OFFICIAL: George Zimmerman Trial Thread Week 2

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by DaveFla, Jul 1, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. DaveFla
    Offline

    DaveFla Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    18,375
    Likes Received:
    149
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +979
    OK, folks. You're on you own. I was on vacation last week, and was able to watch much of the trial, and keep you informed. It's back to work for me today, and won't be able to watch.

    I will have to rely on you to keep posted on what has transpired in the trial.
  2. 92gator
    Offline

    92gator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    6,065
    Likes Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,061
    I'd like to start out where the last one ended:

    That's a hell of a point, Bill.
  3. 92gator
    Offline

    92gator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    6,065
    Likes Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,061
    ^^^follow up on Bill's point:

    Nor does it make much sense that someone with a firearm would gratuitously engage a stranger whom he deems a threat, in a physical altercation--that is, initiate the altercation--without brandishing the firearm, in order to keep the threat at bay.

    Your point makes Z'man's version, much more plausible--and the state's, much less.

    IMHO.
  4. jimgata
    Offline

    jimgata Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    8,897
    Likes Received:
    198
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +1,077
    Can anyone explain this?
    The judge did not allow Zimmerman's mother and father in court because they MAY be potential witnesses, yet they allowed Trayvons parents in court. This morning there is talk of Trayvon's mother being a witness. What gives? If she is allowed to testify, shouldn't that be grounds to show bias by the court?
  5. QGator2414
    Offline

    QGator2414 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    12,795
    Likes Received:
    155
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Ocala
    Ratings Received:
    +573
    I have caught some pieces and I guess the big news so far is that the prosecution called one of the defenses witnesses.

    I don't see the big deal but some are saying it may help the prosecution strategy wise. But from an evidence side the witness seems to show the state still has no case.
  6. jmoliver
    Offline

    jmoliver Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    1,836
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Ratings Received:
    +102
    Can’t keep the parents of the deceased out of the courtroom.
  7. philip214
    Offline

    philip214 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2009
    Messages:
    2,439
    Likes Received:
    266
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,149
    Although you can never tell what a jury will do or what they are thinking, this appears to be a pretty easy case. This may be yet another example of the prosecution overcharging and letting someone walk free.

    I am no expert at interpreting the law, but the main question to me is can it be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman's life was not in danger and he used unnecessary deadly force. Given the pictures of GZ's dome taken that night, and testimony saying TM was on top with flailing arms, and GZ's back was wetter than his front---reasonable doubt is there. In fact, it appears to be the most likely scenario that GZ was taking a beating and his life was threatened. Pretty easy case. This is not to say that GZ's stalking and essentially hunting down this teenager is not morally reprehensible, but I don't see how he is charged with murder with the law as it is in Florida.

    Were there lesser charges that could have been brought up and gotten Zimmerman some jail time? I just do not see how the state brought this case and thought they had any chance of winning it. To me, this is professional malpractice and a waste of time and resources.
  8. QGator2414
    Offline

    QGator2414 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    12,795
    Likes Received:
    155
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Ocala
    Ratings Received:
    +573
    The prosecution is using the witness to say the "best" way to determine a voice recognition by a scream is by someone who knows that persons voice.

    The defense is using the witness to show there is no way to prove who is screaming.

    The witness has said the best way is for someone who knows the person (no duh if you ask me) but there is no way to determine whose voice is screaming for help with current voice recognition technology...
  9. 92gator
    Offline

    92gator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    6,065
    Likes Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,061

    Playing :devil:devil's ad,:devil: for a moment....

    The evidence does show that someone was killed by the hand of another. The state can prove beyond and to the exclusion of any reasonable doubt, who did it, when he did it, where he did it, and, for the most part, how--(discharge of the perp's firearm). Further, there seems little question that Z'man intended to discharge the firearm, and that he intended that the bullet should strike the victim--and naturally, little question as to the foreseeabilty of the resulting death.

    This amounts to a prima facie case for murder (i.e.--if proven, and uncontested, conviction would presumably follow); perhaps/arguably even murder one.

    ...and it therefore requires the Defendant to raise and establish, an affirmative defense.

    Hence the murder charge isn't really 'fabricated out of whole cloth'; it's just not a very well calculated analysis of the affirmative defense--i.e.--the end game.

    The defense has raised a very plausible AD, which is corroborated by much of the evidence--and the state seems ill-prepared to rehabilitate it's prima facie case, to overcome the AD's.

    (Just some additional perspective).
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2013
  10. philip214
    Offline

    philip214 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2009
    Messages:
    2,439
    Likes Received:
    266
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,149
    Appreciate your perspective.

    I don't know if he intended to use the gun or not. Obviously, he ended up using it. The biggest issue here is that there is a stand your ground law in Florida (without it, as you pointed out--this is an easy case in the other direction) and with the evidence out there (pictures of a battered GZ, testimony from a seemingly credible eye witness saying GZ was on bottom and TM on top and flailing his arms, GZ calling 911 before the altercation, apparently telling the police officer in the patrol car that he had been asking for help but no one helped him, GZ's back was wetter than his front according to police), it would seem the preponderance of the evidence shows his life was threatened. I have not seen much from the State to suggest otherwise. It's one thing to have minor scratches, bumps and bruises, and another to have a busted nose, and several lacerations to the back and side of your head. It appears the State has no case especially considering most of their presentation and witnesses favor the defense. It's one thing to have a debate, but there is nothing to debate here so far. The State brought these charges, knowing there is a stand your ground law in Florida, and with little to no evidence supporting their case, on the other hand there is plenty of evidence where a reasonable person could concluded GZ's life was being threatened. Seems like a waste of time and resources so far.

    Were there lesser charges to get GZ on?
  11. MichiGator2002
    Offline

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    16,175
    Likes Received:
    496
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +2,332
    The only lesser charge I'm aware of is manslaughter. Florida has a mushy, catchall manslaughter statute, but in common law terms, voluntary manslaughter seems most likely to what they'd want, the provocation being the physical altercation between them. Don't think he's charged with any other crimes that would put him within the reach of misdemeanor-manslaughter or something -- isn't the entire information 2nd degree murder and manslaughter?

    Right now, I think he's fairly likely to walk out of court, unless the state has some real stemwinder of a case to put on the next week or so. The jury may want a compromise verdict of manslaughter, but I'd think a judge might set aside if they try.

    In all seriousness, a week into the case I'm almost inclined to think Sanford PD has been dealt with unfairly in all this. Still subject to change, though.
  12. 92gator
    Offline

    92gator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    6,065
    Likes Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,061
    I could be mistaken here, so anyone may feel free to correct me--but I believe 'stand your ground' was denied, and they're just going with self-defense.

    Your points are well taken (re. the beating on the head, etc)--but it's not dispositive. e.g.--if GZ stalked TM, and TM whiped the mat with him, that doesn't give GZ a pass to kill him, nor does it necessarily amount to self-defense. You can't start beating the crap out of guy, then, just because he starts kick'n your ass, shoot him, and claim self-defense. (I mean you could, but it wouldn't be very convincing).

    But if TM hunted GZ down, then self-defense is far more compelling--b/c now GZ has reasonable grounds to fear for his life. That's why I was saying Bill's observation at the top, is so solid. Because in order to believe that GZ stalked TM, you ahve to believe that he wanted to enagege the guy in an altercation, without using his gun--knowing full well, that he had it.

    But if TM hunted down GZ, it makes more sense that he didn't have time to get his gun out, until he was already being assailed.

    Hence, as I see it, it's not so much who won teh fight, as who initiated it (and Bill's observation leans heavily in favor of TM being the initiator. IMHO).
  13. CHFG8R
    Offline

    CHFG8R Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    6,744
    Likes Received:
    316
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    St. Augustine, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,373
    At this point, the most I could see him actually being guilty of is something along the lines of reckless endangerment. Would that fit under Manslaughter?
  14. Shade45
    Offline

    Shade45 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    18,350
    Likes Received:
    275
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +917
    Does the jury have the manslaughter option on the table?
  15. MichiGator2002
    Offline

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    16,175
    Likes Received:
    496
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +2,332
    I am going by what LD said on the first thread, that that will be included in the jury instructions.

    I don't think there really is a reckless endangerment law as such in Florida, but I may be wrong. Not an attorney, just know enough to be dangerous.
  16. GatorGrowl
    Offline

    GatorGrowl Forum Admin Staff Member GC Staff VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2012
    Messages:
    319,975
    Likes Received:
    1,934
    Trophy Points:
    464
    Location:
    Jacksonville
    Ratings Received:
    +4,369
    Zimmerman's parents are on the defenses witness list and this cannot hear testimony before they themselves finish testifying.
  17. Shade45
    Offline

    Shade45 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    18,350
    Likes Received:
    275
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +917
    jimgata,

    Also, the first day of the trial the judge said the law stated parents of the minor victim could be present if they choose.

    Something similar to that.
  18. g8tr80
    Offline

    g8tr80 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    7,408
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +993
    A couple of points. I believe the defense waived the "stand your ground" law. They are claiming old fashion self-defense.

    I don't think GZ ever called 911. He used another number, but not 911.

    As far as the following and hunting down everbody talks about. If you are part of the neighborhood watch, are you not supposed to be....well.....watching?
  19. uftaipan
    Offline

    uftaipan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    Messages:
    4,323
    Likes Received:
    322
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Ratings Received:
    +1,609
    Anything new or interesting happening today? It seems like the discussion is going over old ground.
  20. GatorBen
    Offline

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    6,880
    Likes Received:
    450
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,916
    Witness right now is the Sanford PD Investigator that took his initial interview.

    Said he didn't appear to know Trayvon was dead when they were doing their interview, he dropped his head into his hands and shook it when she told him.

    Also said he noticed her cross necklace and asked her if she was Catholic, she said no but she was Christian, and he told her that in the Catholic faith they were taught that all killing was wrong and he appeared to be in distress, and that she told him that if what he had told her was true he was protecting his life and didn't have a choice and that she didn't think that's what God meant when he said not to kill.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page