Open Thread on Zimmerman Verdict

[adrift]

So, I would say, we still can not be sure who attacked first.

.

Did you read what I posted before about what he bought being in his pocket indicating he had been preparing for a fight? I believe it is not wanting to know rather than we cannot know.

1. Treyvon had been in fights.
2. Treyvon had approached Zimmerman before he ran away.
3. Treyvon did not go to the house he was staying in but returned to where Zimmerman was.
4. Treyvon put the items he bought in his pockets where they were found and the bag he had carried them in was nearby.
5. Zimmerman had a broken nose
6. Zimmerman had wounds on the back of his head
7. Treyvon did not have any fight wounds on him.
8. The angle of the bullet wound shows that Treyvon was on top.

We can know who attacked as there is really no evidence to contradict that it was anyone other than Treyvon.

 

[adrift]

Zimmerman’s lies have been well documented already on this thread.

.

You really believe that you have documented them? No you have just stated that he lied and ignored those who pointed out that you were wrong in your assumptions.

 

[april32010]

Not everyone in that neighborhood was happy with Z’s overzealous nature according to the HOA insurer.

source of this statement?

 

[SamH]

There was really no reason for TM to have been struck.

Agreed.

But then you seem to think he needed a reason.

 

[St_Francis]

You linked that earlier, but the is FL law regarding self-defense in a home or vehicle–it is not applicable to this situation.

This would be more relevant:
Link to FL Use of Force by Aggressor

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, **
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; **or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

I list the statute below and shorten this post, using “self-defense” does not translate to one attacked the other first per Florida law.

Please see a few posts below.

This shows nothing less than he was in a fight.

If it is so well established Martin struck first, then there should be some sort of authoritative document that states it is a fact, seeing how that can not be produced except possibly by some bloggers, I would say you don’t have an objective basis for your statement.

Zimmerman’s version is not under oath, was not questioned on cross-examination. The jury has not submitted to stating they believe George Zimmerman’s testimony.

His testimony is his unsworn interviews and a broken nose.

Again, Zimmerman’s attorney told the jury they have to find beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman did not use self defense. Mark O’Mara says that even if the jury thinks it is ‘highly unlikely’ Zimmerman used self-defense, that is not enough.

This certainly does not seem to say George Zimmerman’s narrative is absolute fact as you make it out to be. Or should we say Zimmerman’s narrative is absolute fact backed by the evidence if we must go by that route.

breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/07/12/Zimmerman-Trial-The-Sound-of-Silence

Here is some on the Self-Defense law: not sure if this was the earlier link:

leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

 

[BroomWagon]

Do you have any evidence to show that Zimmerman was lying?

Not sure if this relevant, one could say that about anyone’s testimony.

I don’t believe in my dozens of posts have I accused George Zimmerman of lying once.

Zimmerman gave his multiple statements to police before he got a lawyer. He gave them knowing there were witnesses but not knowing what the witnesses said. Zimmerman gave his statements having been told there might be a video of the incident. Zimmerman said, upon being told there might be a video, Thank God! not, oh, let me change a fee points in my statements.

His testimony is not totally consistent, it is not sworn testimony, it was not questioned on cross-examination. It was not in a courtroom. And he has the motivation to avoid a long prison sentence in his words.

Zimmerman’s actions during his statements and the fact that his statements line up with whatever independent evidence there is, all give a lot of credence to his statements. There seems to be no evidence that he is lying at all.

I have not said he was lying. He doesn’t even know the 3 streets of the Twin Lakes Complex he was the Neighborhood Watch Captain of. So, his memory and recollection may not be that good.

And it is very clear from the evidence that at the time he shot, he was in reasonable fear of his life or serious physical harm *at Martin’s hands. *

This is true. That’s the way Florida’s law is written.

It has been mentioned that Jeantel suggested to Martin that Zimmerman was a homosexual rapist. So explain to me why Martin was where he was when he had plenty of time to get to a safe place, and seems, from all the evidence including his own words to Jeantel, to have almost reached home? I can see why he might not have gone in, but I do not understand why he was then in a dark place back where he started from right near Zimmerman. Martin was not in a well-lit place, he was not further away from Zimmerman… Waht does Martin’s *returning *to a dark spot near where he had seen Zimmerman indicate?

I’m not sure if Martin could have safely made it home, as others have inferred, then you might bring your brother who was there and your father and his fiancee into the matter.

I have seen the map of the complex and the paths Martin and Zimmerman both took.

Martin was not breaking the law by walking around the complex.

If I understand it correctly, Zimmerman may have even followed Martin some in his truck, I’m unsure about this. That would be intimidating. To me, it sounded like maybe Zimmerman got off the main road in his vehicle.

Rachel Jeantel’s phone call seems of limited value unfortunately. Just being an “ear witness” does not have as much credibility as an eye witness though I’m sure cases have been made using ear-witness testimony.

 

[BroomWagon]

Did you read what I posted before about what he bought being in his pocket indicating he had been preparing for a fight? I believe it is not wanting to know rather than we cannot know.

Some people allude to the hand in the waistband meaning a phone clip could be on the pants.

1. Treyvon had been in fights.

This is true, Trayvon had been in a fight club or something.

1. Treyvon had approached Zimmerman before he ran away.

We can see the 911 transcript. I thought Zimmerman wanted to know who this guy was. Sometimes if someone is addressing me, I might look in their direction as well.

1. Treyvon did not go to the house he was staying in but returned to where Zimmerman was.

Trayvon may not have wanted to endanger his family or involve them in this. Apparently he was not breaking the law walking around.

1. Treyvon put the items he bought in his pockets where they were found and the bag he had carried them in was nearby.

1. Zimmerman had a broken nose

He was in a scuffle.

1. Zimmerman had wounds on the back of his head

He was in a fight.

1. Treyvon did not have any fight wounds on him.

Nor any of Zimmerman’s blood or DNA if I understand correctly. He did have an abrasion to a hand.

1. The angle of the bullet wound shows that Treyvon was on top.

The stronger man was winning.

We can know who attacked as there is really no evidence to contradict that it was anyone other than Treyvon.

We have the defendant’s word Trayvon Martin attacked. The defendant has motivation to state such.

 

[LisaA]

It was raining outside.

Review the video tape of Martin when he was purchasing the items. He was wearing the hoodie, it was up over his face inside the store. It was not raining inside the store was it?
You see young people, inside and outside with the hoodie on and pulled forward…like sunglasses worn inside, it looks a little silly but it’s the style for some.

As to Martin’s concern with the rain, he appeared to be unconcerned with getting out of the bad weather as he was not proceeding to any destination but was walking around between the homes… It was that fact, rather than his skin color that drew Zimmerman’s attention. The hoodie was pulled up and over his face and according to the phone call, Zimmerman saw him clearly only when he approached Zimmerman’s truck.

Facts.

Lisa

 

[LisaA]

Some people allude to the hand in the waistband meaning a phone clip could be on the pants.

This is true, Trayvon had been in a fight club or something.

We can see the 911 transcript. I thought Zimmerman wanted to know who this guy was. Sometimes if someone is addressing me, I might look in their direction as well.

Trayvon may not have wanted to endanger his family or involve them in this. Apparently he was not breaking the law walking around.

He was in a scuffle.

He was in a fight.

Nor any of Zimmerman’s blood or DNA if I understand correctly. He did have an abrasion to a hand.

The stronger man was winning.

We have the defendant’s word Trayvon Martin attacked. The defendant has motivation to state such.

Again please read the law. Although all of the evidence points to Martin escalating the encounter to a physical altercation, even IF we were to say no one knows who threw the first punch, the fact that Zimmerman was being beaten severely, had no means of escape as Martin had him pinned down, he was justified by law using the gun.

The rendition that Martin escaped, decided to turn around and confront Zimmerman, hit him in the nose, knocked him down and proceeded to rain down blows has substantial forensic, eyewitness and earwitness support. But even if Zimmerman started the fight, the use of deadly force in self defense is both legal and justified.

Do you have any facts that would indicate Zimmerman violated the law in using deadly force?

Lisa

 

[maryjk]

We have the defendant’s word Trayvon Martin attacked. The defendant has motivation to state such.

Jeantel also indicated that Martin started the fight. But I guess you don’t believe her anymore.

 

[adrift]

Some people allude to the hand in the waistband meaning a phone clip could be on the pants.

I have no idea why you bring this up. What I am stating is that TM had put the thngs he bought into his clothing. He had carried them in a bag until he confronted Zimmerman. The bag was found near his body. This indicates that he was preparing for a confrontation. We know he was prone to violence in his fighting. This is circumstantial evidence that he was preparing for a fight.

We can see the 911 transcript. I thought Zimmerman wanted to know who this guy was. Sometimes if someone is addressing me, I might look in their direction as well.

He did more than look his way. He ran away and then returned.

Trayvon may not have wanted to endanger his family or involve them in this. Apparently he was not breaking the law walking around.

He had told his girlfriend he had lost him and he was near the place where his father was staying. It wasn’t that he was breaking the law but that his actions were suspicious. I would wonder about a person not walking on the sidewalk, going slowly in the rain.

He was in a scuffle.He was in a fight.

That begs the question of who he was in a scuffle with?

Nor any of Zimmerman’s blood or DNA if I understand correctly. He did have an abrasion to a hand.

The stronger man was winning.

Really? TM was winning putting Zimmerman in fear for his life.

We have the defendant’s word Trayvon Martin attacked. The defendant has motivation to state such.

Yes but we also have the circumstantial evidence which you haven’t refuted, in fact confirmed that TM was the aggressor

 

[St_Francis]

Zzimmer

 

[St_Francis]

Not sure if this relevant, one could say that about anyone’s testimony.

I don’t believe in my dozens of posts have I accused George Zimmerman of lying once.

Well, no, but the comment was not addressed to you but to Mary, who was bringing up Zimmerman’s “long history of lying” iirc, without a shred of evidence–the one (1) thing she has brought up has been explained like 38 million times.

[qote]His testimony is not totally consistent, it is not sworn testimony, it was not questioned on cross-examination. It was not in a courtroom. And he has the motivation to avoid a long prison sentence in his words.
Addressed by someone else in the last couple of pages in this thread. *No one’s *testimony is completely consistent, and as the police officer explained in the trial, complete consistency would raise suspicions in the minds of the police.

I have not said he was lying. He doesn’t even know the 3 streets of the Twin Lakes Complex he was the Neighborhood Watch Captain of. So, his memory and recollection may not be that good.

This is true. That’s the way Florida’s law is written.

I’m not sure if Martin could have safely made it home, as others have inferred, then you might bring your brother who was there and your father and his fiancee into the matter.

I have seen the map of the complex and the paths Martin and Zimmerman both took.

Martin was not breaking the law by walking around the complex.

If I understand it correctly, Zimmerman may have even followed Martin some in his truck, I’m unsure about this. That would be intimidating. To me, it sounded like maybe Zimmerman got off the main road in his vehicle.

Rachel Jeantel’s phone call seems of limited value unfortunately. Just being an “ear witness” does not have as much credibility as an eye witness though I’m sure cases have been made using ear-witness testimony.

 

[St_Francis]

There was no such statement that he was a “homosexual” rapist. The person that posted that that has retracted it. The rapist part is correct and fact.

Why the sensitivity, Mary? Do you really think that homosexuality was not implied when Rachel Jeantel said: RACHEL JEANTEL: Yes. Definitely after I say may be a rapist, for every boy, for every man, every — who’s not **that kind of way, **seeing a grown man following them, would they be creep out?

And people need to understand, he didn’t want that creepy *** cracker going to his father or girlfriend’s house to go get — mind you, his little brother was there. You know — now, mind you, I told you — I told Trayvon [Zimmerman] might have been a rapist.

And of course every young man would want to protect his younger future stepbrother from a male *heterosexual *rapist. That makes perfect sense! Homosexuality did not enter into this *at all, *of course Martin wouldn’t be so politically incorrect as to **profile **Zimmerman as a homosexual… rapist…

And there’s not a chance in the world that Martin did not go back to the dark area where he had seen the man whom he profiled as a homosexual to *leap out of the bushes and start using MMA tactics to beat the living *** out of him–no, this * never *could be the explanation for Martin’s having gone, not to a place of safety, well-lit, away from Zimmerman, but instead *returned *to where he had last seen Zimmerman, to a dark place…

Curiouser and curiouser…*

 

[BroomWagon]

I have no idea why you bring this up. What I am stating is that TM had put the thngs he bought into his clothing. He had carried them in a bag until he confronted Zimmerman. The bag was found near his body. This indicates that he was preparing for a confrontation. We know he was prone to violence in his fighting. This is circumstantial evidence that he was preparing for a fight.

In this or the other thread, I mentioned from reading one of the articles, it almost sounds like Zimmerman might have trailed Martin in his SUV, This vehicle is not marked Security from what I know.

In ways, someone could feel Zimmerman’s conduct was managing.

Per the 911 call, “it looks like he’s coming this way, yes, he’s checking me out, he’s staring at me”, I don’t see how this is unnatural reaction to someone checking one out and one might feel apprehensive.

There is so much we don’t know. Is it even possible Martin knew who Zimmerman was in the gated community and being invovled in NW?? Could Martin know Zimmerman had made phone calls numerous times to report people??

He did more than look his way. He ran away and then returned.

One could make a case, running away reflects Martin thought Zimmerman’s behavior was menacing.

He had told his girlfriend he had lost him and he was near the place where his father was staying. It wasn’t that he was breaking the law but that his actions were suspicious. I would wonder about a person not walking on the sidewalk, going slowly in the rain.

Interesting point and at night time too, it’s 7:15ish in late February in Florida, I assume it’s dark and that they’d mainly have the night lights on.

That begs the question of who he was in a scuffle with?

One of the witnesses reports hearing a scuffle, wrestling in the grass and almost thought it would come through the window. This means both sides could have exchanged whose on top and bottom.

Really? TM was winning putting Zimmerman in fear for his life.

A lot less can put me in fear for my life.

csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2013/0628/Who-was-on-top-in-Zimmerman-Martin-tussle-Witness-testimony-in-conflict

Lauer testified she heard an exchange that was presumably between two people. She then heard a scuffling, ‘like sneakers on pavement and grass,’ ” CBS News reported Thursday.

“It kinda sounded like wrestling,” Ms. Lauer said. “At one point I felt like they were going to come through the screen.”

<---- this can mean too at one point, they were near the apartment windows, rolling in the grass.

Yes but we also have the circumstantial evidence which you haven’t refuted, in fact confirmed that TM was the aggressor

Not sure, Martin walked around the apartments or gated community, whichever word is more proper.

Zimmerman has a broken nose, abrasions on the back of the head. A kid fell off their bike a week ago and skinned their knee up, happens all the time. None of this says Martin was the aggressor in starting a fight.

As to putting things in one’s pocket to prepare for the fight, I don’t think the defense attorneys even allude to that.

So from the case, I’m not sure what circumstantial evidence needs to be refuted.

It looks like the main argument Zimmerman’s attorneys use is the 4 minute gap in the prosecution story.

I don’t recall the attorneys spending a lot of time saying Martin started this fight as the aggressor.

breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/07/12/Zimmerman-Trial-The-Sound-of-Silence

 

[Robert_Sock]

And there’s not a chance in the world that Martin did not go back to the dark area where he had seen the man whom he profiled as a homosexual to *leap out of the bushes and start using MMA tactics to beat the living *** out of him–no, this * never **could be the explanation for Martin’s having gone, not to a place of safety, well-lit, away from Zimmerman, but instead *returned *to where he had last seen Zimmerman, to a dark place…

This is all from GZ’s perspective. Where’s the likely perspective of TM?

 

[St_Francis]

Adrift: Here is the Florida Statue I was looking for:

Note those conditions to number 2 above.

Does this not seem to say one could initiate a fight then lose the fight, they are now scared of severe harm or death and so now can use “self-defense” even though they initiated the fight.

So, I would say, we still can not be sure who attacked first.

One of the jurors days ago said she thought Martin threw the first punch but then news came out the other jurors distanced themselves from her testimony. I don’t know if it was about that particular statement or her statements in general.

But the point is that it doesn’t matter who started the fight–what matter is if Zimmerman was in reasonable fear of death or serious injury and Martin was continuing beyond the point of self-defense even if Zimmerman had started the altercation, for which we have no direct evidence.

We also have no answers to the question of why Martin was hanging out in a dark place near where he had seen someone whom eveyone thinks Martin was perfectly justified in feeling fear of. If you are afraid of someone and you run away from them, would you not keep on going rather than *return? *Would you not get to a place with lots of light rather than a dark place?

 

[St_Francis]

This is all from GZ’s perspective. Where’s the likely perspective of TM?

Given his actions, I come up with only one idea of Martin’s perspective. everyone here has said it make sense forMartin to feel afraid of Zimmerman–OK, I get that.

What I don’t understand is why, if Martin was afraid of Zimmerman, he *returned *to where Zimmerman was, why he (Martin) went to a *dark *place. These are not the actions of someone who is afraid of someone.

 

[BroomWagon]

But the point is that it doesn’t matter who started the fight–what matter is if Zimmerman was in reasonable fear of death or serious injury and Martin was continuing beyond the point of self-defense even if Zimmerman had started the altercation, for which we have no direct evidence.

I sort of agree with this. We seemed to hear a number of times, we know Trayvon Martin started the fight, all the same, I would say the legal definition from Florida makes “it doesn’t matter who starts the fight” a sort of condition on the definition.

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.

leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.041.html

It sort of says, it does matter who started the fight UNLESS the one who started the fight is now losing so bad, he needs to defend themselves. Anyway, I don’t call anyone wrong, I think it is clearly laid out in this definition.

We also have no answers to the question of why Martin was hanging out in a dark place near where he had seen someone whom eveyone thinks Martin was perfectly justified in feeling fear of. If you are afraid of someone and you run away from them, would you not keep on going rather than *return? *Would you not get to a place with lots of light rather than a dark place?

Martin could be hiding. But I admit, that’s speculation.

I think this is one of those matters that are possibly not clear, Zimmerman alludes to this, “Martin jumps out of the bushes”. Unfortunately, we simply don’t have a witness or video to the whole thing or it would be clear.

 

[MaryT777]

Yes, it was. But it wasn’t raining inside the store, was it??

It really doesn’t matter because Martin wasn’t shot because of a hoodie. He was shot because he was attacking someone.

Well, we don’t know if he was a robber. He did have stolen goods on him. (Any explanation for that?)

But he wasn’t shot because he was a robber. He was shot because he was attacking someone.

I always laugh when someone says, “But Zimmerman profiled Martin.” Yes, he did. And he was right.

Yes he did profile Martin. I agree with that.