Zimmerman Trial

215 posts / 0 new
Last post
GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116
Zimmerman Trial

What are your thoughts after hearing the opening statements? Based on what they opened with do you think the prosecution will be able to prove 2nd degree murder?

Defense attorney: Sorry for knock-knock joke | HLNtv.com

Jurors hear F-bomb, knock-knock joke as George Zimmerman murder trial begins | Fox News

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4100

Yep!

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

Yes.

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1686

Can someone please explain the knock knock joke to me?

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

The defense attorney was using that so those that said "Zimmerman who?" would look like they have never heard of him. A really bad joke to show that they've never heard of who he is and are not swayed in their opinions.

It was bad. Really bad.

My explanation was probably worse.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

I think there is a little wishful thinking going on. I don't see how they will possibly be able to prove 2nd degree murder.

So what is second degree murder?

Florida's jury instructions (which are based on the Florida statute) spell out three elements that prosecutors must prove to establish second degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt:
•The victim is deceased,
•The victim's death was caused by the defendant's criminal act, and
•There was an unlawful killing of the victim "by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life."

The last element -- an "imminently dangerous" act that shows a "depraved mind" -- is further defined by Florida's jury instructions. Three elements must be present:
•A "person of ordinary judgment" would know the act, or series of acts, "is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another";
•The act is "done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent"; and
•The act is "of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life."

George Zimmerman Arrested for 2nd Degree Murder - FindLaw Blotter

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1686

Does his charge include lesser inclusive charges? For example, could they still find him guilty of manslaughter?

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4100

Florida's jury instructions (which are based on the Florida statute) spell out three elements that prosecutors must prove to establish second degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt:
•The victim is deceased,
•The victim's death was caused by the defendant's criminal act, and
•There was an unlawful killing of the victim "by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life."

The last element -- an "imminently dangerous" act that shows a "depraved mind" -- is further defined by Florida's jury instructions. Three elements must be present:
•A "person of ordinary judgment" would know the act, or series of acts, "is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another";
•The act is "done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent"; and
•The act is "of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life."

1. Any person of ordinary judgment knows that shooting a gun point-blank at another human being *is* going to kill that person.
2. Stalking and chasing an unarmed citizen -- someone who has a right to be in the neighborhood -- because he happens to be black and wearing a hoodie, and especially when you know the cops are on their way, reeks of nothing but ill will, hated, and evil intent.
3. Both of the above strongly indicate that Mr. Zimmerman had an indifference to Mr. Martin's human life.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

Does his charge include lesser inclusive charges? For example, could they still find him guilty of manslaughter?

No

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Spacers" wrote:

1. Any person of ordinary judgment knows that shooting a gun point-blank at another human being *is* going to kill that person.
2. Stalking and chasing an unarmed citizen -- someone who has a right to be in the neighborhood -- because he happens to be black and wearing a hoodie, and especially when you know the cops are on their way, reeks of nothing but ill will, hated, and evil intent.
3. Both of the above strongly indicate that Mr. Zimmerman had an indifference to Mr. Martin's human life.

And you really think they are going to be able to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt?

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

Does his charge include lesser inclusive charges? For example, could they still find him guilty of manslaughter?

Yes, it absolutely and inherently includes lesser charges and yes, he can most definitely be convicted of manslaughter or plead to manslaughter.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"ClairesMommy" wrote:

Yes, it absolutely and inherently includes lesser charges and yes, he can most definitely be convicted of manslaughter or plead to manslaughter.

Not as it stands at this point. The prosecutor would have to request the judge to allow the jury to consider lesser charges, and the judge has to grant it. The jury can't just decide to convict him of a lesser charge.

Mr. Weiner suggested that the prosecutor might have “overcharged” to retain the option, should she feel a murder conviction is slipping away, of asking the judge to instruct the jury to consider lesser offenses, like manslaughter. It is also possible, he said, that she might be trying to coax Mr. Zimmerman to the negotiating table to plead guilty to such a lesser charge. But, he added, it is impossible to say whether it is overly tough, since evidence has not yet been produced.

The case will almost certainly include a pretrial hearing to determine whether the state’s Stand Your Ground law, which grants broad protections to people who claim to have killed in self-defense, applies; if the judge finds that Mr. Zimmerman acted appropriately, the case will end there. If the judge decides that the protections of the law do not apply, the case will go forward.

At trial, however, the question of self-defense can be brought up again and possibly will, said Robert Weisberg, a criminal law expert at Stanford Law School. That could lead to a fallback position for the jury — if allowed by the judge — of a lesser verdict of manslaughter should the jury decide that Mr. Zimmerman sincerely but unreasonably believed that he was appropriately using lethal force to defend himself, which is known as “imperfect self-defense.”

Either side in the case could request that the judge instruct the jury to consider that middle ground, and if the evidence supports such a finding the judge will in almost all cases comply, Professor Weisberg said. A confident prosecutor may not want to risk missing the toughest conviction, however, and a confident defense lawyer may not want to risk giving the jurors a lesser charge that they can choose instead of acquittal. And so, he said, the question may come down to, “Who’s feeling lucky?”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/12/us/zimmerman-faces-second-degree-murder-charge-in-florida.html?_r=0

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4100

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

And you really think they are going to be able to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt?

Yes, I do. And if the jury finds otherwise, then black people everywhere, and especially in Florida, should be very, very scared about simply living their daily lives, because what Mr. Zimmerman did is no better than the KKK hanging people in the 1900s for being the wrong color in the wrong place. If he is acquitted, there should be outrage in the streets because that is NOT how one American should get away with treating another in 2013. Even in Florida. Even wearing a hoodie.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Spacers" wrote:

Yes, I do. And if the jury finds otherwise, then black people everywhere, and especially in Florida, should be very, very scared about simply living their daily lives, because what Mr. Zimmerman did is no better than the KKK hanging people in the 1900s for being the wrong color in the wrong place. If he is acquitted, there should be outrage in the streets because that is NOT how one American should get away with treating another in 2013. Even in Florida. Even wearing a hoodie.

Wow. I guess we can expect riots then if others have that attitude because there is no way they are going to be able to prove 2nd degree murder when Zimmerman is the one that was beaten up. In order to prove it they would have to prove that Zimmerman was the one that attacked first, and they have absolutely no evidence to prove that, even if it was true.

mom3girls's picture
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1535

I really think 2nd degree will be very hard to prove. If they can lessen it to voluntary manslaughter I think they will get a conviction

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1686

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Not as it stands at this point. The prosecutor would have to request the judge to allow the jury to consider lesser charges, and the judge has to grant it. The jury can't just decide to convict him of a lesser charge.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/12/us/zimmerman-faces-second-degree-murder-charge-in-florida.html?_r=0

Guess I should have googled it before asking. From all of the stuff I read, lesser charges are automatically included in the charge. The prosecution or defense can request the jury be instructed on it, but it doesn't look like the option is off the table. Technically, if it wasn't included neither side could request the jury consider it. In other words, the prosecution would have to charge a defendant with every possible outcome - 2nd degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter. It wouldn't make sense for the prosecution to argue every possible outcome and if the defendant is found guilty of murder 1, he would also be convicted of murder 2, manslaughter, etc. KWIM?

Which leads me to another question...if his only outcome was guilty or not guilty of 2nd degree murder and it didn't include any lesser charges, couldn't he technically then be charged with voluntary manslaughter since he wouldn't be tried for the same crime twice following a not guilty verdict? If a not guilty verdict is returned, couldn't they then charge him with involuntary manslaughter and keep charging him with lesser charges until they get a guilty verdict or until a jury acquits him of a dozen different charges? Returning a not guilty verdict on 2nd degree murder and included lesser charges ends it right there.

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1686

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Wow. I guess we can expect riots then if others have that attitude because there is no way they are going to be able to prove 2nd degree murder when Zimmerman is the one that was beaten up. In order to prove it they would have to prove that Zimmerman was the one that attacked first, and they have absolutely no evidence to prove that, even if it was true.

See, this is what bothers me. If I think someone is following me and I am in danger, why can't I strike first? There was a case in San Diego where a woman was jogging and felt the presence of someone getting closer and elbowed him in the nose. I just can't see how if he fought her that *he* would be the one who could claim self-defense. Why do I have to wait until I'm attacked to use force in a place where I have a legal right to be?

mom3girls's picture
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1535

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

Guess I should have googled it before asking. From all of the stuff I read, lesser charges are automatically included in the charge. The prosecution or defense can request the jury be instructed on it, but it doesn't look like the option is off the table. Technically, if it wasn't included neither side could request the jury consider it. In other words, the prosecution would have to charge a defendant with every possible outcome - 2nd degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter. It wouldn't make sense for the prosecution to argue every possible outcome and if the defendant is found guilty of murder 1, he would also be convicted of murder 2, manslaughter, etc. KWIM?

Which leads me to another question...if his only outcome was guilty or not guilty of 2nd degree murder and it didn't include any lesser charges, couldn't he technically then be charged with voluntary manslaughter since he wouldn't be tried for the same crime twice following a not guilty verdict? If a not guilty verdict is returned, couldn't they then charge him with involuntary manslaughter and keep charging him with lesser charges until they get a guilty verdict or until a jury acquits him of a dozen different charges? Returning a not guilty verdict on 2nd degree murder and included lesser charges ends it right there.

No, they cannot try him for any other crime if it comes back with a not guilty verdict as jeopardy would apply

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1686

"mom3girls" wrote:

No, they cannot try him for any other crime if it comes back with a not guilty verdict as jeopardy would apply

That's my point - it includes the lesser charges.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

That's my point - it includes the lesser charges.

The jury cannot decide to convict him on lesser charges unless the prosecution includes that option and the judge allows it. The jury is not allowed to make that decision on their own. At this point that option is NOT included, so it is all or nothing. If the prosecutor changes their mind before the end of the trial they can ask the judge to include that option, but it is not on the table at this point.

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1686

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

The jury cannot decide to convict him on lesser charges unless the prosecution includes that option and the judge allows it. The jury is not allowed to make that decision on their own. At this point that option is NOT included, so it is all or nothing. If the prosecutor changes their mind before the end of the trial they can ask the judge to include that option, but it is not on the table at this point.

So has he been charged with "lesser included charges" or not?

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4100

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Wow. I guess we can expect riots then if others have that attitude because there is no way they are going to be able to prove 2nd degree murder when Zimmerman is the one that was beaten up. In order to prove it they would have to prove that Zimmerman was the one that attacked first, and they have absolutely no evidence to prove that, even if it was true.

The prosecution does not have to prove that Zimmerman attacked first to get a 2nd degree conviction, but Zimmerman should have to prove it to support his claim of self-defense.

Also, there is no evidence that Zimmerman was "beaten" by Martin; there are no marks on Martin's body to indicate that he had instigated or engaged in a fight, or even to indicate that he was trying to protect himself from an attacker. There is evidence that Zimmerman's head hit the ground and that something hit Zimmerman's nose (but not with enough force to break it, which I'm sure Martin could have done if he wanted and/or had the chance) but no evidence that Martin's actions caused those injuries. Both of those things can be explained by Zimmerman pulling Martin from behind to the ground, from the force of the gunshot knocking Zimmerman's hand into his own nose and his own head onto the ground, or from being knocked over by Martin falling to the ground if he was shot while standing.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

See, this is what bothers me. If I think someone is following me and I am in danger, why can't I strike first? There was a case in San Diego where a woman was jogging and felt the presence of someone getting closer and elbowed him in the nose. I just can't see how if he fought her that *he* would be the one who could claim self-defense. Why do I have to wait until I'm attacked to use force in a place where I have a legal right to be?

Well in your mind what would be reasonable for her to do to try and get away? If she had jumped on top of him and started banging the back of his head into the sidewalk instead of just elbowing him in the nose does that seem reasonable to you for someone that is trying to get away? If you were scared because you thought someone was following you would you hang around instead of going home as soon as possible? It just doesn't add up.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

So has he been charged with "lesser included charges" or not?

No, not at this point. If the trial went to the jury at this point they would only be able to convict on 2nd degree murder.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Spacers" wrote:

The prosecution does not have to prove that Zimmerman attacked first to get a 2nd degree conviction, but Zimmerman should have to prove it to support his claim of self-defense.

Also, there is no evidence that Zimmerman was "beaten" by Martin; there are no marks on Martin's body to indicate that he had instigated or engaged in a fight, or even to indicate that he was trying to protect himself from an attacker. There is evidence that Zimmerman's head hit the ground and that something hit Zimmerman's nose (but not with enough force to break it, which I'm sure Martin could have done if he wanted and/or had the chance) but no evidence that Martin's actions caused those injuries. Both of those things can be explained by Zimmerman pulling Martin from behind to the ground, from the force of the gunshot knocking Zimmerman's hand into his own nose and his own head onto the ground, or from being knocked over by Martin falling to the ground if he was shot while standing.

It is up to the state to prove. Not Zimmerman to disprove. Innocent until PROVEN guilty. Could possibly be explained won't get a conviction.

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1686

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Well in your mind what would be reasonable for her to do to try and get away? If she had jumped on top of him and started banging the back of his head into the sidewalk instead of just elbowing him in the nose does that seem reasonable to you for someone that is trying to get away? If you were scared because you thought someone was following you would you hang around instead of going home as soon as possible? It just doesn't add up.

In the sample I used, you betcha. This man killed one girl before the jogger elbowed him and one after.
And no, home is probably the last place I would run to because now my potential attacker also knows where I live.

If someone broke into your house, do you have to run away if you can? Or can you bash his head into the concrete? Never mind. Things are different in TX Acquitted Texas man who shot prostitute after she refused sex was just 'protecting himself from theft': court - NYPOST.com

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

In the sample I used, you betcha. This man killed one girl before the jogger elbowed him and one after.
And no, home is probably the last place I would run to because now my potential attacker also knows where I live.

If someone broke into your house, do you have to run away if you can? Or can you bash his head into the concrete? Never mind. Things are different in TX Acquitted Texas man who shot prostitute after she refused sex was just 'protecting himself from theft': court - NYPOST.com

I haven't seen the evidence in that case and there isn't much about it online, but you could at least have included an article that had the whole story. He shot at the car as they drove away and didn't shoot her on purpose.

Courthouse News Service

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1686

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

No, not at this point. If the trial went to the jury at this point they would only be able to convict on 2nd degree murder.

1. Yes, he has

The Huffington Post: "George Zimmerman is now charged with second-degree murder. ... Embedded in the second-degree charge are what are called 'lesser included offenses,' including ... involuntary manslaughter. ...

SECTION CHARGED OFFENSES

782.04(2) Second degree (depraved mind) murder

CATEGORY 1
Manslaughter ? 782.07

CATEGORY 2Third degree (felony) murder ? 782.04(4)
Vehicular homicide ? 782.071
(Nonhomicide lessers)
Attempt
Culpable negligence ? 784.05(2)
Aggravated battery ? 784.045
Aggravated assault ? 784.021
Battery ? 784.03
Assault ? 784.011

2. If it wasn't included in 2nd degree murder charges, neither the prosecution nor defense could request the judge go over the instructions. Because there wouldn't be any.

I don't know how else to explain it...if he's guilty of 2nd degree murder, he also guilty of manslaughter, etc. If it wasn't included in the original charges, it would now be a separate crime subject to new charges.

If the prosecution pushes it, it would look like he felt he hadn't proved the 2nd degree murder charge but perhaps a lesser charge.

If the defense pushes it, it would look like he felt that the prosecution had a strong case and maybe his client could be found guilty of a lesser charge.

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1686

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

I haven't seen the evidence in that case and there isn't much about it online, but you could at least have included an article that had the whole story. He shot at the car as they drove away and didn't shoot her on purpose.

Courthouse News Service

Oh well in that case...nope, still don't see it as justified to shoot at a car because he thought the escort was going to partake in an illegal activity with him and she didn't. Unless prostitution isn't a crime in TX.

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4100

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

It is up to the state to prove. Not Zimmerman to disprove. Innocent until PROVEN guilty. Could possibly be explained won't get a conviction.

I'll admit that I'm not familiar with Florida law and pretty much only know about it from this case, but I have not seen anything that says the state has to prove that Martin attacked Zimmerman first. So I Googled it and here's what I found, with no mention that the state has to prove that the victim attacked first:

Understanding a second degree murder can be more confusing than the more serious first degree murder. The "criminal act" reference in the statute must be a single event or series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant to a single design or purpose of committing the murder or creating the dangerous condition that led to the death. Although second-degree murder can carry a potential incarceration of up to life in prison, the death penalty cannot be imposed on a person found guilty of second-degree murder.
Whether a Defendant's actions could have been reasonably foreseen as endangering a human life to the point of warranting a prosecution is a question for the jury and where a skilled defense lawyer can be most helpful. Examples may include the negligent supervision of a child or of the elderly by an adult, or other reckless behavior that led to the death of another person.

Unlike in a first degree or felony murder prosecution, a grand jury does not need to indict the defendant before a prosecution may begin. Second degree murders often are decided on the "common sense" of the jury. Whether a person's actions amount to the requisite intent or recklessness to warrant conviction is often left up to the jury's determination.

The defense of a second degree murder often comes from a defense's argument that the death was justified, excusable, or was self-defense.

Second Degree Murder - Law Firm Arnold & Sichta, LLC Attorneys Jacksonville, Florida

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1686

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

It is up to the state to prove. Not Zimmerman to disprove. Innocent until PROVEN guilty. Could possibly be explained won't get a conviction.

"Spacers" wrote:

I'll admit that I'm not familiar with Florida law and pretty much only know about it from this case, but I have not seen anything that says the state has to prove that Martin attacked Zimmerman first. So I Googled it and here's what I found, with no mention that the state has to prove that the victim attacked first:

Second Degree Murder - Law Firm Arnold & Sichta, LLC Attorneys Jacksonville, Florida

This is another one of those weird areas for me. The prosecution doesn't have to prove there was a death and Zimmerman caused it. He has to prove it wasn't self-defense and therefore second degree murder. Yet unless the defense tries to show it was self-defense, there wouldn't be that doubt. Similar to insanity pleas. It's not up to the defense to prove insanity per se, but unless they do try to prove it, the assumption is that they are sane.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

See, this is what bothers me. If I think someone is following me and I am in danger, why can't I strike first? There was a case in San Diego where a woman was jogging and felt the presence of someone getting closer and elbowed him in the nose. I just can't see how if he fought her that *he* would be the one who could claim self-defense. Why do I have to wait until I'm attacked to use force in a place where I have a legal right to be?

This, exactly. I don't really care if Martin hit Zimmerman first (although from what I've read there was no evidence on Martin's body to suggest that he ever hit Zimmerman at all) - if I'm out walking through my neighborhood and a strange man starts stalking me, at some point I may feel threatened enough to stop running and start fighting. Isn't that what the basis of the "Stand Your Ground" law that Zimmerman is trying to appeal to? That he felt threatened enough to shoot? So it's okay for him to feel threatened enough to shoot a boy in the chest, but it's not okay for a teenager who is being chased to throw a punch? Sorry, I don't buy it. Zimmerman is the one who started the encounter by chasing Martin, and it turns out that IF Martin punched him, he had a very good reason to feel like he was in mortal danger from Zimmerman (as evidenced by the fact that Zimmerman shot him dead) so no, I don't think that Zimmerman can claim self defense on an encounter that he started.

If I were being chased by a crazy person, I would like to think that I would have my wits about me enough to not go home and thus show the crazy person where I live.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

Zimmerman is the one who started the encounter by chasing Martin

That is the problem. The state has NO evidence that happened. There is not a shred of evidence proving that Zimmerman wasn't walking back to his truck as he stated.

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

I have a strong suspicion that the prosecution has evidence or a witness that only the lawyers and court are aware of. Discovery process is over, defence would know who the witness is and already deposed him/her. It will depend on how well they testify in court. Or, maybe some kick a$$ smoking gun evidence.

She's going for the max she can get - 2nd degree. Can't charge up, but you can plead down. She has room to play with and that's good. She wants a conviction, and I think she will get it, either way.

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4100

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

That is the problem. The state has NO evidence that happened. There is not a shred of evidence proving that Zimmerman wasn't walking back to his truck as he stated.

At 7:12pm, Zimmerman reports to the 911 operator that he is following Martin. At 7:13:10 he says, "I don't know where this kid is," indicating that he is still actively looking for & trying to follow Martin. Seconds later, just after telling the operator that he would meet officers back at his truck, he says, "No, have them call me when they get here." He was NOT heading back to his truck. He had found Martin and he was going after him.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6561

I do not think they will be able to get a complete jury to be able agree beyond a shadow of doubt that it was not self defence unless there is evidence that I am not aware of.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Spacers" wrote:

At 7:12pm, Zimmerman reports to the 911 operator that he is following Martin. At 7:13:10 he says, "I don't know where this kid is," indicating that he is still actively looking for & trying to follow Martin. Seconds later, just after telling the operator that he would meet officers back at his truck, he says, "No, have them call me when they get here." He was NOT heading back to his truck. He had found Martin and he was going after him.

Actually he WAS heading back to his truck. If you look at the map he was on his way back and had to walk past where the shooting happened to get to his truck after he hung up. Martin also had to have walked back from his house or he would have been long gone by that time, either that or was walking VERY slowly or stopped and waited in that area.

Interactive map: The Trayvon Martin killing | HLNtv.com

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4100

I don't believe that map. Zimmerman did not drive his truck to follow Martin; he got out of it and followed him on foot. That is very clear from the 911 call, you can hear the car's door chimes and then wind blowing. He tells the 911 operator that Martin was running toward the back gate, which meant he was heading down the street below the #6. There is supposedly a witness who lives in the second row of houses along that street who says Zimmerman asked her if she saw someone "go that way" which puts him quite a bit farther away than what he's claimed and what that map shows. I can't find a direct link to her statement just allusions to it in comments, and a link to a youtube video that no longer exists.

Trayvon told his girlfriend on the phone that he was "almost home" (that would be the blue dot in the bottom right corner of the map) but he didn't go home, probably because he didn't want that crazy dude to know what house he was in. I know I wouldn't go straight home if someone crazy was following me! I think Martin turned into the grassy area between the second & third rows of houses, just above where the blue "Martin house" dot is, but he turned left instead of right and went up that walkway that is between/behind the houses. And that's where Zimmerman found him and killed him.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Spacers" wrote:

I don't believe that map. Zimmerman did not drive his truck to follow Martin; he got out of it and followed him on foot. That is very clear from the 911 call, you can hear the car's door chimes and then wind blowing. He tells the 911 operator that Martin was running toward the back gate, which meant he was heading down the street below the #6. There is supposedly a witness who lives in the second row of houses along that street who says Zimmerman asked her if she saw someone "go that way" which puts him quite a bit farther away than what he's claimed and what that map shows. I can't find a direct link to her statement just allusions to it in comments, and a link to a youtube video that no longer exists.

Trayvon told his girlfriend on the phone that he was "almost home" (that would be the blue dot in the bottom right corner of the map) but he didn't go home, probably because he didn't want that crazy dude to know what house he was in. I know I wouldn't go straight home if someone crazy was following me! I think Martin turned into the grassy area between the second & third rows of houses, just above where the blue "Martin house" dot is, but he turned left instead of right and went up that walkway that is between/behind the houses. And that's where Zimmerman found him and killed him.

So your theory is that Zimmerman purposely set out to kill Martin and from the moment the police got there Zimmerman started lying and making up a completely different story about the path he took on the chance that they might charge him with something?

If that is what happened I wonder why he bothered wrestling with Martin first why didn't he just take out the gun and shoot him from a distance? Would have been far easier.

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1686

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

So your theory is that Zimmerman purposely set out to kill Martin and from the moment the police got there Zimmerman started lying and making up a completely different story about the path he took on the chance that they might charge him with something?

If that is what happened I wonder why he bothered wrestling with Martin first why didn't he just take out the gun and shoot him from a distance? Would have been far easier.

I don't think that. He didn't see this as an emergency.

Zimmerman said that’s when he thought to get out of his truck and look for a street sign, because he was still on the phone with non-emergency dispatch and wanted to give the dispatcher more information.

He's acknowledged following TM and getting out of his truck to "look for a street sign." Yet, this is a neighborhood that he fought to get a neighborhood watch for and patrolled regularly. It wouldn't be necessary to look for a STREET sign on foot. And he really should be familiar enough with patrolling it to know what street he was on.

*If* he was walking back to the truck and TM started to follow him, why end the call with dispatch? Why not tell her that he thought the guy was now following him. Why did he decide right before the confrontation to tell her to call when the police got there? If TM is the one using a sucker punch and the element of surprise while Zimmerman is walking back to truck, it should have been caught on the recording because Zimmerman had no reason to end the call unless he was doing something other than getting back into his truck.

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1686

As for the lying: not saying he is lying, but there's a whole lot of unanswered questions and inconsistencies for me to take his story at face value. He has a reason to lie. TM no longer has that luxury to lie about what happened that night.

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4100

My theory is that Zimmerman wanted the glory of being the one who arrested "the punk" that he thought had broken into homes in his neighborhood. The punk didn't want to go along with it and fought back, and Zimmerman probably panicked. Zimmerman had wanted to be a cop, after all, but it's one thing to think you can handle the job, and actually be able to do it, and especially without the benefit of a uniform & badge to show.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

I don't think that. He didn't see this as an emergency.

He's acknowledged following TM and getting out of his truck to "look for a street sign." Yet, this is a neighborhood that he fought to get a neighborhood watch for and patrolled regularly. It wouldn't be necessary to look for a STREET sign on foot. And he really should be familiar enough with patrolling it to know what street he was on.

*If* he was walking back to the truck and TM started to follow him, why end the call with dispatch? Why not tell her that he thought the guy was now following him. Why did he decide right before the confrontation to tell her to call when the police got there? If TM is the one using a sucker punch and the element of surprise while Zimmerman is walking back to truck, it should have been caught on the recording because Zimmerman had no reason to end the call unless he was doing something other than getting back into his truck.

I agree. I also have serious problems with the wounds on TM and how they match up to GZ's injuries. I know that it's been widely reported that TM had "bloody knuckles" and people have taken that as proof that TM beat the devil out of GZ, but if you read a story that actually goes in depth of what that means, what he really had was one very small abrasion on one finger of his left hand.

Trayvon Martin killed by single gunshot fired from 'intermediate range,' autopsy shows - U.S. News

The official report, prepared by the medical examiner in Volusia County, Fla., also found that the 17-year-old Martin had one other fresh injury ? a small abrasion, no more than a quarter-inch in size ? on his left ring finger below the knuckle.

Now, when you compare that to GZ's broken nose, two black eyes, et cetera, it makes me wonder how TM could have possibly hit him hard enough to do that much damage and only sustained one very small scrape on one finger below the knuckle. Maybe I just have skin like a peach, but I've split my knuckles just knocking into things, let alone intentionally punching someone hard enough to try to hurt them at least once in the face. I've never been in a fist fight, but I'm sorry to say that my younger brother has, and I can tell you that maybe thin delicate skin runs in our family or something, because he always came back with seriously messed up knuckles - not some tiny scrape. A small scrape sounds more like something you would get as you are falling to the ground. On the other hand, I've heard that guns have a kickback and it's not unheard of to pop yourself in the face while shooting one. So I don't know, but the whole "TM ACTUALLY assualted GZ" thing seems pretty suspect to me, based on the lack of damage to TM's hands and knuckles.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

After today's testimony it sure didn't sound like Martin was scared of the Creepy [expletive] cracker that was watching him. Hmmm.... but Zimmerman was the racist?

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1686

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

After today's testimony it sure didn't sound like Martin was scared of the Creepy [expletive] cracker that was watching him. Hmmm.... but Zimmerman was the racist?

Wait...they can't both be racist?

Not making judgments or assumptions as to either man's prejudices but TM being racist wouldn't have any bearing on whether GZ was/is racist.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

Wait...they can't both be racist?

Not making judgments or assumptions as to either man's prejudices but TM being racist wouldn't have any bearing on whether GZ was/is racist.

That doesn't sound quite like the defenseless little boy they were trying to portray.

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

That doesn't sound quite like the defenseless little boy they were trying to portray.

So, he asked for it? If I dressed like a s!lut and walked the streets at night, hardly acting like the good girl, it's somehow justifiable if I get raped? Are you turning this into a character debate?

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1686

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

That doesn't sound quite like the defenseless little boy they were trying to portray.

I must have missed the little boy part.

No matter, does being a racist suddenly make you less of a defenseless little boy?

My 16YO weighs 100 pounds. If attacked, would she be better able to defend herself if she is racist?

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

As to theories, while we're postulating ;), I think that he had a ton of racist rage just simmering below the surface. He'd had enough, took the law into his hands, and exploded. If with all his calls the cops would help him, then he would exact his own vigilante justice without the cops' help.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

I must have missed the little boy part.No matter, does being a racist suddenly make you less of a defenseless little boy?My 16YO weighs 100 pounds. If attacked, would she be better able to defend herself if she is racist?

Also, racist or not, we're talking an unarmed 150 lb minor up against a 220 lb grown man with a gun. I'm not saying at all that he was a "defenseless little boy" but it also doesn't seem like much of a fair fight. Especially when you add in the gun, natch.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

Also, racist or not, we're talking an unarmed 150 lb minor up against a 220 lb grown man with a gun. I'm not saying at all that he was a "defenseless little boy" but it also doesn't seem like much of a fair fight. Especially when you add in the gun, natch.

Actually it was a 160 lb 6'0" 17 year old football player against an out of shape 5'8" 195 lb man. I think the fact the Martin wasn't scared of him is the reason he attacked, not knowing he had a gun.

Pages