The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

this is the type if argument we are getting in the effort to make zimmerman guilt. it is a farce.

You're now resorting to the ridiculous! Quit while you're behind; you're only making yourself look more stupid!

You advance what you advanced, Hawk, and then you have the temerity, the gall to use the word 'farce'.

noble acts both.

martin would not have died this day if zimmerman had not gotten out of bed....zimmerman did that, thus zimmerman is criminally liable for the death. this is the type if argument we are getting in the effort to make zimmerman guilt. it is a farce.

using that logic everyone who participates in a yelling match at the pool table in a bar is criminally liable when one guy from the squabble stabs another later in the parking lot...after all they all helped escalate the conflict.

no, the one who does the bad act is liable for the bad act, not everyone who participated in the lead up to the bad act.

Your reducto ad absurdums (reducti ad absurdum?)

If Zimmerman created the circumstances through acts that weren't reasonable then his argument for self defense is weakened under the law.

The use of deadly force is justifiable only if the defendant reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to‭ [‬himself‭] [‬herself‭] ‬while resisting:

1. ‎another’s attempt to murder‭ [‬him‭] [‬her‭]‬,‭ ‬or
   
2. ‎any attempt to commit‭ (‬applicable felony‭) ‬upon‭ [‬him‭] [‬her‭]‬,‭ ‬or
   
3. any attempt to commit‭ ‬(applicable felony‭)‬ upon or in any dwelling,‭ ‬residence,‭ ‬or vehicle occupied by‭ [‬him‭] [‬her‭]‬.
   
   Insert and define applicable felony that defendant alleges victim attempted to commit.

However,‭ ‬the use of deadly force is not justifiable if you find: [. . . ]

2.‭ (‬Defendant‭) ‬initially provoked the use of force against‭ [‬himself‭] [‬herself‭]‬

But she had no way of hearing who attacked whom.

The prosecution seems to be claiming that Zimmerman provoked the use of force by either starting the physical fight in the first place or by the way he talked to [Zimmerman] Martin.

The prosecution has rested. What did you think of its case?

Here's what I think: A manslaughter conviction is on the table. Murder two? No way.

Let's start with murder two: There's just too much doubt about what actually happened to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that when George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin, he did so with a depraved mind.

The prosecution is relying on Zimmerman muttering "f---ing punk" and "these a--holes always get away" to prove that he had a depraved mind when he followed Martin. Here's the problem: We still don't know beyond a reasonable doubt who confronted whom. Did the prosecution prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman chased down Martin and shoved him (as Rachel Jeantel claims)? Or did you wonder if Martin might have jumped out of the bushes and sucker-punched Zimmerman, as Zimmerman says he did?

The prosecution was unable to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" exactly what happened, what was said, and who did what to whom when Zimmerman and Martin confronted one another. Where there are two versions of the story and no one is proven a liar, there is doubt as to what happened.

Keep in mind, for murder two, the "depraved mind" aspect is a requirement. Zimmerman claims he was walking back to his car to meet the police, which refutes the depraved mind claim. Other witnesses (including the woman from the police department who trained Zimmerman as the neighborhood watch captain) called Zimmerman "meek," "concerned," a "good neighbor" and "professional" -- which is the opposite of a vigilante with a depraved mind and corroborates his story.

If a juror doesn't know what to believe about Zimmerman's state of mind, then there is doubt. And I guarantee you'll hear the defense say in its closing argument, “One thing we do know for sure is that when Zimmerman left his home to run to Target that night, he wasn't planning on killing Martin.” And, if you then add in the testimony of Jonathan Good -- who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman and Zimmerman crying for help -- as well as the fact that both investigators believed Zimmerman's self-defense claims and found no evidence to contradict it, it's just too murky to convict him of murder two.

Manslaughter, though, is a different ball game all together. To convict Zimmerman of manslaughter, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman acted with culpable negligence the night he shot Martin. Let's take Martin's actions out of the equation for a minute and consider just the decisions that Zimmerman made that night. Here's how the jury could reach that verdict by looking at the totality of Zimmerman's actions:

1.He made the decision to get out of the car with a gun, knowing police were on their way
2.He followed someone on a dark and rainy night
3.He muttered "f---ing punk" and "these a--holes always get away" while following Martin
4.He did not identify himself as the neighborhood watch captain when they confronted one another

None of these four facts is disputed. If the jurors add up all the decisions and actions that Zimmerman made that night, they could easily conclude that Zimmerman acted negligently that night and that, if it weren't for his negligence, Martin would still be alive.

If the jury goes down this path, they might not be as amenable to Zimmerman's self-defense claim, because they would have concluded that it was Zimmerman's actions that set the killing into motion; therefore, he should not be able to claim self-defense (that's not the law, but it could happen when the jurors get the case). If that's what the six women on the jury conclude, there will be a manslaughter conviction and Zimmerman will go to jail.

It's true, a trial isn't a football game. This is a tragedy in which everyone involved has already lost, particularly the Martin family. But the fact is that one side will win and one side will lose. The Martins will either see their son's killer go to jail, or Zimmerman will be acquitted by a jury of his peers.

No doubt you and I will have a reaction to either outcome, but the only people whose opinion matters are the six women on the jury. And as of this moment, they might just convict Zimmerman of manslaughter.