The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

if neither side follows up on it - there is nothing there that will benefit either side

The defense did follow up on it --- with these other witnesses.

0 Replies

@revelette,

revelette wrote:

The judge agreed to the manslaughter charge, now the state is adding third degree felony charges because Trayvon Martin was a minor. The last is kinda new.

Now this is where the trial gets really interesting, and I didn't get around to watching it this morning. Do you (or does anyone) have a link to the jury instructions that both sides agreed on?

1 Reply

@Thomas,

From what I understand they are still hammering it out, as usual West is getting testy and disagreeing with the judge's decisions. But I don't have a transcript. HLN has gavel to gavel coverage of all the hearings and the trial itself.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Except the testimony is such that there are no symptoms of concussion when examining Zimmerman. Zimmerman doesn't present having any symptoms of concussion in his discussion of the injuries.

1) That's what happens when you don't look for internal concussions. You don't find them.

2) Apparently, you still fail to appreciate the profound asymmetry between the prosecution's burden of proof and the defense's. The prosecution has to prove its hypothesis beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense does not. If the defense comes up with a story that could have happened and that's consistent with the evidence and testimony, it has already done more than it needed to. All it really needs to do is to raise reasonable doubt about the prosecution's story.

In this case, as part of their attempted proof, Florida's prosecutors are claiming that evidence and testimonies contradict the defense's story about his fight with Martin. The defense says that Martin pounded Zimmerman's head onto the concrete pavement, that Zimmerman was close to passing out, that he feared for his life if the pounding continued, and that that's why he pulled the trigger. To contradict the defense, the prosecution got its witnesses to testify that Zimmerman's external injuries were minor. Then the defense, on cross-examination, got several witnesses to say that the level of external injuries can be consistent with internal injuries consistent with Zimmerman's story. Hence, the evidence and testimonies about the injuries to Zimmerman's head do not contradict his story, and therefore do not prove the prosecution's case.

To be sure, you and DrewDad and ehBeth and Firefly and Revelette (in alphabetical order, and I'm sure I'm forgetting others) are all correct to observe that the defense did not prove anything. In particular, it did not prove that Zimmerman actually did suffer internal injuries to the head. But that's not the point. The point is that the prosecution did not prove its story. And in a criminal trial where neither side has proven its story, the defense wins.

2 Replies

@revelette,

revelette wrote:

From what I understand they are still hammering it out, as usual West is getting testy and disagreeing with the judge's decisions. But I don't have a transcript. HLN has gavel to gavel coverage of all the hearings and the trial itself.

Thank you!

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Simply establishing that something could happen is not enough for reasonable doubt, IMO. Purple monkeys could fly out of my butt, but they are unlikely to do so.

Nah, reproductive biology doesn't work that way. That being said, we can agree that doubt is unreasonable when it depends on laws of nature being violated.

DrewDad wrote:

Someone could be seriously injured even though the wounds look superficial. (And, indeed, were deemed superficial by multiple medical personnel.) But I think it's unlikely.

Why? This happens in boxing all the time! One boxer lands a well-placed hook to the chin. The other boxer goes down and can't get back up. The referee counts him out. Three minutes later, the knocked-out boxer is back on his feet, congratulating the victor. No external injuries. This scenario is a dime a dozen in fist fights. What makes it so cookamamie-implausible that something like it happened in this fight?

DrewDad wrote:

The question is, would a reasonable person fear for their life and was his action proportionate. IMO, the action was wildly disproportionate.

Fair enough. I get your point.

DrewDad wrote:

As for the "head being pounded against the pavement," Zimmerman keeps his hair in a buzz cut. Do you know how hard it is to get a grip on someone's head when they don't have any hair?

Easy. Just be on top of the guy, put your hand on his forehead, and push. Pushing on the shoulders can end up with his head pounding on the ground, too, if you push them hard enough.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

All those issues do not matter. What matters is the individual's belief that his life is at risk. That's for the jury to determine from the evidence presented during trial.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

sure, but child abuse is not a lessor charge to murder. child abuse is a charge for when a child has been injured but is still alive.

Shooting a child in the heart sounds abusive enough to me. I have no problem with it being a lesser included charge.

0 Replies

The judge wasn't sure the evidence supported the child abuse charge so the last third degree felony murder is out.

Quote:

1:04 p.m. ET: The judge says she doesn't believe there's enough evidence to support putting third-degree felony charges in front of the jury. She's going to take it off the jury instructions.

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/07/11/george-zimmerman-trial-more-charges-possible

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

2) Apparently, you still fail to appreciate the profound asymmetry between the prosecution's burden of proof and the defense's. The prosecution has to prove its hypothesis beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense does not. If the defense comes up with a story that could have happened and that's consistent with the evidence and testimony, it has already done more than it needed to. All it really needs to do is to raise reasonable doubt about the prosecution's story.

Except the argument is Zimmerman may have had a concussion that was so minor that he had no symptoms except for the 30 seconds when he shot Martin. While you may think that is reasonable, I don't think it is. Zimmerman was clearly coherent when police arrived and coherent when he was examined at the scene and coherent the next day when he visited the PA. To argue that he was almost senseless with no evidence just doesn't seem reasonable to me.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

I don't know why you're so hung up on whether Zimmerman had a concussion. There's a reason the defense didn't call a neurologist as a witness. Zimmerman had no symptoms indicative of a concussion, internal bleeding in the brain, or a subdural hematoma, all of which would have presented with some subjective or objective symptomatology at some point in time after he struck his head whether or not diagnostic tests were done right after the event--and he, at no time, presented any symptoms consistent with such conditions. He remained asymptomatic.

The issue is only whether he had reasonable fear for his life, and whether lethal force was his only option.

Quote:

Hence, the evidence and testimonies about the injuries to Zimmerman's head do not contradict his story, and therefore do not prove the prosecution's case

But Zimmerman gave more than one version of why he shot Martin. He told his friend it was because Martin went for his gun. So Zimmerman contradicted his own story about feeling he was passing out because of the head pounding. That makes the credibility of his story suspect.

One significant question remains for me---how did Zimmerman manage to reach for his gun, unholster it, get it out, and shoot Martin, if Martin was on top of him, and allegedly pounding his head in the ground? Wouldn't Martin have been on top of where the gun was located in the waistband of Zimmerman's pants?

I think the answer to that question is that Zimmerman either had the gun out, or had the holster unhooked, with his hand on the gun, ready to pull it out, before he got knocked down. I think Zimmerman did that as he approached and confronted Martin, which is the reason Martin punched him in the nose, and they briefly wrestled over the gun before Zimmerman shot him. I don't think there was any head pounding, Zimmerman just scraped his head on the concrete as it moved back and forth with Martin on top of him. And it was Martin screaming for help because he had seen the gun. Zimmerman had been prepared to shoot Martin even before any fight occurred. And that would be consistent with the state's contention that he shot Martin, not because he had to, but because he wanted to.

That's the only scenario that makes any sense to me. But the prosecution cannot clearly prove it happened that way, so Zimmerman may well get the benefit of the doubt from the jury.

1 Reply

@parados,

I agree, but apparently you can't use common sense in trials, you must consider every single outlandish idea as being possible. I don't make a habit of watching trials, but I wonder is it always so favorable for the defense?

What about Martin's right to 'stand his ground?'

2 Replies

@revelette,

according to florida law lethal force being the only option is not required, and the need for the fear to be reasonable is sketchy at best. the intent of the lawmakers was to tell the courts that if a person is in fear for their life or in fear that their posessions might be taken then they are free to shoot to kill.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Except the argument is Zimmerman may have had a concussion that was so minor that he had no symptoms except for the 30 seconds when he shot Martin.

As I said to DrewDad, something like this happens almost every time a boxer gets knocked out. What's so implausible about it having happened in this fight?

0 Replies

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

But Zimmerman gave more than one version of why he shot Martin.

That's fine. Zimmerman is not being charged with being a liar. (I agree he would be guilty of such a charge.) As long as any of his stories is consistent with the evidence and the testimony, that's more than good enough for him.

firefly wrote:

I think the answer to that question is that Zimmerman either had the gun out, or had the holster unhooked, with his hand on the gun, ready to pull it out, before he got knocked down. I think Zimmerman did that as he approached and confronted Martin, which is the reason Martin punched him in the nose, and they briefly wrestled over the gun before Zimmerman shot him.

These thoughts, and the ones that follow, are all perfectly plausible for you to think. Indeed, I pretty much agree with you, and many of the others, on the question what probably happened. Zimmerman probably did commit murder or manslaughter on Martin. But it's one thing to say that he did it; it's another thing to say the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it. It is this second question that I disagree about with you all. And thoughts like "this doesn't make sense" and "I think" don't get you to a proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

1 Reply

Closing argument are under way, I don't think De la Rionda is doing too bad. I am glad West is not giving the defense's closing arguments as the other guy kind of rambles on in a sing song voice.

4 Replies

There's a certain, ... what's that German word, schadenfreud ???, I never was any good at spelling German, ah yes, schadenfreude, that comes from seeing an immigrant, albeit an exceedingly bright immigrant, school Americans in some of the most fundamental things that they should know about their justice system.

Of course that schadenfreudenistic feeling doesn't contain within, any sense of cruelty, it is dismay.

0 Replies

@revelette,

revelette wrote:

Closing argument are under way, I don't think De la Rionda is doing too bad.

I agree. De la Rionda's argument is as good as the quality of his case will let it. I suppose we should agree to disagree about the quality of his case, but his closing argument is good, considering.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

DrewDad wrote:
Someone could be seriously injured even though the wounds look superficial. (And, indeed, were deemed superficial by multiple medical personnel.) But I think it's unlikely.

Why? This happens in boxing all the time! One boxer lands a well-placed hook to the chin. The other boxer goes down and can't get back up. The referee counts him out. Three minutes later, the knocked-out boxer is back on his feet, congratulating the victor. No external injuries. This scenario is a dime a dozen in fist fights. What makes it so cookamamie-implausible that something like it happened in this fight?

This is supports the evidence that the fight was not life threatening.

Concussions of this type are life threatening to a baby, where the brain stem is more fragile and it might result in respiratory problems. Somehow I don't think Zimmerman is susceptible to shaken baby syndrome, though.

4 Replies

@DrewDad,

Quote:

Somehow I don't think Zimmerman is susceptible to shaken baby syndrome, though.

Way way too many of you are, DD. That why your criminal governments can pull off so many war crimes and terrorists actions and completely get away with it.

You've shown your disdain for GZ and people like him but measure GZ's situation and that of any of your prezes since WWII - where does the greater evil lie?

And yet y'all are silent.

0 Replies

The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know