The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

source

)

I was not thinking of juries when I made the comment but thinking of certain comments I have heard from people talking of the case.

Dershowitz notes that, for argument's sake, Zimmerman could have been totally in the wrong and everything the persecution has claimed so far could be true and worse than that, and he could have had a white sheet on with an Imperial Wizard name tag and have pulled down his pants and mooned the guy...

He claims even given all that, at the point where Martin was beating his head against concrete, he still had a right to defend himself and shoot him.

I mean I got into fights when I was a kid and fights weren't rare or anything, but I never saw or heard of any sort of a fight where somebody just sat on top of another person punching downwards at them and/or pounding their heads against concrete or asphalt with no obvious intention to stop. That kind of **** didn't exist in 1957 or if it did, you had to go pretty far into the badlands to see it.

It has not been any near established Zimmerman was getting his head pounded on concrete.

You've seen pictures of the wounds on the back of Z's head.
What are they consistent with?

They are going for manslaughter - along with Murder 2.

The entirety of the testimony so far actually shows that Zimmerman was "getting his head pounded on concrete. "

The "pounding of the head on concrete" is something the defense has to show (IMHO) to win!

Getting hit in the face and then the head smacking off the sidewalk. Far, far different from pounding the head onto the sidewalk.

Bumping one's head.

Oddly enough, I didn't shoot a hole in my roof when I stood up too fast in my attic and got a cut from a roofing nail.

Cutting the skin is easy... Breaking bone, which is what would have to happen for Zimmerman's life to be in danger, is significantly harder. That's kinda why we have skulls in the first place.

Certainly not being pounded repeatedly against concrete as has been stated by defense. Perhaps during the fight at one point Zimmerman's head came in contact with a hard surface such as concrete with enough force to cause a slight injury to the back of his head. After all it only measured 2 centimeters and 0.5 cm.

I feel that as it stands right now, if Zimmerman is allowed to kill Treyvon and declare self defense, we have a new wild west standard that could result in a significant increase in murders. This is terrifying in the very least!

It has also been pointed out in expert testimony that the injuries were even more severe than usual and looked worse than they actually were because there wasn't any hair to cushion and hide these relatively minor injuries.

Asking for murder 2 creates some problems in summation (what do we ignore and why?) The prosecution had played its hand and instead of securing a manslaughter, they went to a higher burden of proof.

Well, I am watching the actual trial, or as much of it as I can. I'm not relying exclusively on second hand sources, I'm listening to the testimony.

I also read and looked at a great deal of evidence in this case as it was made public over the past year, so some of what's coming out, I'm very familiar with. I took the time to review much of the state's case at length, before the trial even started. So, watching many of the witnesses, I already know what info and evidence the state is trying to bring out for the jurors, and I can evaluate how successfully they are doing that.

And I watched Zimmerman's bail hearings, I know that he lied to both his lawyer and the court about his assets, and that he engaged in elaborate maneuvers to conceal those assets. So he's a known liar whose credibility is suspect in my mind, and I've admitted I am biased and skeptical about his accounts of the shooting for that reason. I also know about the fact he's been in a courtroom previously for problems with his aggressive impulses and was court-ordered to take anger management classes.


Why? I'm not completely objective. I have information that goes beyond that which the jury will consider, and I've been mulling it all over for quite some time before the trial began, and I have formed some opinions.

I could not be a juror in this case. Nor, in this thread, is there need for me to make any pretense of maintaining such objectivity. This thread is to give both subjective and objective opinions of the trial, but most of the opinions will likely be subjective, and based on how the lawyers' behavior, the witness testimony, and the physical evidence, is affecting how each of us view the progress of the trial and a possible verdict.



Watch the trial if you want the most objective data source. I'm here to offer only my own opinions.

I do think that George Zimmerman, quite needlessly, created and provoked a situation that led to the tragic death of an unarmed minor, a kid who was minding his own business, and just meandering home, until George Zimmerman came into his life and ended that life. This was a totally avoidable death, and Martin would still be alive if Zimmerman had just stayed in his car until the police showed up. There was no urgency that prevented his remaining in the car, the need to follow this kid was all in Zimmerman's head, and he was too impulsive, and possibly wound-up, to stay put. He was fed up with these punks who always got away, and he didn't want this one to get away. And he made sure this one didn't get away, he killed him. Except, as it turns out, this kid wasn't an outsider or intruder, he was staying in that complex, and there isn't a scintilla of evidence to suggest he was doing anything criminal, or had any such intention. So this case is about George Zimmerman's mind-set toward Martin, from the very moment he spotted him, and George Zimmerman's mind-set when he pulled that trigger.

Did Zimmerman wind up pulling that trigger because he already believed Martin was a thug and hoodlum, causing him to exaggerate the degree of threat Martin posed to him, as well as intensifying the anger he already felt toward Martin, or did he really feel his life was in imminent danger if he didn't shoot? Given my pre-trial bias, and suspicions about Zimmerman's credibility, I really want the defense in this case to convince me this was a situation that legally justified the use of deadly force. I want the defense to explain away all the state's evidence that suggests George Zimmerman should be held legally accountable for this death. And I'm willing to be convinced by the defense.

So I'm watching this trial from a very different perspective than you are, and we're going to have differing perceptions and reactions to the trial events.

This was never a strong, clear-cut, winnable case for the state, which is why charges were not pressed immediately, but there were always suspicions about Zimmerman's accounts, and those suspicions were troubling. The state really does have to make the most of the witnesses and evidence they do have, and whether they've done that so far is debatable. They had a dynamite opening statement, but their subsequent performance so far has been relatively lackluster, although they are building their case. The defense opened with a dumb knock-knock joke, and so far seems to be raising more red herrings than anything else.

So, right now, I have no idea which direction the verdict might be going in. I don't see an obvious win for either side yet. I see some conflicting evidence that might simply be confusing the jurors. If that keeps up, and it's not outweighted by clearer, less equivocal evidence by the state, Zimmerman will likely walk--and that's as it should be.

You're the one making bets on this case, not me. I don't like losing money, and I'm not willing to wager on the outcome now.

Right now, I'm going to continue watching the actual trial...

What the judge needs to do is to have the jurors brought to the scene of the crime on a cloudy moonless night to see how well the white witness could have seen who was on top under the same or similar conditions - including the distance.

During our trial, we were bussed to the dry creek in Gilroy where the body was found. It was very revealing, because we saw how the murderer left tire tracks in the dry creek, and a tire expert explained it was his car. Additionally, they were going to do DNA test on the leaves of the bay tree in the area that were found in the trunk of the car. Even the supervisor of trees in Gilroy explained to us exactly how many bay trees were in their town; not many.

The prosecution needs to establish that the amount f rain was sufficient to wash away the blood evidence. I can see the defense making a point of it in their case. There are forensic experts that can analyze this beyond mere blood spatter patterns. If its ignored , its a "wash" for both sides .

But the health care worker who treated Zimmerman already said there was "no trauma." The amount of blood doesn't necessarily prove trauma.

I content that the DA has asked for Murder 2 so that the jury has a compromise position they can moral drop down to - if they think "I know he did illegally kill Treyvon, but I don't think he did it with a "depraved mind".

Of course, the DA doesn't say this.

I also sincerely hope the DA truly and morally believes this to be true. But, that's just me.....

I think your point ("murder 2 creates some problems in summation") is something the defense should and will point out. This too is expected and valid. After all, nothing is out and out given.

I think the rest of the trial still has a lot to be exposed, on both sides!

Who will be your first victim ?

Freedom.

Very valid points. But one thing to note is that in your trial they were proving the defendant did the foul deed, in this case - we do know that Zimmerman pulled the trigger.

Maybe this will happen?