Open Thread on Zimmerman Trial

[MaryT777]

We can’t know.

However, Zimmerman stated that he stopped, his response to the dispatcher telling him “We don’t need you to do that” was “OK” and then “They always get away”, then he and the dispatcher discuss where Zimmerman will meet the police. This is why the dispatcher ended the call, Zimmerman was no longer providing real-time updates. It was at about this time that Martin told Jeantel that he no longer saw Zimmerman.

So, there are some indications, although not definitive, that Zimmerman stopped following when requested. Particularly arranging a spot to meet the police- how can he continue to follow or attempt to re-locate Martin and meet the police at the arranged location?

The police interview is being played at the trial today so we’ll learn more now towards understanding what happened that night.

 

[kelvinf]

Yes, he was there. Perhaps you should go through the news on the trial.

For the billionth time he was not there–there as on the scene. He was at his home and only took a step outside the door. He had one leg inside the house and one leg outside while Trayvon and Zimmerman were over yonder. So to say that he was there is misleading.

Zimmerman never had an opportunity to fight back.

How do you know this?

Jonathan Good said he saw Martin straddling Zimmerman but never saw ANYONE’s head being slammed into the sidewalk.

Moving the goal posts again.

Good did not mention this. The physician assistant that treated Zimmerman indicated the head was pounded into concrete multiple times.

He was asked thrice whether he saw the person on top slamming the person on the bottom’s head on the concrete over and over again and thrice he said no. So if you really saw this testimony, I beg the question: are you just trying to distort the story?

These are some things I believe the prosecution got out of this witness:

• He didn’t really see two people when he stepped out. He saw an “object”. Only when “it” moved somewhat closer did he identify two persons. So the prosecution made him testify that he did not see who was initially at the bottom.
• He testified that he saw just hand movements and cannot tell whether they were holding or striking movements.
• He said he couldn’t see Zimmerman’s hands.

However when the defense asked “[Trayvon] was the one raining blows down on George Zimmerman, correct?” he said “That’s what it looked like,”

 

[kelvinf]

Martin was 6’3" 160 pounds and Zimmerman was 5’9" and I’m guessing ~170. I’ve read that since Martin’s death, Zimmerman has gained about 100 pounds. He had been heavy, then he had gotten to a healthier weight by 2-26-12, now he is heavier again.

Source?

 

[vz71]

You can follow anyone you want. One person here broke the law. Martin when he attacked Zimmermen.

The 911 dispatcher didn’t say. ok good, Now keep following him.

Assuming that he continued to follow, the dispatcher does not dictate law.

There was only one person in violation of the law when the beating was occurring.

The jury will decide if there was a second violation of the law ending the beating.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Assuming that he continued to follow, the dispatcher does not dictate law.

There was only one person in violation of the law when the beating was occurring.

The jury will decide if there was a second violation of the law ending the beating.

3 for 3:thumbsup:

 

[vz71]

For the billionth time he was not there–there as on the scene. He was at his home and only took a step outside the door. He had one leg inside the house and one leg outside while Trayvon and Zimmerman were over yonder. So to say that he was there is misleading.

You can repeat it another billion if you wish.
It still does not negate the facts that he was there and did witness the beating.
Are you so entrenched into what you wish to believe happened that you cannot accept the sworn testimony of an eyewitness to the event?

He was asked thrice whether he saw the person on top slamming the person on the bottom’s head on the concrete over and over again and thrice he said no. So if you really saw this testimony, I beg the question: are you just trying to distort the story?

I have distorted nothing.

These are some things I believe the prosecution got out of this witness:

• He didn’t really see two people when he stepped out. He saw an “object”. Only when “it” moved somewhat closer did he identify two persons. So the prosecution made him testify that he did not see who was initially at the bottom.

Until he was able to identify the clothing worn by the person on top.

• He testified that he saw just hand movements and cannot tell whether they were holding or striking movements.
• He said he couldn’t see Zimmerman’s hands.

So he can identify Martin is making motions toward the person he is straddled on top of, but the person on the bottom does not appear to be making any move with his hands to stop him.
Hmm…

However when the defense asked “[Trayvon] was the one raining blows down on George Zimmerman, correct?” he said “That’s what it looked like,”

This does not seem to be a problem for the defense.

 

[Dawnia]

Have you called the police before because you were followed. I haven’t so I have no clue what the dispatcher would ask me. Probably ask for a description of myself.

What’s no good? Walking in the rain slowly. That’s the problem when people take the law into their own hands. They get hyped up for the robberies that have happened and they are not trained to deal with this type of emotion and situation. That’s why police officers are trained. Unless people believe anyone can do the job of one without training.
I don’t think so myself.

Yes, but most of the time, I’ve never had a phone with me to call. I’ve just learned how to get myself out of the situation when it does happen.

No good = committing crimes. Watching someone from a safe distance isn’t a crime & can help prevent crimes or at least provide an eye witness if one is committed.

The problem comes in if you confront the person or vice versa. Which is what appears to have happened in this case. Everyone has their opinion as to who confronted who, but we just don’t know.

 

[LisaA]

Lisa,
Since you have a lot of family in law enforcement what happens when an officer kills someone in self defense? Do they receive any counseling?
Mary.

ABSOLUTELY!!! Even if you are trained to take a life as with law enforcement or the military, the mental and emotional trauma is significant. Any kind of shooting (or I suppose if someone were killed via choke hold or other method) requires turning in the gun, leave and counselling before returning to duty. I think we have seen with our military particularly that it’s essential to help someone deal with something so incomprehensible as taking a human life. We ignore this at our peril and that of the law enforcement/military member and his/her family.

Your post makes me wonder if Zimmerman received counselling or psychiatric help. As a volunteer I suspect he wasn’t compelled as would someone in law enforcement but certainly it would be helpful for him to come to terms with the shooting.

Lisa

 

[MaryT777]

Yes, but most of the time, I’ve never had a phone with me to call. I’ve just learned how to get myself out of the situation when it does happen.

No good = committing crimes. Watching someone from a safe distance isn’t a crime & can help prevent crimes or at least provide an eye witness if one is committed.

The problem comes in if you confront the person or vice versa. Which is what appears to have happened in this case. Everyone has their opinion as to who confronted who, but we just don’t know.

How do you get yourself out of the situation when it happens? Hide?
The rest we’ve already discussed on this thread.

 

[vz71]

Your post makes me wonder if Zimmerman received counselling or psychiatric help. As a volunteer I suspect he wasn’t compelled as would someone in law enforcement but certainly it would be helpful for him to come to terms with the shooting.

Lisa

Another reason the man needs our prayers.

He likely has not received any type of counseling to help cope with the trauma of taking a life. And he also has the complication of the trial to cope with as well.

If we are to believe his side of the story, it would seem he felt he was doing the right thing, was forced to kill to defend himself, is now having the weight of the law brought upon him unjustly, and is having his life threatened by many that do not even know him.

It would seem a case for St Jude.

 

[Cider]

Oh I get it, some people want to turn this thread into a rehashing of the last 2 years of media coverage instead of actually discussing the evidence presented at the trial.

We really need a separate thread about the trial only.

 

[Vincent_N]

MaryT777:

How do you know he stopped?

I think a lot of wrong questions are being asked here. I’m going to answer your question. But I will pose and answer the only question that I think must be answered even by the jury itself.

If you listen to Zimmerman’s call to the police non-emergency number often erroneously referred to as his “911 call”,

youtube.com/watch?v=zj7qEcD8R-8

you’ll find out that 2:15, Zimmerman leaves his vehicle.

At 2:30 he is asked if he is following and told that they don’t need him to do that. Within that 15 seconds at a pace of 3mph or a slow jog, he would have been approximately at the spot where the altercation took place with respect to his parked vehicle.

The call ends approximately 90 seconds later.

What Zimmerman describes happens in the remainder of the 90seconds while he was on the phone with the operator is he was walking to the next street sign which would have put his direction of travel perpendicular to the location of Martin’s father’s girlfriend’s unit.

On the call recording, it can be noted that Zimmerman’s breathing has normalized at 2:48 which is 18 seconds from the time the answered “OK” to the operator’s declaration that they did not need him to follow Martin. This is forensic evidence that Zimmerman immediately stopped as soon as he said OK. He essentially loiters or saunters for the remainder of the call.

The altercation took place a few minutes after the call ended. So, at least 3 minutes and up to maybe 5 minutes later, the altercation takes place at roughly the same spot where Zimmerman had previously stopped when he said, “OK”. The altercation moved in the direction of Martin’s father’s girlfriend’s unit as it proceeded to occur.

With regards to the physics involved: At the point Zimmerman lost sight of Martin(it would have been roughly the same spot where the altercation took place according to line of sight from his car and the interposing corner building), he was roughly 200 ft away from his father’s girlfriend’s unit.

Taking into account at least 3 minutes until the altercation took place and at a ground speed of 3 mph, martin could have been roughly 800ft away from that same location meaning he could have double back and forth twice had he chosen to at that speed).

At 1mph or a slow leisurely walking pace, he would have been almost at the unit when the call ended.

But the question is not why Martin didn’t just go back to his father’s girlfriend’s unit. Nor is it even why he was stalking Zimmerman as he well could have. Because he would have been justified out of fear or personal curiosity. It isn’t even why he confronted Zimmerman. Again, fear or curiosity.

It is not whether Zimmerman feared Martin would kill him by beating him such as this burglar did to this woman in NJ last week (WARNING GRAPHIC):

youtube.com/watch?v=HtydxgWyOGY

or even by breaking his head against the ground. Because that woman didn’t die and she interviewed just as Zimmerman did. It is possible but not likely to get beaten to death especially when the opponents are similar in size. The head splitting thing is sorta iffy. Someone could die. More likely, severe head trauma could result in severe brain damage.

None of these questions override a certain self-defense argument.

Now, Zimmerman has not taken the stand yet. Though he has stated that the reason he went for his weapon and shot Martin was because he thought the weapon had become exposed since it was in his waistband and that Martin had seen it.

So the real question is whether Zimmerman was justified in that act. Was his fear justified at that point in that situation. Because if the answer to that question is “yes” then the jury must acquit and all other questions are irrelevant.

Let me be clear to answer that I do not know whether or if Zimmerman or Martin would have been shot by the gun had Zimmerman not reached for it. That is something that will never be known.

But, at this point considering all evidence and testimony of the altercation, I would have to say that yes, Zimmerman was justified to act in self defense. Because that is a very real and reasonable fear to have considering his situation.

 

[MaryT777]

Jose Baez has commented that a first year law student could win this case with the evidence they have. He also noted he would not put Zimmerman on the stand for he doesn’t feel it’s necessary.

 

[LisaA]

Jose Baez has commented that a first year law student could win this case with the evidence they have. He also noted he would not put Zimmerman on the stand for he doesn’t feel it’s necessary.

Which side will win? If he means Zimmerman’s based on the difference between the Casey Anthony case and this one, given that it seemed like Anthony was clearly guilty and got off, I think it augers well for Zimmerman.

I think what happened in Anthony was the jury has learned to read “beyond reasonable” to “beyond any doubt.” There is clearly a lot of doubt in this case, much more so than the Anthony case. It will depend on the skill of the defense attorney to continue to insert doubt into the prosecution’s case and conversely the prosecution will have to really explain the standard, that reasonable doubt does not mean NO doubt.

Lisa

 

[livingwordunity]

Which side will win? If he means Zimmerman’s based on the difference between the Casey Anthony case and this one, given that it seemed like Anthony was clearly guilty and got off, I think it augers well for Zimmerman.

I think what happened in Anthony was the jury has learned to read “beyond reasonable” to “beyond any doubt.” There is clearly a lot of doubt in this case, much more so than the Anthony case. It will depend on the skill of the defense attorney to continue to insert doubt into the prosecution’s case and conversely the prosecution will have to really explain the standard, that reasonable doubt does not mean NO doubt.

Lisa

The difference is Casey Anthony didn’t have the president of the United States speak out against her in public before the trial.

 

[MaryT777]

Which side will win? If he means Zimmerman’s based on the difference between the Casey Anthony case and this one, given that it seemed like Anthony was clearly guilty and got off, I think it augers well for Zimmerman.

I think what happened in Anthony was the jury has learned to read “beyond reasonable” to “beyond any doubt.” There is clearly a lot of doubt in this case, much more so than the Anthony case. It will depend on the skill of the defense attorney to continue to insert doubt into the prosecution’s case and conversely the prosecution will have to really explain the standard, that reasonable doubt does not mean NO doubt.

Lisa

He means Zimmerman will win.
There’s really no comparison of course between this case and Anthony.
Nor did he make one.
Right it’s such an easy case to win that it’s the “defense to lose it” he said.
Thus his implication if he loses the defense was incompetent.
(the knock knock joke comes to mind)

 

[MaryT777]

I personally could care less what the president says about the case for I am not an Obama supporter. The jurors were questioned and agreed upon by not only the defense,
the prosecution, also George Zimmerman. The Judge asked several questions if he understood and agreed to the jury.

Obama can spout of his mouth but he does it so much no one cares anymore.

 

[vz71]

He means Zimmerman will win.

I am not so certain ‘win’ is the appropriate term.

 

[LisaA]

He means Zimmerman will win.
There’s really no comparison of course between this case and Anthony.
Nor did he make one.
Right it’s such an easy case to win that it’s the “defense to lose it” he said.
Thus his implication if he loses the defense was incompetent.
(the knock knock joke comes to mind)

Thanks, I get it. You’re correct there is a difference between this and Anthony but my point was that it’s getting harder and harder to convict if there is ANY question of guilt.

The defense came out of the box and stumbled badly What was he thinking with that stupid joke? YIKES. But I think they’ve done a good job with prosecution witnesses so it augers well for the defense, particularly with their witnesses.

Will be interesting if Zimmerman takes the stand. I think it will depend on how the case is going. I think most expect people to speak on their own behalf if innocent.

Lisa

 

[MaryT777]

I am not so certain ‘win’ is the appropriate term.

Regretfully that’s how attorney think of the case win/lose. That was the term he used.

He even went so far as to say it doesn’t even mean Zimmerman is innocent.

It’s already a losing situation for everyone that could have been prevented.