The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

@revelette,

I understand O'Mara brought in a block of cement to tell the jury that the cement is a deadly "weapon." All good and well, except those who have been witnesses said his injuries were not traumatic, and he refused to go to the hospital. The gun "was" a deadly weapon; that's a fact in this case.

The pro-Zimmerman folks are also saying that all the "known" facts agree with Zimmerman's statements to the police.

One big problem; the instruction they got from the judge is if they find the defendant has lied, they can assume everything else is a lie. We all know he lied. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the lies.

1. He didn't know the name of the street. He's been a member of neighborhood watch for four years, and there aren't that many streets in that neighborhood. 3?
2. He didn't know about "stand your ground."
3. He grabbed his gun while Martin sat on top of him - which was at his belt level behind him with his shirt and jacket covering it. How? If he had the strength to lift Martin off enough to grab his gun, he had enough strength to push Martin away.
4. If Martin was responsible for his injuries, why was there no blood on Martin? Don't forget, Zimmerman said he was pushed in the face.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Too many practicing attorneys are impressed with O'Mara without any question about the case. I find that quite interesting.

O'Mara tells the jury they must use only the evidence, but he himself talks about "imagined" happenings that were not presented during the trial.

The "cement is a lethal weapon." OH? Since when? And forget the gun Zimmerman had and used, because?

Whatever happened to all those bushes Martin hid behind?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

those bushes are about 20 feet from where martin lay dead, behind the building on Retreat View Circle.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

I thought somebody mentioned the fact that there were no bushes in the area.

It wasn't me.

0 Replies

@revelette,

revelette wrote:

Funny the first to bring up race was the defense,
it a pretty slick way of saying why it was reasonable for Zimmerman to racial profile Trayvon Martin.

Thay were not "the first";
Obama n the other blacks were b4 them,
pushing the Governor to fire someone
and appoint a handpicked prosecutor
to persecute Zimmy, to avoid race riots,
regardless of the police finding that there was no crime
(other than that perpetrated, of course, by decedent on Zimmy, requiring his self defense).
It is ineffably OBVIOUS that we 'd never have heard
of Travon, if Zimmy were a black, because Sharpton & Obama
wud not care if 2 blacks fight and one kills the other.
That happens every day, without notice.

Quote:

Zimmerman was a caring man who had seen his neighbors victimized by a rash of burglaries, O'Mara said, many of them by young black men. It was not illegal for Zimmerman to follow Martin, he said, but prudent. He said Zimmerman voluntarily submitted to law enforcement interrogations without a lawyer after the shooting.

This is all very true. He was a Knight on a White Horse.
If I ever meet Zimmy, I will congratulatorily shake his hand
and maybe slip a few $$$$ into it.

source

revelette wrote:

(obviously not a trayvon martin favorable tilted article.)

revelette wrote:

Two young black males were recently in involved in burglaries so of course any other young black male in the neighborhood is up to the same thing, it is only prudent to follow him and make sure the up to no good punk don't get away.

I cannot conceive of any reason
against one of the nabors keeping those
such as appear to be casing the naborhood
under close observation n calling police,
in defense of our stuff in our houses,
in addition to defending nabors like
poor Olivia, who was hiding behind her scissors.
(We might hope that she gets BETTER defensive
armament; maybe a .44 special revolver.)
Everything that Zimmy did was admirable.
Other naborhoods shud be similarly watchful.
Zimmy is a hero, regardless of how this case turns out.
Hopefully, Zimmy will not become a martyr to
freedom of self defense in America.

In my opinion, its a good idea to harass burglars
by looking at them and overtly asking them what thay r doing
(tho I have always been too lazy to do that myself
and I have always lived in low-crime naborhoods; very few burglaries).

David

1 Reply

@revelette,

revelette wrote:

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

He simply tried to inflame
the emotions of the jury, because that was all that he had.

revelette wrote:

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.

West is the better lawyer.
I don't think much of O'Mara.
If Zimmy is convicted, in my opinion,
O' Mara shud be disbarred for withholding
possiby exculpatory evidence (cannabis discovered
in the autopsy) from the jury, out of "respect"
for the bad guy and his family.

(I must admit tho: he had his moments,
e.g., when he dropped the bad guy's weapon
[the street] in front of the jury.)

David

0 Replies

@Thomas,

revelette wrote:

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

Thomas wrote:

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.

I agree; that is a good way to put it.

David

0 Replies

@roger,

roger wrote:

firefly wrote:

I thought it was too rambling and too repetitive, mostly focusing on the evidence that Zimmerman is a liar and a wannabe cop..

Rambling doesn't sound good, but the rest might be exactly what the jury needs to hear and feel.
I don't think the jury really needs to justify its verdict.

O' Mara was boring. That matters to laymen.
He was lucky if he did not put them to sleep; not good.

0 Replies

HLN put up a sign showing the results of its polling
demonstrating that pre-closing arguments to the jury 77%
found that the defense has a better case than the prosecution.

I think that the jury 's question bodes well for the prosecution,
in that thay r not dismissing the case out-of-hand; thay will take
the time for analysis of the evidence. That cud take time,
but in the end, the State has no case; just fluffy emotion,
based on the novel idea that it is an ATTACK to follow someone.

Some people with whom I 've spoken
believe that the jury will be too afraid to acquit Zimmy.
I find that hard to believe, but I might be projecting myself onto them

As I see the prospects:
most likely is a full acquittal.

Next most likely is a hung jury.

Next most likely is a compromise verdict,
in that thay don't know that the penalty
is essentially the same for either felony.

If Zimmy were convicted of anything,
he 'd become a martyr and the focus
of an intense freedom-minded conservative
movement to clarify the law so that it 'd never happen again.

This wud become America 's version of the Tony Martin case
and it 'd result in a lot of anti-black resentment.
If Zimmy had become convicted b4 the election, Obama 'd have lost.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

why did this case not go before a grand jury to determine whether there even was a case for the state to bring?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

why did this case not go before a grand jury to determine
whether there even was a case for the state to bring?

As I understand it,
the police saw nothing improper in Zimmy 's conduct.
It is obvious that Zimmy did nothing rong.

It is bad enuf when people become the victims of violence, as Zimmy was.
The governments that we nourish shud take OUR side,
comforting us when we kill in self defense, rather than subject us to expensive annoyances.

When I confront politicians running for office,
I ask them: do u support laws that favor me or
the bad guy, if I have to kill in self defense ??

David

1 Reply

If it is (secretly) un-lawful or immoral to FOLLOW someone,
then I wonder how many OTHER (secret) crimes or vices there r that I don't know about !??!

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

It was not unlawful for Zimmerman to follow Martin, it and the words he used went to his state of mind the night he shot Martin. He was determined that this time the blank punks were not going to get away.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

As I understand it,
the police saw nothing improper in Zimmy 's conduct.
It is obvious that Zimmy did nothing rong.

He provoked a teenager into defending himself...and then killed the teenager for doing so.

How can you possibly maintain that he did nothing wrong?

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

I was talking about in the trial they were the first. It was right and proper that this was brought to trial, a young teenager died. Even police officers have to answer to the proper people when they shoot someone in the line of duty. From what I can understand even in those crazy stand your ground laws, there are special stand your ground hearings to determine if in fact it was a stand your ground case. Zimmerman and his lawyers chose not to take advantage of it.

0 Replies

My guess is that if the person being stalked had been our David instead of Trayvon Martin...

...the dead guy woulda been Zimmerman. Especially since Zimmerman would have had not only a gun, but all that sidewalk around to use as a weapon.

I wonder how many other young black males will die in Florida because they were walking around while black...possessed of lots of dangerous sidewalk to use as a weapon...and happened to be near an armed white person intent on shooting a black person.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Its rarely what you "want in justice", Its what the case can support. Most here are looking for ome means to punish someone for an act they consider as depraved, while the DAves of the world only see a hero. I think both of you have missed the point.
What could the state really support and why no grand jury? Guilty or not, had this gone to a grand jury I strongly believe that they would have returned a recommendation against a trial.

This case was weak and not even a good circumstantial one.

I think that the case should be solved in Civil court where Zimmerman will be asked for recompense based on a "preponderance of evidence"

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Its rarely what you "want in justice", Its what the case can support. Most here are looking for ome means to punish someone for an act they consider as depraved, while the DAves of the world only see a hero. I think both of you have missed the point.
What could the state really support and why no grand jury? Guilty or not, had this gone to a grand jury I strongly believe that they would have returned a recommendation against a trial.

This case was weak and not even a good circumstantial one.

I think that the case should be solved in Civil court where Zimmerman will be asked for recompense based on a "preponderance of evidence"

Could be, FM...although the prevailing wisdom is that a DA could get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich.

In any case, the laws for when an offense goes before a grand jury vary...and I am sure the prosecutors knew what they were doing.

It does seem as though there was a weak case...but it also seems that almost anyone in Florida can kill someone else and not have a strong case built against them.

As I said...if Martin had been our David...the dead guy would most likely have been Zimmerman...and David would walk!

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Could be, FM...although the prevailing wisdom is that a DA could get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich.

Then why didn't they? It seems to me that would settle a lot of the allowable evidence , since most of this case (both sides) was hearsay and some speculative forensics like "Why there was no blood on X or Y" In some cases the state STOPPED the forensics and didn't determine whether any skin or Zimmerman DNA was under Martins fingernails or hair was on Zimmerman. Nobody did a really good job of analyzing the "positional evidence" Since the bullet entered Mae=rtun at a right angle to his frame, NOONE analyzed the possible solutions that enabled such a shot to be made (INCLUDING whether Zimmerman may have waited till MArtin was actually standing up and was perhaps looking to exit) That would have answered the paucity of powder burns on his torso. This would definitely have made the states case more compelling.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:

Could be, FM...although the prevailing wisdom is that a DA could get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich.
Then why didn't they? It seems to me that would settle a lot of the allowable evidence , since most of this case (both sides) was hearsay and some speculative forensics like "Why there was no blood on X or Y" In some cases the state STOPPED the forensics and didn't determine whether any skin or Zimmerman DNA was under Martins fingernails or hair was on Zimmerman. Nobody did a really good job of analyzing the "positional evidence" Since the bullet entered Mae=rtun at a right angle to his frame, NOONE analyzed the possible solutions that enabled such a shot to be made (INCLUDING whether Zimmerman may have waited till MArtin was actually standing up and was perhaps looking to exit) That would have answered the paucity of powder burns on his torso. This would definitely have made the states case more compelling.

According to the laws of Florida...they did not have to...and decided (probably based on more information than you or I have available to us) that it made more sense to proceed the way they did.

1 Reply

The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know