The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

@revelette,

revelette wrote:

This guy testifying now says if you don't win a physical fight in the first thirty seconds you have to change tactics. I guess if two boys in school yard get into a fight, the looser is justified in pulling out a gun and ending it before he gets anymore bruised up...

Maybe not justified in the sense that we use the word "justified" in ordinary conversation. But, definitely justified in the legal sense that he's not guilty of a crime. If the schoolboy gets his head pounded against concrete, has suffered a mild concussion to his brain, has his senses stunned by the concussion, and is fearing for his life if the pounding goes on --- then this fear is reasonable, and he shouldn't have to do 30 years in jail for pulling out that gun and shooting it.

Of course, you could argue that Zimmerman, just as the schoolboy, shouldn't have been allowed to carry that gun in the first place. Indeed, I'd be inclined to agree with you if you did. But that would be a question for the legislature, not for a criminal trial.

1 Reply

@revelette,

revelette wrote:

Quote:

10:37 a.m. ET: "We have a golden rule. If you have not successfully completed the fight, if you have not won the fight in 30 seconds change tactics, because the tactics you are using are not working," said Root.

source

Ouch. Am I the only one who thinks this is a negative for Zimmerman? Zimmerman should not have been worried about winning the fight.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

Point taken, nevertheless, he was the only one to take the MMA training so David's references to Martin MMA training were not factual.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

Maybe not justified in the sense that we use the word "justified" in ordinary conversation. But if the schoolboy gets his head pounded against concrete, has suffered a mild concussion to his brain, has his senses stunned by it, and is fearing for his life if the pounding goes on

It has not been established that any of that has happened to Martin, the defense hasn't proved it in my judgment of watching the case. Perhaps the jurors will see it differently, we will see.

2 Replies

@revelette,

True; that's the difficulty with trying to arrive at any conclusion about this case. It's how the jury perceives much of the evidence presented. Most of the witnesses have said that the injuries to Zimmerman were minor with no trauma. That Zimmerman may have believed his life was being threatened cannot be proved by anybody by the evidence presented. Many of us who have first hand experience with fighting knows that a bloody nose isn't a threat to our lives. Nor are simple abrasions to the skin. The pictures presented by the defense is meaningless to me!

Some people's perception that those events are life threatening doesn't know much about fighting.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

That's why Zimmerman is going to go free. I think it likely that if the full truth be known (rather than what can be proved in court) that Zimmerman murdered Martin but I don't disagree with the jury verdict if it comes back innocent - I think it will and would probably make the same call if I were on the jury. I just think that Zimmerman chased down and antogonized Martin until Martin punched him, then he used that pretext to kill him. The DA didn't (maybe can't) prove that so he walks.

4 Replies

@engineer,

I agree that this case can go either way. "Us observers" have no say except to discuss our perceptions and observations from the trial.

I already served on a rape-murder trial. It was exhausting and a huge responsibility I wouldn't wish on others. I leave it to the jury; that's why they're there.

0 Replies

@revelette,

revelette wrote:

It has not been established that any of that has happened to Martin, the defense hasn't proved it in my judgment of watching the case.

1) The schoolyard story was a hypothetical. Don't attack a hypothetical because its facts aren't real. Of course they aren't! That's what makes it a hypothetical.

2) For the n-th time, the defense didn't need to prove it, because self-defense is not an affirmative defense in Florida. It's the prosecution that needs to disprove this scenario to prevail. If the defense can construct any scenario that is consistent with the facts, and in which Zimmerman's was justified (in the legal sense) to shoot the gun, it has already done more than it needed to.

1 Reply

@engineer,

why would zimmerman have desired to kill martin, or anyone else? journalists and investigators have not uncovered any issues of hate or rage with zimmerman so far as we know.

1 Reply

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

That's why Zimmerman is going to go free. I think it likely that if the full truth be known (rather than what can be proved in court) that Zimmerman murdered Martin but I don't disagree with the jury verdict if it comes back innocent - I think it will and would probably make the same call if I were on the jury. I just think that Zimmerman chased down and antogonized Martin until Martin punched him, then he used that pretext to kill him. The DA didn't (maybe can't) prove that so he walks.

I don't think Zimmerman was necessarily looking to kill Martin.

In my scenario, Zimmerman chased the kid down, got in a fist fight that he was losing, and either panicked or became enraged that this kid was kicking his ass.

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

Sounds about right to me.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Which again leads us full circle to the sad fact that GZ actually did everyone a favor [save for young Martin and his extended "family"] by pointing up the lunacy to be found in "stand your ground" laws and bringing this test case forward.

Would that be what one might consider a "patriot"?

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

I agree that he did not stalk Martin with the intent to kill him, but he did go out there armed thinking that he might need to defend himself in a situation he was trying to create. Without a gun, Zimmerman never approaches Martin.

2 Replies

@engineer,

I agree with your assessment about Zimmerman. Without the gun, he would "never" have approached Martin. He knew that physically, he was a weakling.
He would have learned that when he took the MMA training.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

1) The schoolyard story was a hypothetical. Don't attack a hypothetical because its facts aren't real. Of course they aren't! That's what makes it a hypothetical.

I misunderstood, I thought you were talking of Zimmerman not continuing on with the school yard hypothetical situation.

I do not believe that the defense theory of Zimmerman's head being pounded on concrete and therefore he was in fear of his is life consistent with the facts. All he had was two minor abrasions on his head and a bloody nose according to the states medical examiner (the lady not the guy who did the autopsy) which I found very credible. You may disagree and so might the jury in which they will acquit.

On a bright note (at least from my perspective) I have been out a lot, but it seems like the state attorney, Guy somebody, is doing fairly well today.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Are you implying that Martin wasn't the weak little defenseless kid you have been making him out to be?

This is the problem with the judge denying Martins txt's be allowed into evidence. If those text's show that Martin liked to fight and did it often, it blows the helpless Martin theory out of the water. It would show that Martin had no qualms about starting fights.

2 Replies

@Baldimo,

You're pretty dumb, aren't you? Show me where I implied you what you claim, that "Martin wasn't the weak little defenseless kid?"

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Just saying he was barely seventeen years old, which is true, would I guess in Balidimo's mind constitute making out like he was a weak defenseless little kid.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

How many times have you guys pointed out that he was 17 and not a threat to Zimmerman? Don't play games CI you know damn well you have stated this since the beginning.

You have pointed out that he was only in high school, was smaller then Zimmerman didn't weight the same as him.

I'm not dumb, you are just in denial. Grow up name caller.

0 Replies

@revelette,

revelette wrote:

All he had was two minor abrasions on his head and a bloody nose according to the states medical examiner (the lady not the guy who did the autopsy) which I found very credible.

I agree about the lady's credibility. But on cross-examination, she, too, testified that one can have internal concussions without any abrasions at all. You can't conclude that Zimmerman had suffered no internal injuries just because his external abrasions were minor.

3 Replies

The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know