State v Zimmerman

[Coito ergo sum]

10. Part of an exchange of words is heard by M's girlfriend on the phone and she testifies to M calling Z a creepy ass cracker and to Z asking M "what are you doing around here?" or words to that effect.

I believe the "creepy ass cracker" comment was made from Martin to his girlfriend, not Martin to Zimmerman.

Yes. Correct.

She also testified that she could not tell from what she heard on the phone who initiated the fight. More reasonable doubt.

11. Fight ensues. We do not know who started it.

We know that it started with a blow hard enough to be audible to the girlfriend over the phone. We know that Martin had no injuries except for a minor abrasion on one hand consistent with punching someone and the gunshot wound. The facts do not seem consistent with Zimmerman starting the fight; if the initial blow had been Zimmerman's, there ought to have been a bruise on Martin somewhere.

Correct.

we don't know "for sure" who started, but there is certainly evidence to conclude that Martin started it. Wouldn't convict Martin "beyond a reasonable doubt" either, but it's enough to create reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did it.

[Coito ergo sum]

O.k. so the Department of Justice is "looking into" bringing Civil Rights claims against Zimmerman (not yet specified -- but would have to be some sort of bias or hate crime thing).

And, we have to wonder if the Martins will bring a wrongful death suit against Zimmerman.

Any thoughts?

[Tero]

A typical jury will have say 5 decided and one hold out. It may easily take 16 hours to convince that prson that another judge and another jury will spend 3 more weeks with this circus.

It is hard to believe that Z was such an inept security dude that he could not find out who M was, even with that gun in his waist. But I do believe he was that dumb, rather than a play acting executioner.

[Coito ergo sum]

Angela Corey, the special prosecutor appointed by Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) to investigate the death of Trayvon Martin, and who charged George Zimmerman (now acquitted) with second-degree murder, fired a whistleblower Friday who revealed that prosecutors had not turned over exculpatory evidence to the defense, the Florida Times-Union reported.
Ben Kruidbos, the information technology director in Corey's office, had testified in a pre-trial hearing about a report he had created regarding text messages and images retrieved from Martin's cellphone. Defense lawyers never received the report from the prosecution, as is required by law

. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... stleblower So -- the guy who disclosed that the prosecutor's office was withholding evidence is fired one day after the trial is over.... these fucking people, man. Folks -- tread lightly in Florida. These prosecutors want defendants in jail, regardless of the truth and regardless of how they do it.

A hand-delivered letter informing him of his dismissal indicated that he "can never again be trusted to step foot in this office," and cited a variety of reasons for his firing, unrelated to the trial.
Corey's conduct had been questioned from the start, when she made the dramatic announcement that her office would be charging Zimmerman with murder. The affidavit that she filed with the court had omitted exculpatory evidence of Zimmerman's injuries, prompting Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz to accuse her of a "grave ethical violation," adding that her conduct was "not only immoral, but stupid."

This Corey is the lady who prosecuted a 12 year old "as an adult."


http://www.mediaite.com/tv/megyn-kelly- ... s-a-crime/ “This affidavit,” he said, “submitted by the prosecutor in the Florida case is a crime. It’s a crime. If she in fact knew about ABC News’ pictures of the bloody head of Zimmerman and failed to include that in the affidavit, this affidavit is not the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”

[laklak]

O.k. so the Department of Justice is "looking into" bringing Civil Rights claims against Zimmerman (not yet specified -- but would have to be some sort of bias or hate crime thing).

And, we have to wonder if the Martins will bring a wrongful death suit against Zimmerman.

Any thoughts?

I think they'll have a problem with a civil rights case, since he did nothing illegal and was apparently physically attacked. Doesn't mean they won't try, though.

I can't find information of civil indemnity in a self-defense case. I know that under Castle doctrine and SYG you are indemnified against civil suit if you shoot someone in your home, but I don't know if that applies to this situation.

[mistermack]

A typical jury will have say 5 decided and one hold out. It may easily take 16 hours to convince that prson that another judge and another jury will spend 3 more weeks with this circus.

It is hard to believe that Z was such an inept security dude that he could not find out who M was, even with that gun in his waist. But I do believe he was that dumb, rather than a play acting executioner.

So you do believe that he was screaming out of genuine fear? A thirty year-old ex-bouncer fighting a 17 year old kid?
You really believe that?

[Coito ergo sum]

A typical jury will have say 5 decided and one hold out. It may easily take 16 hours to convince that prson that another judge and another jury will spend 3 more weeks with this circus.

It is hard to believe that Z was such an inept security dude that he could not find out who M was, even with that gun in his waist. But I do believe he was that dumb, rather than a play acting executioner.

So you do believe that he was screaming out of genuine fear? A thirty year-old ex-bouncer fighting a 17 year old kid?
You really believe that?

Do you think it is plausible?

[Tero]

A typical jury will have say 5 decided and one hold out. It may easily take 16 hours to convince that prson that another judge and another jury will spend 3 more weeks with this circus.

It is hard to believe that Z was such an inept security dude that he could not find out who M was, even with that gun in his waist. But I do believe he was that dumb, rather than a play acting executioner.

So you do believe that he was screaming out of genuine fear? A thirty year-old ex-bouncer fighting a 17 year old kid?
You really believe that?

What started as a blunder may well have ENDED with play acting.

[mistermack]

Do you think it is plausible?

Only in Seth's case. Not for normal people.

I worked in a rough bar once, and was handed a pint glass, well over half full of blood, following a fight.
The person who had been glassed was still wandering around, saying, "where is he? I'll fuckin kill im".

There were big fights, ever thursday, friday, and saturday nights. Never EVER heard a man scream. And that includes people who had bits bitten off.

[Coito ergo sum]

Do you think it is plausible?

Only in Seth's case. Not for normal people.

So, you don't think that it is plausible for a 17 year old high school football player to get the upper hand on a 5' 7" guy 10 years older than him? You have no reasonable doubt on that point?

I worked in a rough bar once, and was handed a pint glass, well over half full of blood, following a fight.
The person who had been glassed was still wandering around, saying, "where is he? I'll fuckin kill im".

There were big fights, ever thursday, friday, and saturday nights. Never EVER heard a man scream. And that includes people who had bits bitten off.

So, then to you it is not even plausible that a 17 year old would get the drop on a shorter, less physically fit man 10+ years his senior and that the older man would scream for help as he is being beaten "ground and pound" style?

Not even plausible?

Isn't it plausible to you that Zimmerman just isn't as tough as your bar ruffians who reveled in weekend donnybrooks? You don't know of men who could be beaten up by 17 year olds? You don't know of men who would cry out? You think they exist in such small numbers, if at all, that there is no reasonable doubt that Zimmerman is not among them?

[Coito ergo sum]

A typical jury will have say 5 decided and one hold out. It may easily take 16 hours to convince that prson that another judge and another jury will spend 3 more weeks with this circus.

It is hard to believe that Z was such an inept security dude that he could not find out who M was, even with that gun in his waist. But I do believe he was that dumb, rather than a play acting executioner.

So you do believe that he was screaming out of genuine fear? A thirty year-old ex-bouncer fighting a 17 year old kid?
You really believe that?

What started as a blunder may well have ENDED with play acting.

Maybe. And, Martin may well have been a local ruffian, bent on getting into scrapes, hoping to find homes to rob, who saw Zimmerman in his truck, zipped away to get behind some cover and then circled back to jump Zimmerman from a more advantageous position.

[Daedalus]

You may be right about that theory, but if so it was all perfectly executed and in part a result of Martin's willingness to "play along" with Zimmerman's scenario. Zimmerman would also have to be confident that the person he'd accost would not rapidly incapacitate him, he'd have to keep a VERY cool head during a beating, and he'd have have been utterly confident that Martin had no gun or knife.

That's a LOT of assumption and a lot to be cut away by Occam's trusty razor. More likely he wanted to be a hero as you say, but not by killing someone, just by catching them. He wanted to play cop, not play assassin. He thought he'd intimidate someone, get them arrested, and be welcomed by cops with open arms. Martin reacted in an understandable, if unfortunately illegal way, and attacked him. What followed, followed, and led to the creation of a reasonable doubt for a jury.

Zimmerman had no business doing what he did, but Martin really fucked up by turning this into a physical confrontation. If he hadn't, the cops would have shown up, and Zimmerman would have been cited by them for what amounts to stalking behavior. In fact had he ever done something like this before, and later killed under similar circumstances, I would suspect he'd be convicted.

Finally, there was no intruder, what are you talking about?

You are making the mistake of taking Zimmerman's word as the truth. There's no evidence that Martin attacked him. Why do you believe Zimmerman? Martin's last reported words were, "why are you following me?"
Not normally something you say, when you jump someone from behind.

There is no evidence that Martin was struck, and no other evidence to contradict Zimmerman's story. Again, if he did manage to strike Martin without leaving a mark, it's another sign of his hyper-competence. I don't buy that.

You say Martin fucked up. No evidence for that. What would anybody do, if someone chased them and grabbed them in the dark?
See, I can make the opposite assumption, about who jumped who. It's easy.

You say grabbed, but again there is no evidence of that. As for chased... I'd run, and keep running. I would also call 911. I'd knock on a door and ask for help, or duck into a store. Pretty much anything other than confronting someone I thought was tailing me.

[The biggest piece of evidence for Zimmerman's intentions, is his ludicrous screaming. I've seen lots of fights, and never ever witnessed anything like it. People indoors could clearly hear it. And Zimmerman is an ex-bouncer fighting a young kid.

Speculation isn't evidence, rather evidence supports speculation. You have only speculation.

The prosecution never used it, never went with premeditation on Zimmerman's part at all. And thats why I believe that they weren't really trying.

What intruder? It's just a word. Zimmerman reported a suspicious prowler in a gated community. Whether he thought that it was a resident or an intruder doesn't really matter.

He never went with it because there is literally NO evidence of it. it's a court, not a court-room drama.

[Warren Dew]

All the prosecution did was succeed in putting on a plausible case suggesting that Zimmerman was not acting in self defense.

I must have missed this. What was the scenario again? To me it seemed like the prosecution was trying to paint Zimmerman as someone who went out with a gun to bag himself a kill, which isn't at all plausible.

[Daedalus]

All the prosecution did was succeed in putting on a plausible case suggesting that Zimmerman was not acting in self defense.

I must have missed this. What was the scenario again? To me it seemed like the prosecution was trying to paint Zimmerman as someone who went out with a gun to bag himself a kill, which isn't at all plausible.

It is plausible, but there is no evidence to support it. Big difference.

[Coito ergo sum]

All the prosecution did was succeed in putting on a plausible case suggesting that Zimmerman was not acting in self defense.

I must have missed this. What was the scenario again? To me it seemed like the prosecution was trying to paint Zimmerman as someone who went out with a gun to bag himself a kill, which isn't at all plausible.

They claimed he followed Martin after having "profiled" him and then a struggle ensued and Zimmerman shot Martin. They claimed it was not in self defense. One might find the prosecution's story "plausible" (I don't, but one might, especially if one makes a large number of assumptions and permissible but not necessary conclusions), but that doesn't mean Zimmerman's story was not also plausible. All Zimmerman's defense has to be is plausible. It doesn't have to be probable.