an eye?

    .

    Parent

    If the initial encounter started (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 12:37:48 PM EST
    close to the T as he was just walking across to his truck then how did they end up 30 ft away, or even 10 ft, if he fell down immediately? Could be true he just does not remember.

    But why does he not remember the name of one of the three streets in the neighbohood that he serves as neighborhood watch captain?

    Do you really beleive he was not attempting to follow TM? then why did he not tell the police to meet him at his car? Where else did he expect to be going?

    Sorry, personally, I do not believe what he says. That is my right, and it is not insane.

    Parent

    Shrug (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 12:53:36 PM EST
    But why does he not remember the name of one of the three streets in the neighbohood that he serves as neighborhood watch captain?

    I hate to keep bringing her up, but Jenna Lauer, the president of the HOA, also testified that she also was uncertain of the street names in the neighborhood, and that there were no street signs anywhere near her townhouse (the same place where Zimmerman had difficulty in providing a specific address to the NEN operator).

    Parent

    Link? (none / 0) (#206)
    by Yman on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 03:28:07 PM EST
    Did you watch her testimony or is this just something you read?  I didn't watch her entire testimony, but the only "uncertainty" I saw her express re: the street names was about the very small section of street in front of the front gate.  She said she didn't know if this small area started as Twin Trees or Retreat View.

    Much different than being "uncertain of the street names in the neighborhood".

    Parent

    The streets (none / 0) (#180)
    by Char Char Binks on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 01:30:34 PM EST
    all curve and change names at the intersections.  There are streets in my neighborhood, and throughout my city, that are routinely called by the more-widely known name of the street across the intersection where the name changes.

    Parent
    not necessarily life-threatening (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 11:47:04 PM EST
    Florida Jury Instruction 3.6

    A person is justified in using deadly force if [he]
    [she] reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent

    1. imminent death or great bodily
    harm     to [himself]  or another,
    or

    2. the imminent commission of a a forcible felony [e.g. aggravated battery] against [himself]

    [Insert and  define applicable forcible felony
    that defendant alleges victim was about to commit.

    Forcible felonies are listed in § 776.08, Fla. Stat. The instruction the judge read to the jury during jury selection used aggravated battery.

    Parent

    One of the state's witnesses (none / 0) (#39)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 06:00:10 PM EST
    Disputed the "light rain".

    Jenna Lauer, the woman whose 911 call gives the best sounds of what went on in the background testified that it was a "pretty steady-paced rain."

    Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't.  This wasn't the only witness for the state who didnt' tell the story the state wanted the jury to hear.

    I haven't been watching, but reading transcripts and seeing blurbs, but it sounds like between GZ's statement, and the state's own witnesses who keep corroborating his version of events, (or at least are testifying to events that are consistent with his side of the story), it sounds like the state may have serious issues.

    Parent

    That was a couple of minutes after GZ's (none / 0) (#42)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 06:08:09 PM EST
    NEO call, right?  I get the impression the rain was variable as to level over time, as it often is here. It did not sound like a hard rain when GZ was walking around talking on the phone to the operator. He could see TM clearly enough, and TM could see him clearly enough to want to 'check him out'.  

    Parent
    Maybe (none / 0) (#45)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 06:10:50 PM EST
    But then it could also have been hard enough when GZ made the NEN call that most normal people would wonder what a stranger was doing standing on the lawn of someone who wasn't home.

    Parent
    unreasonable^2 (none / 0) (#44)
    by skepticalsports on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 06:09:47 PM EST
    If the burden of proof were reversed, I'd be with you 100%. But in this case, the juror's don't have to find GZ's actions to be reasonable to acquit, there just has to be a reasonable doubt that his actions were reasonable (unreasonable^2).

    Though I guess you raise the possibility that one could accept Zimmerman's version of the story and still think that shooting Martin wasn't justifiable, which I haven't heard much---though OTOH GZ could be lying about a lot and still have acted in self-defense for the purposes of a murder charge.

    Parent

    I tend to play devil's advocate (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 06:22:48 PM EST
    with your second proposition....what if I believe everything GZ says..and I do believe most of it....do I still think the killing was justifiable? Here is what Jeralyn quoted from the statute yesterday but my bolding:
    A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent (1) imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or (2) the imminent commmision of aggravated battery against  himself or another.
    The danger facing the defendant need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, the defendant must have actually believed that the danger was real.

    I consider myself a reasonably cautious and prudent person, and I believe that that the danger could have been avoided only by killing TM. From his questioning with Serino, GZ had control of one of TM's wrists at the time of the shooting. I believe he had more options than killing him.  YMMV. That is why we have a jury.

    Parent

    Oops... (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 06:25:11 PM EST
    I consider myself a reasonably cautious and prudent person, and I DOBNT believe that that the danger could have been avoided only by killing TM.

    Or maybe that was my subconscious typing...O'mara could probably get me to say that.

    Parent

    John Good said it (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 06:43:34 PM EST
    appeared to him Zimmerman was struggling to get out from under Trayvon and couldn't. GZ maintains his head was being slammed against cement, and his nose had been fractured or broken. He was having trouble breathing because Trayvon had covered his mouth with his hand (while telling him to shut the f* up, which if believed, is another indicator he was the one crying out for help.)

    The defense will be presenting expert testimony from pathologist and firearms expert Vincent di Maio whose opinion is that GZ's head injuries are consistent with his head being banged against cement and that such injuries can be life-threatening and quite serious. He will also testify that the gunshot evidence shows Martin was on top of Z. at the time.

    Everything you are hearing now is from the state's point of view. They are calling their witnesses, and all the defense gets to do is cross-examine them and point out weaknesses/contradictions, etc.

    There are two sides to this case, and the defense has yet to present its side. Why don't you wait until hearing the evidence from both sides before drawing a conclusion.

    Parent

    Didn't he also say he had 'wrist control' (none / 0) (#64)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 07:01:02 PM EST
    of one of Martin;s wrists at the time he shot, to the extent that he had to aim his gun is such a way to avoid shooting his own hand?  I was multitasking at work during that part and, and did not hear all the testimony today.

    But of course you are right, judgement should wait till the case is submitted to the jury.  But that is the kind of thing I am thinking about.

    Parent

    Wrist control (none / 0) (#114)
    by Char Char Binks on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 12:08:33 AM EST
    I could be wrong, but I think the idea of "wrist control" came from Serino, not Z, who only agreed with him (whether he agreed that that is what he was using, or only that that is a term police use, I'm not sure).

    Parent
    possibly the prosecution's only out (none / 0) (#68)
    by skepticalsports on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 07:11:45 PM EST
    I think ruffian has a point though that the statutory use of "would have believed" rather than "could have believed" or "would be reasonable in believing" in "would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force" does make it a strong claim. Note the statute also doesn't require that it be the "best" option, but that it be the "only" option.  I don't know how that has been interpreted in Florida case law, but it's conceivable that it would be a very difficult thing to establish.  Proving "not self-defense" beyond reasonable doubt could be satisfied by showing existence of a single inferior alternative course of action.

    Not judging this self-defense claim, and obv there are other elements of Murder-2 that prosecution has to prove. I'm just saying it's conceivable that one could find that the prosecution did NOT prove its entire theory of what happened beyond a reasonable doubt (which is looking increasingly unlikely), but still find (BARD) that the shooting wasn't justified.

    Parent

    But if the state doesn't prove the Murder 2 (none / 0) (#76)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 07:41:43 PM EST
    elements, does the self defense claim even matter? I guess it does if the judge sends back a lesser charge to the jury. One of the radio guys said that was a possibility.

    Parent
    Prosecution Burden (none / 0) (#73)
    by RickyJim on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 07:31:49 PM EST
    Consider the following determinations.

    1. Absolutely innocent - It is unreasonable that Zimmerman was unreasonable to kill Martin.

    2. Not Guilty - It is reasonable that Zimmerman was reasonable to kill Martin.

    3. Guilty - It is unreasonable that Zimmerman was reasonable to kill Martin.

    Many Trayvonites insist that 1 is what the jury must find, not 2.  It is almost impossible to get them to see the difference.

    Parent
    try this (none / 0) (#115)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 12:13:51 AM EST
    on what a not guilty verdict means.

    please don't call people Travyonites, it's demeaning. "Martin supporters" is fine.

    Parent

    A Verdict of Not Guilty Includes: (none / 0) (#142)
    by RickyJim on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 08:47:33 AM EST
    Then you list 8 conditions.  Does each imply not guilty?  I am not sure that these two do:

        Based upon the evidence presented, we the Jury believe it is more likely than not that the defendant is guilty.

        Based upon the evidence presented, we the Jury believe that the defendant is probably guilty.


    My general criticism though, is that it seems circular to define not guilty in terms of guilty.

    Parent
    Jeralyn - Please (none / 0) (#38)
    by John Shaft on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 05:59:50 PM EST
    Inquiring minds want to know. I have never commented on a forum in which my comments were deleted as fast as I post them.
    My last post re: tragic figure vs. pathetic figure was about how GZ & his actions(IMO) would be regarded by the jury & therefore, would affect the jurors decisions re: his guilt or innocence.
    Was I the only person watching who felt the detective's impression of GZ's injuries were that they were minor & not life threatening - even though O'Mara keeps hauling out the picture of GZ's bloody nose.

    you personally attacked (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 06:04:05 PM EST
    and insulted GZ by calling him a loser and his actions inane. That's uncalled for and we don't allow personal attacks on anyone.  

    Parent
    Okay (2.00 / 1) (#48)
    by John Shaft on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 06:20:14 PM EST
    I apologize - it was in an attempt to get my point across about the difference between a tragic versus a pathetic figure.
    tragic figures - result in people having compassion/understanding towards them
    pathetic figures - result in people having contempt or annoyance towards them
    And, in today's testimony GZ (IMO) comes across as being a more pathetic figure in his actions than as a tragic one.
    The detective made it very clear that he did not think GZ's injuries were ever life threatening.
    And, as hard as O'Mara tried w/ his 2X2 foot photo of GZ's bloody nose, the detective was never swayed.

    Parent
    Minor injuries??? (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by cazinger on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 07:08:22 PM EST
    It does not matter at all whether the injuries were minor or even non-existent.  The standard for invoking the self-defense rule is that the person defending themselves must be in actual fear of great bodily injury or death, and that fear must be reasonable.  Having a high school football player straddle you, with your head on a concrete sidewalk, and having that high school football player punching down on your head, effectively pounding your head against the concrete would be perceived as a reasonable threat to cause great bodily injury and/or death.  It is not necessary for one to have actually received so much as a scratch in that situation to be entitled to defend themselves - with deadly force if necessary.

    Parent
    Of course the injuries matter (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Yman on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 08:03:33 PM EST
    No one is saying you have to suffer serious or life-threatening injuries in order to have a valid claim of self defense.  If someone points a gun at you - and you suffer no injury at all - you would be entitled to use deadly force to defend yourself.  OTOH, the severity of the injuries are entirely relevant to determine the credibility of the claims made by person claiming self defense.  For example, if I get in a fight and shoot someone claiming that I was under brutal assault, if I have no injuries (or minor injuries), a jury might question my credibility and decide the threat I faced did not warrant the use of deadly force and that the threat was exaggerated to justify the use of deadly force ...

    ... just like the (false) claim that Martin was a "high school football player".  (He played youth league football from age 8 to 13).

    Parent

    Injury (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Char Char Binks on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 12:21:40 AM EST
    Z says M was reaching for his gun while threatening to kill him -- what injuries would that cause?  

    Parent
    None - obviously (none / 0) (#139)
    by Yman on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 08:21:51 AM EST
    Then again, we don't just accept what someone says as fact - particularly statements that are self-serving and unsupported by any other evidence.

    The injuries are still relevant to credibility, despite the fact that I would have no injuries from my claim that he was "reaching for the gun".  Using the hypothetical above, the if I get in a fight claiming I was under brutal assault and have no/minor injuries and claim that my attacker was reaching for my gun, the jury might question my credibility and decide that I was exaggerating the threat I faced.

    Parent

    Just accept (none / 0) (#153)
    by Char Char Binks on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 10:31:17 AM EST
    It's not about just accepting his word, in a murder trial it's about proving his guilt.

    Parent
    Again - obviously (none / 0) (#159)
    by Yman on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 11:32:49 AM EST
    And part of that is to determine whether the defendant's claims of self defense are credible and whether his use of deadly force was reasonable.  His injuries are relevant to the extent they tend to prove or disprove his version of events.

    Parent
    I mention the obvious (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Char Char Binks on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 01:43:05 PM EST
    because you seem not to grasp it.  Although you acknowledge that catastrophic injuries from a beating, or a lack of injuries from an assault with a gun, can both be consistent with self defense, you seem to imply that moderate injuries are not.

    Parent
    When his plea is self defense, (none / 0) (#171)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 12:39:30 PM EST
    his beleivablility does come into it.

    Parent
    I'm "implying" no such thing (none / 0) (#207)
    by Yman on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 03:42:39 PM EST
    I mention the obvious because you seem not to grasp it.Although you acknowledge that catastrophic injuries from a beating, or a lack of injuries from an assault with a gun, can both be consistent with self defense, you seem to imply that moderate injuries are not.

    Although I understand why you'd try that route, because my statements are very clear (and correct).  I'm stating:

    1.  No one said that any injuries were necessary to support a claim of self defense - depending on the nature of that claim,

    2.  If someone is claiming they were the victim of a brutal beating but have no/minor injuries, theose injuries (or lack thereof) are entirely relevant to their credibility.

    It's not difficult.

    Parent
    have you ever been hit in the face? (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 05:50:58 AM EST
    Have you ever had you head slammed into cement hard enough to get any kind of cut, large or small?
    Well I have had both happen to me.  The hit in the face didn't even leave a mark much less give me a bloody nose and it hurt for days anyway.  At the time it happened I was stunned and had the person hit me much harder over and over I don't know what I might have done to him.
    The head hitting the cement left a small cut only about an inch long, but it bled a lot and left quite a goose egg.  Believe me, when it happened, I thought it was way more serious than it was.
    GZ was in the process of being attacked, we can't look back in hindsight and say is injuries were not life threatening so he didn't need to defend his life. Besides, his testimony is that it was TM going for his gun and telling him he was going to kill him that made him pull the gun and shoot.

    Parent
    Wow.. (2.33 / 3) (#161)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 11:42:55 AM EST
    A double trauma. You not only experienced being hit in the face at one time but, also had to stand by and be traumatized by watching Zimmerman be attacked and beaten..

    Parent
    thank you for rephrasing (none / 0) (#56)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 06:34:52 PM EST
    I have always believed that commenters can make the same point without resorting to name-calling, personal attacks and profanity. I also think the credibility of the commenter's point of view  is enhanced if s/he steers clear of personal judgments and attacks. And it makes the thread more pleasant to read, like a conversation.

    Parent
    The detective isn't a doctor, John (none / 0) (#59)
    by Teresa on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 06:51:13 PM EST
    I'm sure we'll hear from doctors from both sides. I'll just say this. My mom slipped last year on grass, watering her flowers. She thought she might have broken her arm.

    She did have a hairline fracture that didn't require a cast even. She didn't remember hitting her head. She did and had a massive brain bleed later that night. She had five hours of brain surgery and ended up dying eight months later. She didn't have a single bruise on her head and I know that because they shaved her bald before her surgery.

    So, cuts on the outside of your head don't show, at all, what injury might taken place inside your head. I hate this case, though it interests me. GZ didn't have to have any injury at all to fear for his life (if he did) and claim self-defense. No matter how his cleaned up injuries look, he couldn't know that his brain was fine and/or that the next time it hit the concrete could end up killing him. So, his injuries, or lack of severity, aren't really legally important. It's what he thought that is, as tragically sad as this is.

    There are so many things that could have changed this. If GZ had stayed in his car, if he hadn't noticed TM at all, or if Trayvon had gone home since he was by testimony right near it. It's terribly sad all around, for sure.

    Parent

    Yes, Teresa (2.33 / 3) (#74)
    by John Shaft on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 07:34:07 PM EST
    there are horrible brain injuries that happen that appear to be minor. (And, that is a very sad story about your Mom, you have my sympathies.)
    However, I guess this will come down to how the jury regards GZ's injuries.
    And, IMO from reading the EMT report which was done shortly after the fight, GZ did not have life-threatening injuries & they did not develop into anything worse. His vitals were basically normal w/in forty-five minutes of the shooting & his appointment w/ the PA the following day did not reveal major injuries. If anything, broken noses & head trauma will result in swelling the following days - it is referred to as blossoming, & people look worse before they look better.
    This comes back to GZ's behavior being excessive: getting a gun because of a mean dog, carrying a gun to Target, calling NEN over & over, rolling up his window & locking his door as TM walks by, getting in a fight & shooting someone.
    Once again, GZ comes across as a pathetic figure, it is his actions that created this mess. It is not a tragedy that happened because of uncontrollable events. It will be very interesting to see how the jury perceives it.

    Parent
    Not really excessive (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by chaking on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 10:07:44 PM EST
    -Getting a gun because he was told to get a gun to protect his family.
    -Calling NEN because he was supposed to call NEN because he was in the Neighborhood Watch (and he wasn't the only one who called the police in that neighborhood)
    -Rolling up his window and locking his door because, well that's what you do when you don't want someone getting at you and you don't know if they will try or not.

    Really everything you state sounds like someone who isn't used to being in situations where they might be fearful of what happens.  I would ask you John Shaft, do you live in a place where houses routinely get broken into and you feel threatened on a weekly basis?  Maybe you say yes and maybe it's true, if so, then I think you would understand why someone would be hesitant and do things to try and prevent themselves and their family from getting hurt.  If not, then you have no basis for what you are saying.

    You keep saying he's pathetic, but I think a lot of people who live in places where they feel threatened would act the same way and I frankly feel it's... well you know, for you to come on here and say that you wouldn't.  Would you just fight the dog with your bare hands? Do you unlock your door and roll down the windows when someone you think might be up to no good comes by?  Are you on a neighborhood watch where you're supposed to call the police when your are suspicious, but you don't and instead just let whatever happen?

    I mean it does sound like you're a man's man and all, so maybe you do.  But cut the regular guys some slack - Not everyone is as macho as you.

    And as far as brain injuries go - I feel your argument is one only made by someone after everything is said and done.  If your brain is getting smashed, you have the right to stop it.  You have no idea how it felt, what he was thinking at the time, how long it would have continued, if it hit a particular spot that would have resulted in severe trauma or anything else.  I don't agree with you at all, and in fact, I imagine if you really were in the same situation, you wouldn't agree with what you're saying either.

    Parent

    I carry an (1.00 / 1) (#165)
    by John Shaft on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 12:00:01 PM EST
    umbrella & pepper spray if I have a problem w/ dogs in my hood because I'm a macho man. Unlike a girly man that carries a gun to take care of dogs in the hood.

    Parent
    Just wondering (none / 0) (#173)
    by chaking on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 12:56:26 PM EST
    Have you been attacked by dogs in your neighborhood?  Does your neighborhood have a lot of break-ins?  Do you experience abnormal fear for your well being once or more a week?

    Parent
    Pesonally, I actually got bit by (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 01:29:05 PM EST
    my next door neighbor's dog, bad enough to go to the ER. Never even crossed my mind to get a gun.

    My other neighbor is trying to set up a Neighborhood Watch because she believes there have been a lot of break-ins. She has no evidence for that - just her own experience of her wallet getting taken out of her car, but perhaps unbeknownst to me I live in a high crime area.

    I am awoman living alone, and I have no fear for my well being whatsoever. Perhaps I'm an idiot, or perhaps I have a realistic view of my odds of being the victem of a violent criome.

    Parent

    So let's lynch the pathetic figure. (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Jack203 on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 10:15:34 PM EST
    "Once again, GZ comes across as a pathetic figure, it is his actions that created this mess."

    Sometimes bad things happen in full out fights.  17 year olds often don't realize this.  They watch MMA.  School yard fist fights rarely turn into anything serious.  Many 17 year olds also think they are going to live forever. I sure did. Hey I can drive 90 MPH in the rain, I'll be fine.

    Adult fights 25+ are not quite so innocent.  People die everyday in bar fights.  It is much more likely something really bad will happen when there are no teachers or friends to break up a serious fight.

    I'm not sure I believe GZ that TM went for the gun or said you're going to die tonight.  But legally it doesn't even matter as the evidence still screams reasonable doubt.   GZ was without any question taking a pounding, and he didn't know it was going to end.  Trayvon could easily have had a knife or gun in his waist band that TM feigned earlier.  GZ also had a fire arm in his holster that could have easily been taken from him at any moment, and then killed with it.  The fight was such a one-way disaster for GZ, how could he not be fearful that his gun was going to be pulled out and used against him?

    Parent

    If you do not believe Zimmerman (none / 0) (#106)
    by MKS on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 10:53:17 PM EST
    on those points, does that not call into question the other points of Zimmerman's testimony?

    Parent
    Pathetic figures (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by rob411 on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 11:05:50 PM EST

    To me, GZ actions come across as those of a sober adult who's appropriately cautious even while he's being civic-minded.

    OTOH, if George had displayed contempt towards appropriate precautions, had a cavaliar attitude towards violence, mouthed off like a cartoon tough guy, he'd have indeed struck me as a pathetic adult and probably a danger, at least to himself.

    Yes...it'll be interesting...to see how this plays out with the jury

    Parent

    Thanks for the laugh. (3.00 / 2) (#146)
    by IndiDemGirl on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 09:12:26 AM EST
    Sober adult?  Cautious?  Civic minded?   This site has become a refuge for those who have no interest in defense, but only have an interest in defending a man who shot an unarmed black teenager to death for no good reason.  Strange how some of the OBama haters are also the GZ defenders.

    Parent
    Defenders? (none / 0) (#147)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 09:22:31 AM EST
    Strange how some of the OBama haters are also the GZ defenders.

    I think cheerleaders are a better word here. This is a criminal defense site, and what is odd is that many of the crowd that landed here are lock em up types. Arguing the law, and being on the side of the defendant in the hopes that s/he gets a fair trial, is one of the great things that TL provides a base for.

    Cheerleading is qualitatively different, and I believe a better word to describe what you are pointing to.

    Parent

    I have hope that the judge will (none / 0) (#127)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 06:10:13 AM EST
    give the jury instructions so that they will NOT make their decision based on the wrong reasons, as you have.  

    ps.... didn't you have a cheesy movie in the 70s?

    Parent

    which detective? (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 06:29:48 PM EST
    Serino? He didn't even see Zimmerman until hours later at the station house. He didn't arrive at the scene until after Zimmerman had gone, around 8 pm and he didn't meet with Zimmerman until after 11 pm.  

    The EMTS were there and  one that treated Zimmerman (Firefighter EMT Kevin O'Rourke) said (3/24/12 interview with FDLE):

     

    "I know he had, he was covered in a pretty significant amount of blood, I can tell you that. I mean, it took a little while to clean him up....

    When asked what he means by a significant amount of blood, he said,

    It was I would say coverage of face and head, I mean, maybe 45 percent of him was covered in blood. I mean, he had a, he had a substantial amount of dried blood on his cheeks and on the back of his head.

    On his nose:

    We treated him for, urn, he had one or two lacerations on the back of his head and what looked to be a, uh, fractured nose, and we cleaned the, the blood off of his head and face and we treated him best we could, and once the bleeding was under control we left him with the SPD and we backed out of the scene and we went home.

    I think the picture is far better evidence than Serino's opinion. And so long as the evidence on the scope of his injuries is conflicting, it's hard to see how the state disproves self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Zimmerman has no burden of proof once he introduces some evidence of self-defense, which has already been done through other witnesses and reference to his own statements.

    Parent

    Jenna Lauer (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 08:16:25 PM EST
    A woman who knows Zimmerman enough to recognize who he is, testified that, when the police brought her a picture of Zimmerman (taken in the police car, immediately after the incident), she did not recognize him because of the extent of his injuries and amount of blood.

    When MOM asked Lindzee Folgate, the PA who attended to Zimmerman, and testified about the extent of his injuries, "Medically speaking, would you say that whatever he did to stop the attack allowed him to survive it?"

    Folgate: "It could have, yes."

    Today, MOM got Serino to admit that for a self-defense argument, you don't have to have ANY evidence of injuries.

    Serino also testified that Zimmerman was calm, had a flat affect - like someone who experienced trauma, even though he was clearly surprised when they told him that Martin was dead. And Serino testified that when deliberately lied (to get more details to come out) and told Zimmerman that the police had found camera footage of that night, Zimmerman said "Thank God."

    That doesn't sound like someone who thinks they have to concoct a story.

    Parent

    O'Mara makes it (none / 0) (#60)
    by John Shaft on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 06:51:34 PM EST
    quite clear that he regards Serino as a seasoned detective who knows his job. Especially as he hammered away at the idea of the "challenge" interview of GZ, which Serino describes as mild.
    Serino was almost dismissive of GZ's injuries. The detective even made some comment about how in his career he had seen a lot of life threatening injuries & GZ did not appear to have any.
    It was one of the few times O'Mara seemed a bit flummoxed.


    Parent
    then we were watching different trials (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 12:38:14 AM EST
    I did not see what you see. O'Mara cleverly embraced Serino and Singleton rather than use a confrontational style, not out of respect for them but to make it easier to elicit answers that support the defense case.

    He got them to agree that Zimmerman's statements contained no significant inconsistencies, that GZ didn't display anger, hostility, ill will or hatred. Serino even acknowledged that GZ's calm demeanor might have been the result of the injuries and trauma he sustained.

    Serino also said he got to the scene at 8pm and didn't even see GZ until his midnight interview of him when he had been cleaned up.

    Once again, it is not necessary for GZ's injuries to be life-threatening. That simply is not the law. We have cited it, quoted it, linked to it dozens of times.

    Serino was with GZ for all of 5 minutes on Feb. 26, from 12:05 am to 12:10 am. He said he was not really concerned with GZ that night, his main focus was on getting Martin identified. He did not dispute the photographs of GZ's injuries shown to him by O'Mara.

    Parent

    Did you see even watch Serino's whole testimony? (none / 0) (#121)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 12:47:09 AM EST
    Last question to Serino:

    bq.. O'Mara: "Do YOU think George Zimmerman was telling you the truth?"

    Serino: "Yes."

    What a note for the jury to end on for the night.

    No need to take my word for it. See here.

    Parent

    That's the sort of question (none / 0) (#124)
    by f2000 on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 01:26:48 AM EST
    I would think an attorney would love to end a witness on and that redirect or recross would usually try hard to diminish. I don't know how planned out it was to end on that question, but leaving that answer uncontested in the minds of the jurors for 16 hours is probably worth stopping by for a rewarding ice cream cone on the way home.

    Parent
    The State (none / 0) (#174)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 12:57:52 PM EST
    filed a motion to have that statement struck from the record. Judge Nelson granted that motion, but oddly enough, they played the tape again in court and then told the jury to ignore that.

    Seems pretty dumb - they heard it last night and got to sleep on it.  Then they heard it again and were told to ignore it.  It's kind of like telling someone NOT to think of pink elephants, right?

    Parent

    All of the opinion evidence (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 01:00:30 PM EST
    or what the state of mind of the detectives was seems inadmissible to me.

    Parent
    Jeralyn: (none / 0) (#125)
    by John Shaft on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 01:54:31 AM EST
    I resemble that remark. I am kicking myself for wasting a fourth of July week vacation day watching the testimony.
    Towards the end of the day O'Mara was asking Serino if he saw the photos taken at the police station & he even says the jury has seen the photos 3 or 4 times. Serino says yes, & then says something like - However, based on the way, I view these as a major crime investigator, I have seen injuries a lot worse then that, I didn't consider them life-threatening.
    It was the only time I saw O'Mara pause, & then O'Mara adds - we don't need to see life-threatening injuries or something like that.
    It is amazing how different minds process things. It is as though we were watching two different trials.

    Parent
    Serino may have thought the (none / 0) (#131)
    by ding7777 on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 07:27:23 AM EST
    "challenge" interview was mild because as Serino said  "I just didn't have much to challenge him WITH."

    Parent
    Again (1.00 / 0) (#98)
    by Jack203 on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 10:04:12 PM EST
    When the police seriously talk with a suspect,    they are trained to challenge everything.  They are supposed to grill every aspect of the suspect's story.

    The police are trying to trip the suspect up and catch them in inconsistencies.

    The police are allowed to lie and often do. Just because Serino said in the interview GZ's injuries were minor, does not make it the truth.

    Parent

    Serino said that in court today (5.00 / 0) (#107)
    by MKS on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 10:54:00 PM EST


    Parent
    Minor injuries (none / 0) (#117)
    by Char Char Binks on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 12:28:00 AM EST
    About as true as the fight being videotaped.

    Parent
    Exiting now (none / 0) (#63)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 07:00:52 PM EST
    to go watch today's trial testimony. I'll leave the comments to readers.

    By the way, if you don't understand the reasons for the comment policy on this case or other high profile criminal law cases, you can read the extended answer I provided to a blogger who asked me to clarify. I gave him permission to publish it on his blog and he has.

    Recorded testimony (none / 0) (#69)
    by Cylinder on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 07:25:49 PM EST
    Links to today's testimony have been posted to the forum.

    Corey Indicted by Grand Jury (none / 0) (#154)
    by lily on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 10:48:05 AM EST
    link

    Zimmerman Prosecutor Angela Corey Criminally Indicted By Citizens' Grand Jury For Allegedly Falsifying Arrest Warrant And Complaint

    You realize (none / 0) (#155)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 11:07:04 AM EST
    that "indictment" wasn't by a REAL grand jury, don't you?  It's Larry Klayman's group - Freedom Watch.

    Parent
    no I did not (none / 0) (#156)
    by lily on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 11:17:02 AM EST
    too good to be true, I took the link from a poster on Nettles blog.

    I hope the group continues this media strategy because Corey does need to be accountable.

    Parent

    They just played in court (none / 0) (#176)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 01:02:46 PM EST
    Zimmerman's interview with Sean Hannity of Fox News.

    Zimmerman said during the interview that he regretted nothing he did that night.  He did not regret getting out of the truck, did not regret carryin a gun that night, did not regret, apparently, following Martin.

    It was god's will (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 01:32:12 PM EST
    nice play to the Hannity audience.

    Parent
    Even if I thought the person I killed (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by melamineinNY on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 02:31:42 PM EST
    MIGHT have caused me serious bodily injury or death had I not used my gun, I would STILL have regrets that it had been necessary and that it ended in death instead of injury. His unadorned statement sounded cold-blooded to me. But "at least he was honest"?

    Parent
    I find him to be even less sympathetic after (5.00 / 2) (#204)
    by Angel on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 03:14:38 PM EST
    those comments.  He comes across as very cold to me.  

    Parent
    His best friend who (none / 0) (#205)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 03:17:12 PM EST
    testified today was smiling a lot.

    Both this friend and Zimmerman have this habit of shooting their cuffs a lot.    

    Parent

    I wonder how that will sit with the jury. (none / 0) (#177)
    by Angel on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 01:08:03 PM EST


    Parent
    He also said (none / 0) (#178)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 01:09:34 PM EST
    that he was terrified that police would shoot him when they got to the scene.

    Parent
    Why? (none / 0) (#182)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 01:38:57 PM EST


    Parent
    Dunno (none / 0) (#184)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 01:39:52 PM EST


    Parent
    Well, dogs are comon targets and (none / 0) (#203)
    by cboldt on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 03:06:42 PM EST
    He does resemble a Mexican Hairless.

    Parent
    Saw that and thought (none / 0) (#183)
    by Towanda on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 01:38:59 PM EST
    that it was a surprising answer, not one that I would expect from anyone (who isn't a hit man) -- and that the defense will have to defuse that statement.  

    But that would seem to require putting Zimmerman on the stand, so I suppose that the statement will stand unexplained for the jury to interpret.

    Parent

    The medical examiner (none / 0) (#187)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 01:44:15 PM EST
    who reviewed pictures of Zimmerman's injuries on the stand now.

    From what I can read (from a Live Blog - so with those limitations), she sounds terrible.  She wants to keep pushing the, "He MAY have suffered only one blow (but not saying definitively)" theme and that other abrasions on his head are because "his head is shaped that way".  (She's getting this all from looking at pictures, not actually from having examined him).

    Of course, as someone pointed out on another site I was reading, Natasha Richardson walked around for hours and talked after receiving her head injury. Guess hers wasn't really that serious either...

    An independent localTV news station (none / 0) (#188)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 01:53:23 PM EST
    A Post-Newsweek station, sometimes affiliated with CNN and the WaPo, did a story on the many complaints this medical examiner has had against her.  MOM touched on some of them.

    Parent
    Zimmerman told Hannity (none / 0) (#189)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 02:05:24 PM EST
    his nose was broken on the first punch.

    The Medical Examiner testimony that Zimmerman had just a limited number of blows would be consistent with a one punch breaking of the nose.....

    Parent

    She also said (none / 0) (#191)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 02:07:14 PM EST
    Zimmerman could have hit the concrete with the back of his head 4 times.

    And, at some point, MOM asked her:

    "You understand that extent of injuries in this case has nothing to do with case itself?"

    Parent

    I like O'Mara very much (none / 0) (#190)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 02:06:23 PM EST
    but the Medical Examiner is giving him fits.

    Parent
    She certainly is attempting to resist (none / 0) (#193)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 02:13:36 PM EST
    the Zen master mind meld more than some of the other witnesses.

    Lots of testimony about what is consistent, what is possbile, etc. I can't see the pictures, only an audio stream.

    Parent

    I justt learned she is only offering (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 02:15:07 PM EST
    opinions based on pictures? Seems like a waste of time to me.

    Parent
    Does the Defense have a medical expert who (none / 0) (#200)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 02:38:38 PM EST
    can testify about having personally examined Zimmerman before his injuries healed?

    Parent
    State now trying to bring in education experience (none / 0) (#198)
    by Angel on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 02:30:12 PM EST
    and classwork of GZ to show he understood legalities of SYG, and had past interest in becoming involved in police work.  

    Criminal investigation and criminal litigation (none / 0) (#201)
    by Angel on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 02:43:48 PM EST
    coursework that GZ completed - will it be allowed in testimony? State says it is relevant to GZ's statement on Hannity that he didn't know the SYG law.  Defense says otherwise.  Judge hearing their comments now.

    Parent
    I'm confused (none / 0) (#208)
    by Teresa on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 03:46:34 PM EST
    He's not claiming SYG, but self-defense, I thought? Did MOM say the SYG isn't in the book, but was a lecture by the prof? I was distracted by a texting kid and missed some of that.

    Help me (none / 0) (#209)
    by John Shaft on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 04:09:34 PM EST
    understand how GZ was first informed that the suspect was dead by Singleton, who then had the God talk w/ GZ.
    TM's body was not placed in an ambulance & rushed to the hospital; when EMS arrived they placed a heart monitor on him & he had no pulse. The EMT then attends to GZ, who is in the back of a police car.
    GZ had just shot someone in the chest at point blank range & there is no ambulance rushing the wounded person to the hospital. Wasn't TM's body covered w/ something & later he was taken directly to the morgue.
    Did GZ think he had just grazed him?
    Thank you.

    Question about lesser charges (none / 0) (#210)
    by skepticalsports on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 04:25:10 PM EST
    Assume that the prosecution will be unable to prove Murder-2 beyond a reasonable doubt. At this point, we don't know what the jury instructions will be w/r/t lesser charges like Manslaughter, etc.

    My question is, if you believe that the prosecution has failed to prove its version of the encounter---that Zimmerman was the aggressor, Martin was the one screaming, etc---but you believed (BARD) that Zimmerman was following Martin, unfairly profiled him, and even exaggerated/altered his story in a number of ways, is there any specific crime that he could be found guilty of?

    In other words, if the core self-defense claim can't be disproved by the prosecution, is there anything left or not? Would that failure also protect Zimmerman from a manslaughter conviction? Is something like obstruction still on the table?

    Just curious what you who obviously know more about defense law than I do think.

    Angel, I went to read in forum (none / 0) (#212)
    by Teresa on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 04:42:44 PM EST
    A lawyer there said in FL law there's really no difference in SYG vs self-defense, so that might be why she'll alow it.

    ty for trying to catch me up!

    John Shaft - comment #209 (none / 0) (#214)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 04:48:16 PM EST
    1. Zimmerman said in his statement that after he shot Martin, Martin sat up and fell off of him, so that's when he got on top of Martin and held his arms out (or away from his body) so Martin could not get the gun. Assuming that this is true, that would show that he didn't think Martin was seriously wounded or dead at that time.

    2. I think someone having just suffered a trauma might be in shock and not completely aware of all the events taking place around him.


    This thread is now closed (none / 0) (#216)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 03:32:35 AM EST
    Our threads close at 200 comments.

    Week Two of Testimony in George Zimmerman Trial | 209 comments (209 topical)