Zimmerman Trial Predictions (Page 2)

I didn't watch the trial, but I followed the story in the beginning.

My understanding is Zimmerman wasn't even an "official" neighborhood watch guy.  He saw Martin walking in the rain, wearing a hoodie, and thought he "looked suspicious".  He called 911, was agitated, and ignored them and decided to follow him.  He initiated a confrontation that ultimately led to Martin's death.

To me, it's a clear cut conviction.

But the outlier in this is Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law.  How that plays into this I have no idea, but I think Z has about a 40% chance of walking.

Which sucks, because it's clearly his fault Martin is dead.  Period.  He stays in his truck and at worst, Martin is questioned by the police. 

Yeah, I had mixed feelings on Jury Duty.  I really wanted to do it from an experience standpoint, but as a business owner I really didn't have the time.  Ours was a civil case Union Pacific vs. Progress Rail where they were suing for damages related to two train derailments that were caused by broken axles.  It took three weeks and boy do I know a lot about trains and metallurgy now.  lol

As for the Zimmerman lies and inconsistencies, I mentioned a few earlier but he seemed to be weaseling his story around to suit his defense as best he can.

He blatantly perjured himself in the bond hearing when he lied about how much money they had and lied about having a second passport.  That one was pretty obvious and public, but not related to the shooting.

The other one is Zimmerman has claimed that he got out of the car to look for a house number and street sign.  Martin then jumped out of the bushes and punched him, pushed him on his back and pounded his head on the pavement 25-30 times (that's a lot).  He smothered him and went for his gun, so he had no choice but to shoot him.

However, Martin's girlfriend as simple as she was corroborated a much different story that was consistent with phone records from the timing of the calls.

“Trayvon said, ‘What, are you following me for,’ and the man said, ‘What are you doing here?’ Next thing I hear is somebody pushing, and somebody pushed Trayvon because the head set just fell. I called him again, and he didn’t answer the phone.

OK, that's quite a bit different and she could be lying.  However, Zimmerman said he was sick of these F'ing punks getting away and admitted to the police he was following him.  They also showed pictures of the tops of Zimmermans shoes that showed some pretty fresh scuffing.  Would seem to conflict with his description of the altercation as well.

Here's a youtube of a guy describing several inconsistencies as well.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MXjXygUYkXE

Oh yeah, and don't forget there are five mothers on that jury.  Not sure if that means anything, but it could.

Oh another lie that was pointed out in the trial.  As pointed out in this news story:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhyvmPbg7M8

He claimed during the Hannity interview, that the jury saw, he had never heard of stand your ground.  However, the prosecution had several witnesses showing he was very familiar with it and was quite the expert on self defense laws and stand your ground.

Small, but when you start adding it all together it doesn't paint a very credible picture.

That one I knew... but again, I go back to the prosecutions case. I just didn't see it. I mean you hear all this stuff in the media, and it is a slam dunk... that biker bar shoot out... the media reported he walked in and opened fire. When the cops got there he came out side and shot it out with the cops for an extended period of time with a machine gun and a stand off... there was never a shot fired outside the bar and he surrendered when the cops got there...dead serious.

Anyway.. you hear all this crap, and then you want to hear the actual evidence. What really happened? And when the prosecution rested... it was like... that's it, serious? In any other place, without the media crap storm, you would never even hear about such a thing. Self defense.

I understand what you are saying about Zimmerman, I could even agree... but the burden of proof is on the prosecution, not Zimmerman. I just didn't see it.

But I most certainly feel, that a 17 year old boy died for no reason that night... and Zimmerman should have only observed for any criminal actions while waiting for police... and thats it... observe any criminal actions... and if he does leave, even better. But that is just me. But even at that, I do not see murder two, and I feel their case is even weak for manslaughter. Just because they may be right, but I did not see the proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Yeah, I could see it going either way.

I still go back to the jury instructions though.  The reasonable doubt was just for the parts about him dying and GZ being the one who did something to make him die.  The self defense seemed to have a different burden element versus reasonable doubt the way I read it.

Also the defense claims self defense, by describing a story of what GZ says happened.  However, if the jury feels he's a liar (I do) then his self defense story goes out the window as deceptive.  Now, the reasonable doubt portions are still met and his self defense story is bunk.

I am glad I'm not actually on the jury though.  Can you imagine sitting in there knowing that whichever way you decide you will have millions of people who are very angry with you.  eek

That's what I am not getting with your assertion... GZ does not have to prove a single thing. His story of the events is completely irrelevant. He did not testify. The Prosecution has to PROVE what GZ did. GZ does not have to PROVE he did not. And even the LEAD INVESTIGATOR found GZ credible in his statements under cross examination even with his minor inconsistencies.

You can easily say, the mere fact that he was on the phone with dispatch, he was waiting for police, some time had passed... that GZ was acting prudently. If he was "stalking" TM, and he had hate or malice in his heart... then what the heck was he on the phone with the police for?

Just simply looking at the definition of the "use of deadly force"... GZ met it. And the prosecution did not prove he does not. It isn't about what GZ does or does not prove, it is about what the prosecution proves.

A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in anyplace where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony

If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find George Zimmerman not guilty.

Now onto another tangent... I was watching Piers Morgan... what is wrong with that guy... I really can't stand him. He should stick to talent shows. The lawyer for the Martin family has repeatedly said he only got involved because it was about to be swept under the rug, and that a man killed a person, and he wasn't even going to be arrested. Morgan jumped in and agreed that America is completely retarded because you can shoot somebody and not even get arrested.

A LAWYER actually thinks you should just get arrested BECAUSE..... NO, you get arrested when you are CHARGED with a CRIME. Period. If they can't come up with a crime, they can't just arrests you for no reason. Yes you can be held for a short period of time... but do you have a crime to charge or not? The reason he was not arrested for a long time is because they had weak evidence to charge him with a crime.

lol, Piers is an interesting dude.

I'm genuinely curious how the laws are in the UK when it comes to self defense.  I'm not trying to defend him, but I'm just curious if there's a culture thing.

Then again, there are people in the US who think anyone who protects their family should go to prison.  lol

Powerman had it right.

I can certainly see how they went there legally speaking, but it really sucks no matter which way the verdict went.

You want to know what I REALLY want to know... please tell me if you do...  I never understood what TM was doing there for all that time. Did he just make a bee line through and GZ stopped him? The defense said he had 4 minutes to leave. I did not understand what that time line was.

I mean he was passing through coming back from the store. It was a small complex. It was raining... who does not want to hurry to get out of the rain? He does not owe anyone an explanation... it's a free country.

Zimmerman saw him and called the cops. Observed him and followed. Said he came around to see where he was. Time passed and they got into an altercation.

If it is me I am going home, I do not owe anybody anything. Some dude seems weird I keep walking towards home. Some guy wants to ask me what I'm doing I tell him none of his business and keep walking. The guy has to get physical with me to get me to do something...

It seems some want to think that GZ profiled him and was the aggressor following him... yet somehow a fight insued and it was TM yelling for help... and then GZ shot him? Really? If it was me, GZ would physically have to get me to stop, provoke me into fearing for my life, and then murder me.

Obviously there is disagreement with some of GZ actions that night, but I also do not think he went out of his way to "murder" this kid.

And then there are those that say well nobody is being held accountable... well, I'll say it. If we take GZ's account of what happened, and we take the jury's decision of not guilty, then it seems TM held some accountability as to what happened. Perhaps at night when someone is doing something you do not like, maybe confronting them and punching them in the face is not the right answer to that problem. Perhaps you keep walking, perhaps you get off the phone with your friend and YOU call 911. Perhaps you just take off and get home and call the cops then... I do not know. But according to GZ, TM played a part in what happened.

Some key things and question from my point of view and in no particular order.

1. If TM was concerned why didn't he call the police?

2. I don't think Zimmerman should have gotten out of the vehicle. That doesn't give anyone the reason or right to punch him in the face.

3. It's my understanding that the civil servant on the phone who told Z "we don't need you to do that" was NOT a 911 operator or police officer,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, which is still being reported by the media incorrectly.

4. Based on the physical evidence and testimony from witnesses it seem pretty clear to me that TM initiated the physical confrontation. 

5. It appears from the results of the trial the police and original prosecutors got this one right until Obama, the DOJ, Sharpton & JJ started spewing their racists hate speech and  have done more to divide race relations in America when they could used their position for reason rather than a racists agenda. 

6. Why didn't they convene a Grand Jury before charging Zimmerman? 

7. Will the DOJ charge Zimmerman with something?

1. Inherent racial distrust of police, would be my guess.

2. I'm wondering how "following someone" meshes with "stand your ground".  I haven't read the Florida law in detail though.  But if he followed TM, he becomes the aggressor which makes stand your ground and self defense both dubious.

3. Probably wasn't relevant to the jury.

4. That seemed like 50-50 to me.  GZ was following TM, he turned around to confront, things degraded from there.

5. Trial was not a sure thing; I have no opinion on the jury decision but I'm glad the case WENT to trial.  JJ / Sharpton, what else is new.

6. Grand jury is not required in Florida except for 1st degree murder cases.

7. No, but he'll get sued for civil damages most certainly.

I'm not surprised with the verdict, but very disappointed. To me it's obvious that GZ initiated the confrontation. As I and many others have mentioned, if he stays in his truck, Martin is still alive.

As someone alluded to, this apparently is a blueprint for getting away with murder. Pick a fight, preferably get scuffed up a bit, then shoot him dead. Open and shut case of self defense. Ridiculous.

RIP Trayvon.

Right, because putting your life in the hands of a jury and never being able to walk down the street the same way again is such a good idea.

I have thrown the first punch only once in my entire life... what this could also be a recipe for is don't get into fights with strangers and use violence to solve your situation... and I'm talking about TM. I do not know that is what happened, but that is the only side we get.

I guess I just get tired of hearing the only lesson to learn out of this is it is OK to shoot someone... how about a good lesson to learn from this is don't beat somebody up?

A giant waste of time and money all the way around. 

That verdict was never in doubt from the day charges were filed.....but the charges were never about justice anyway. They were about perception.

I guess if getting out of your car is equal to punching someone in the face, breaking their nose and pounding their head into the sidewalk, I'd agree.

Ultimately I think this is where the legal system did it's job.  Your theory is every bit as viable as my opposing theory I mentioned earlier, but there's simply not enough evidence to show that either one is correct.   We know GZ was getting his butt handed to him at the very end based on evidence, but other than that we don't really know who truly started the physical part of the encounter.

Yes, if GZ would have stayed in the car nothing would have happened.  However, it's perfectly legal for him to get out of the car so that act in and of itself is not criminal in nature.  Yes, I feel he lied about why he got out and what really transpired, but that's not really relevant from a legal standpoint.

It is equally fair to say that looking out for your neighbors does not deserve a beat down. For me personally, I can say with all confidence that I would not have done the same thing as GZ. I can also say with confidence, if GZ account is true... that I would not have done as TM did. Lot's of bad decisions that night... that is usually how tragic events happen... lot's of bad decisions all the way around.

And.... I have been on the phone with 911 before and they all say the exact same thing for LIABILITY reasons alone... "you do not have to do that". That is not a lawful order, that is not obstruction to disobey... that is a suggestion.... one by the way I have heeded, and would of that night. GZ says he was just trying to find him for when the police arrived which were on their way... the exact same thing that happened when they caught one of the burglers in the area. They noticed the guy, but he got away, and they saw him again and got him, and he had stolen property... his accomplice has not been caught.

Just the same thing happened with the case I mentioned here... aquitted but guilty in civil suit... and he deserved it. Does GZ deserve what he gets from all this? I might agree with you. Yes he is alive and free, and he made some bad decisons that costsomebody their life. I can't say for certain he does deserve it, because I was not there, and do not know for certain what went down.