"The primary State witnesses today were Rachel Jeantel, Jenna Lauer, and Selma Mora. The first had her credibility substantively destroyed, the second was powerfully – almost humiliatingly – co-opted by the defense, and the third provided testimony entirely consistent with the defense’s theory of lawful self-defense."
Very detailed coverage of the Zimmerman trial, with video clips, over at Legal Insurrection, where the analysis is clearly pro-defense, but good.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
144 comments:
This case was a mess from the start.
The Lefties were more eager to lynch Zimmerman than see justice done.
For once, the patsy is gonna walk.
That's been my go-to place. Honestly, while being pro-defense, assuming his tweets aren't just made up, I find it hard to come to a different conclusion. Like, this morning, the first witness testified that the man wearing clothing matching Zimmerman's clothing the night of the attack was on bottom, being pinned and hit.
And this guy is called BY THE PROSECUTION.
Isn't it nice that Mr. Good testified he was reluctant to talk about this because he feared reprisals from the "Justice for Trayvon" crowd?
The "Justice for Trayvon" crowd are either stupid people or morally bankrupt.
The Martin family announced last night that this case is not about race.
That would be news to a hell of a lot of people. Of course when our sweet, innocent little wanna be thug racially profiles and uses racial epithets against someone in a neighborhood he is staying in, it is awfully convenient to announce the case is not about race.
Jay: That might be why he was called for the prosecution. I actually thought about that. What if people WANTED to testify in defense of Zimmerman, but feared reprisal (like how -- was it Zimmerman's parents? -- had their address tweeted out?)
Easy solution, go down as testifying "For Trayvon," but then answer honestly.
"Like, this morning, the first witness testified that the man wearing clothing matching Zimmerman's clothing the night of the attack was on bottom, being pinned and hit."
I watched some of that. 2 things to remember there are:
1. The witness didn't see the fight start (I believe, I came in in the middle). So Z could have been the first aggressor and then TM wrestled around to the top.
2. The witness saw downward arm movements, but said he couldn't see or hear any slamming of the head, and the testimony could be portrayed as TM holding down Z.
The prosecutor has to use the witnesses who happened to be there to see and hear things, and the key to whether he's doing a good job has to do with useful evidence that he draws out and the form of various statements and clarifications as he works with the people he must use.
It's not as if the prosecution's witnesses are the people who want to help the prosecutor. They might, but they could be neutral or sympathetic to Z.
I think the witnesses seem pretty neutral. The nearby homeowners might be sympathetic to the neighborhood watch idea, if anything.
The witness didn't see the fight start (I believe, I came in in the middle). So Z could have been the first aggressor
Sure, and even if Zimmerman started the fight, under FL statute he is still not guilty of the charge and can claim the justifiable use of deadly force if he (or she) "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;'"
I wonder if the Justice for Trayvon crowd will ever be open to admitting they fell for a race-hustling ruse?
That's true too. He didn't see the start; so, it matters if Zimmerman STARTED the fight and then if Martin escalated it to the point where Martin's fighting back was no longer self-defense but had become assault.
It's not as if the prosecution's witnesses are the people who want to help the prosecutor
No, but they are people who typically help support the prosecution's theory - in this case Zimmerman was a ball of frustration who exploded on the night in question - and in this case the exact opposite has happened.
For a very specific example of what I'm saying, note State witness Jenna Lauer:
O’Mara asked Lauer if in her personal interactions with Zimmerman he had acted appropriately. Yes, she answered. Did he appear to be a hot head? No. A wannabe vigilante? No. Did he seem to be a well-intentioned neighbor trying to help his community? Yes.
Also, Jenna Lauer knew who Zimmerman was and couldn't recognize a photo of Zimmerman taken by the police the night of the shooting due to his injuries.
Though LI seems pro defense, the MSM is clearly over the top for "the poor little black boy who was murdered by the racist white man"
For once, the patsy is gonna walk.
I wouldn't cash... that post office money order just yet.
O'Mara gets Good to acknowledge that he yelled at Trayvon Martin to stop beating George Zimmerman and he didn't stop.
This is a joke and these prosecutors should be thrown in jail.
The defense strategy with Dee Dee seemed to be to attack the DA for his tortured witness interrogation rather than impeach the girl directly.
Over the long haul, the State appears both inept and unprofessional in most everything they have done except press conferences.
Nifongish
"the MSM is clearly over the top for "the poor little black boy who was murdered by the racist white man"
More proof that facts don't matter or are ignored if they don't "fit the narrative".
So Z could have been the first aggressor and then TM wrestled around to the top.
While true the statement still contradicts the prosecution's case.
Trayvon Martin was on top.
They were partially on the sidewalk (supporting Zimmerman's account)
Again, I'm wondering if Angela Corey is going to fake her own death at this point.
Oh, and special thanks to Rick Scott for engaging these race hustlers in thier farce of a trial.
But but but....they'll riot! The trump card.
I say that PDs across America are gearing-up and making plans!
Dee-Dee was the "star" witness?
Holy Shit!
So does it help the Democrats 2014 chances if Z is acquitted and blacks are outraged at the polls?
what if there are demonstrations or riots?
One thing I haven't seen commented upon is the fact that Trevon Martin's mother is allowed in the courtroom and Zimmerman's mother has been banned. Yesterday one MSM source breathlessly reported that Martin's mom was sobbing in the courtroom—gee I bet that won’t influence the jury. What a sad state of affairs this trial is.
The Drill SGT said...
So does it help the Democrats 2014 chances if Z is acquitted and blacks are outraged at the polls?
Yes.
what if there are demonstrations or riots?
Even better for Democrats.
The Sanford Police Dept. did a thorough job of documenting this case before they let Zimmermann go, and they have it all on video besides the documentary evidence and still photo records.
This trial is just a B.S. show trial and should never have been allowed to proceed.
The Sanford Police Dept. did a thorough job of documenting this case before they let Zimmermann go, and they have it all on video besides the documentary evidence and still photo records.
This trial is just a B.S. show trial and should never have been allowed to proceed.
This case helped gin up black outrage and black turnout for Nov 2012.
I'm sure many Dems would like a repeat for 2014, so secretly, they're rooting for acquittal.
I wouldn't cash... that post office money order just yet.
The one you could cash right now is that even with joke of a prosecution, if Zimmerman is found guilty, there will be zero rioting or looting in white neighborhoods.
What's interesting is that the architect of this baseless and shameful prosecution, Angela Corey, the Jacksonville DA, is not to be found. This way, when the case goes down in flames, the blame cannot be on her and she, perhaps, can avoid being the target of those who pushed this prosecution. So both she, and the governor who picked her, stay clean.
The Drill SGT said...
So does it help the Democrats 2014 chances if Z is acquitted and blacks are outraged at the polls?
what if there are demonstrations or riots?
I don't know if it'll the Democrats help very much. Black turnout for 2014 might be higher but over 90% are going to vote for the Democrats. If there are riots, there could well be a strong backlash, especially if it appears that Democrats are egging on the riots. White turnout could also be higher and they may be less inclined to vote for Democrats. Also, Zimmerman is hispanic and if the riots are directed at them, there could be a backlash from them as well.
Ipso Fatso said...
One thing I haven't seen commented upon is the fact that Trevon Martin's mother is allowed in the courtroom and Zimmerman's mother has been banned.
The state put Z's parents on the witness list specifically to exclude them from the courtroom.
Remember, the left believes government bureaucrats should be empowered to control vast swaths of your life including your healthcare. Such policies can only work if people can resist the institutional incentives that warp priorities over time. This doesn't seem to happen.
In other news:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2287332/Nearly-1-200-people-starved-death-NHS-hospitals-nurses-busy-feed-patients.html
Whoops. Can you imagine the attacks on the provate sector if a private company did this?
Marshal said...
Marshal said...
So does it help the Democrats 2014 chances if Z is acquitted and blacks are outraged at the polls?
Yes.
No, midterm voters are a very different subset than quadrennials.
Also, elections are much more local.
Also, the Voting Rights Act finding may have its little effect on vote fraud.
what if there are demonstrations or riots?
Even better for Democrats.
History says otherwise.
Republicans are the party of law and order and that vote (the Althouse Hillbillies to quote Retread) will be out by the millions
Dee-Dee was interviewed by the prosecutors in the presence of Trayvon's parents. Is this normal procedure?
Let's all thank Barry for his early intervention in this case and raising its profile into the social justice realm out of the merely legal justice world.
1. The state had to go for the maximum charge regardless of the evidence. This is not about the law, its about politics.
2. Many are hoping he gets convicted in spite of the evidence, well because we know what's "right".
3. There will be no insignificant amount of violent acts, regardless of the verdict.
edutcher said...
what if there are demonstrations or riots?
Even better for Democrats.
History says otherwise.
Republicans are the party of law and order and that vote (the Althouse Hillbillies to quote Retread) will be out by the millions
Anything that keeps racism high among voter concerns is good for Democrats. They've successfully established their mythology amongst the majority of the population, and high tensions are going to be exploited by the media.
You can hope otherwise but that's all it will be.
The witness Good is on now. He is helping Z big time. That may be the narrative fail that acquits Z.
The state had to put him on because the goal is a fair trial.
The state also can "shot themselves with the Defendants ammo first because they don't aim at the heart"
That leaves open the question of who attacked first. Good also did not see or hear Z's head slammed into concrete walk.
It's 'ask", A-S-K, not ax.
traditionalguy said...
The state had to put him on because the goal is a fair trial.
I can't believe anyone even wrote this. This is so obviously carrying water I'm now wondering if your entire position on Zimmerman is your idea of a joke, or should I say performance art.
The police photos show the damage to back of Z's head. Who else but Martin would have pounded his head into the pavement?
Marshal said...
what if there are demonstrations or riots?
Even better for Democrats.
History says otherwise.
Republicans are the party of law and order and that vote (the Althouse Hillbillies to quote Retread) will be out by the millions
Anything that keeps racism high among voter concerns is good for Democrats. They've successfully established their mythology amongst the majority of the population, and high tensions are going to be exploited by the media.
You can hope otherwise but that's all it will be.
Race is a two-edged sword.
A lot of riots across the country brings out the law and order crowd.
Remember the 60s.
What is constantly being lost in the analysis of the case is that Zimmerman is presumed to be innocent. So we start from that position and it's up to the state to show that he committed Murder 2 beyond a reasonable doubt.
Has any, ANY, evidence been offered so far that is that conclusive?
No. And I would add HELL NO.
At best the state has given testimony that maybe Zimmerman started the fight and maybe he wasn't in fear for his life (but then again maybe not.)
Convict him on that basis? Geez ...
"if Zimmerman is found guilty, there will be zero rioting or looting in white neighborhoods."
That would be unfortunate, because it would warrant it far more than the source of most riots ever have. If the government is going to say you have to let an assailant murder you, then it's time to break some things.
Traditional Guy:
If the state really wanted to act fairly, the DA would have taken this case to a grand jury. She didn't because she was afraid either that the grand jury would return a not true bill, meaning no indictment or the charge would be for a lesser charge, perhaps even misdemeanor assault. The proponents of charging Zimmerman wanted the most serous possible charge, which the DA gave them - murder second degree. These actions were shameful - a Florida version of "Nifonging."
If race were not a factor, the matter would have gone to a grand jury, which would have refused to return an indictment.
Marshall...we all comment on what we see At Trial of the case.
I am not against Z if the facts support him. But before the Trial all we had was PR releases and prophets.
The goal is a fair trial. That brings closure and acceptance that the legal system does do justice. That is a much bigger deal than King of the blogger Hill. THANK God for lawyers and Judges who do the work and spare us from a rule by Vigilante Spirit.
"traditionalguy said...
Marshall...we all comment on what we see At Trial of the case.
I am not against Z if the facts support him. But before the Trial all we had was PR releases and prophets.
The goal is a fair trial. That brings closure and acceptance that the legal system does do justice. That is a much bigger deal than King of the blogger Hill. THANK God for lawyers and Judges who do the work and spare us from a rule by Vigilante Spirit."
Oh, bullshit. Who pays for the lost time and pain Zimmerman endures? The huge cost of the trial.
It is true that Good did not see the start of the fight, but so far the prosecution hasn't presented any direct evidence as to who initiated unlawful physical force.
The closest it has come is the girlfriend's testimony that she heard a bump sound and Travon say "get off, get off" If you watched her testimony and the cross-examination, the credibility of this testimony is very weak.
As a person who has been around teenagers, I know that just holding a an approaching teenager at arms length could provoke such a response.
More interesting is the observation made by Tom McQuire that "get off the gate" is slang for "let's start fighting"
The goal is a fair trial. That brings closure and acceptance that the legal system does do justice.
Sorry, Traditional guy, but the state's goal in this trial was to assuage the racialist passions of the black mob. To think otherwise is naive.
traditionalguy said...
THANK God for lawyers and Judges who do the work and spare us from a rule by Vigilante Spirit.
The only reason that this ever came to trial was to appease the Vigilante Spirit.
All in a proper legal way, of course.
Sucks if you're George Zimmerman though ...
@ Nomennovun...That's what I was saying. A fair trial assuages the passions of the mob of vigilantes of both races.
I did not invent this notion. It's as old as the English Common Law.
Remember John Adams and the Boston Massacre trial done in Boston of the hated SOB Lobsters who had for no good reasonfired as a group and killed 6 citizen demonstrators? That was the tradition and it worked. Five British soldiers were acquitted, two convicted and sentences later reduced. Therefore no vigilante actions were taken, at least until the Tea Tax showdown with Lord Townshend's arrogance.
Traditional Guy:
The problem with your view is that, when the battle lines are drawn, as in this case, only the winning side will believe the trial was "fair." The outcome of this trial will not change any minds whatsoever.
Getting out of your car is proof of depraved indifference to human life. Calling someone "a creepy ass cracker" should not be considered racial hostility or evidence of hostile intent. Later on, the prosecution will make these irrefutable facts clearer.
Poor George Zimmerman will always be a hero of the war against stupid black teenagers. He will be well taken care of by his supporters.
The Martins get closure, which is all they have asked for as if they are American Citizens or something.
The OJ trial was not an seriously an acquital following a fair trial. O J was guilty as hell. But the war between the LAPD and the African American citizens was still going strong and the acquitta/pardon of OJ was a big victory over the LAPD.
We don't want that to go on in the south, and it will not unless we start it.
Speaking of vigilantes:
Over on the Isthmus (best entertainment on the web) one progressive said that if Zimmerman got off he would be murdered. He seemed happy with that result though has not yet responded to my request for clarification.
Another progressive did respond, though. S/he agreed Z would probably be murdered if he got off and "not do so hot" in in prison if convicted.
S/he seemed fine with either outcome.
Both commenters use anonymous screen names of course.
Sheesh but you cheeseheads are bloodthirsty.
John Henry
A fair trial assuages the passions of the mob of vigilantes of both races.
How can a trial be proper if the state conducts it on the whims of the mob, with no credible evidence of wrong-doing by the alleged perpetrator? That is not justice. That is anarchy. It's pretty much the opposite of justice, in fact. The reason it is dangerous for the state to put on such a trial is the chance that a jury may itself were caught up in the passions of the mob and thereby convict the accused. Putting Zimmerman on trial with no credible evidence of the crime is little different from picking some man at random off the street for trial, a la Franz Kafka. But why not do so if it proves to the mob that it is responsive to their demands for a sacrifice?
The state should be there to say to the mob, "No! This is not how justice is done." Instead, the state took the coward’s way out. Based on what we have seen so far, the state has done Zimmerman a great wrong.
By the way, who and where are the mobs of white vigilantes you speak of?
Re creepy ass cracker
I listened when they played the tape and it was not clear to me but someone elsewhere asked which it was:
Creepy-ass cracker
or
Creepy ass-cracker
The second lines up with Jeantals statement to Martin that Zimmerman may have been a rapist. Which doesn't make sense, BTW. She does claim she said it though.
John Henry
The Martins get closure.
Fuck "closure." There is no God-given right to "closure."
"That's true too. He didn't see the start; so, it matters if Zimmerman STARTED the fight and then if Martin escalated it to the point where Martin's fighting back was no longer self-defense but had become assault."
A person could be armed, and be confrontational, belligerent, or even pick a fight, and if the tide turns against them they can justify a lethal armed response? This sounds unlikely to me, and if it is legally plausible, then it sounds like a terrible precedent.
"A person could be armed, and be confrontational, belligerent, or even pick a fight, and if the tide turns against them they can justify a lethal armed response? This sounds unlikely to me, and if it is legally plausible, then it sounds like a terrible precedent."
-- It matters on the situation; but legal self-defense can turn into illegal assault on a dime.
William is funny.
I don't think Zimmerman is a hero. I think it's possible that his possession of a gun caused him to follow Martin more aggressively than he might have otherwise. But that doesn't add up to depraved indifference.....I just don't understand why, if Martin was in mortal fear, he didn't run to his father's home, or call 911, or tell his girlfriend that he was really scared, or try to run away. I don't know this for certain, but my guess is that Martin was the one who made this a physical confrontation.
" Good also did not see or hear Z's head slammed into concrete walk."
And he didn't see him land blows to Zimmerman's head.
The jury, however, has been shown photographs of Zimmerman broken, bloody and swollen nose and the scrapes and bruises on the back of his head.
It would not take much effort to connect the dots.
Also, I found interesting this post by I presume someone retired from a retired police detective:
"“I’m here to say, as a former detective, if this were a police officer on the ground, without any medium weapons like a taser but only his weapon as a tool, he could shoot Martin dead and it would be ruled a good shoot.
Why?
Because every police officer on the planet knows just how little it takes to be knocked unconscious, and your weapon taken to kill you with, and how easy it is to be killed from a single blow to your head or you head pounced off concrete.
Not to mention the permanent injuries like loss of vision or broken jaws.
The only difference is we are trained to keep shooting until the bad guy is stopped, Martin would have taken four or five round to the chest, which mean Zimmerman was using restraint.”
It is Zimmermann who had a broken nose and gashes on the back of his head; it was Martin who had lacerations on his knuckles from hitting something or someone.
The physical evdence matches Zimmermann's story; not the prosecution's.
... where the analysis is clearly pro-defense...
A mob lynching hold no prospect of advodcay for Althouse?
"That's true too. He didn't see the start; so, it matters if Zimmerman STARTED the fight and then if Martin escalated it to the point where Martin's fighting back was no longer self-defense but had become assault."
But starting the fight is something the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. To date, they've provided no evidence of it. At all.
John said...
Re creepy ass cracker
I listened when they played the tape and it was not clear to me but someone elsewhere asked which it was:
Creepy-ass cracker
or
Creepy ass-cracker
The second lines up with Jeantals statement to Martin that Zimmerman may have been a rapist. Which doesn't make sense, BTW. She does claim she said it though.
===================
This is Florida, not wherever you live north or West of the South. Everyone knows precisely what "cracker" is in Florida. A racial slur racist blacks use, directed at whites. Your word parsing is meaningless.
Just as in Florida a dumbass coon means the same as "nigger". Not a caricature of a dumb person who looks like a raccoon's butt.
Most tellingly in the case the prosecution has presented so far, they have included none of the responding officers, none of the physical evidence at the scene, and are in essence avoiding all the actual concrete facts of the case.
The defense is going to be the ones using all of the information gathered by the police investigators to make their case.
Sadly, this is a show-trial that is likely to end in a conviction based solely on fears of race-riots. This is beyond farce, it is a travesty.
"the analysis is clearly pro-defense, but good."
So pro defense that I am skeptical of the analysis. I watched a good bit of video of the Rachael Jeantel testimony. It did not seem to me that her credibility was destroyed. Her lies were effectively disclosed first by the prosecution, and while she was inarticulate she had to repeat and clarify so often that her story was understandable. She was not making over the top or incredible cliams about what she heard, and I can see how a jury might believe her.
I would not find her testimony alone enough to convict, and she may be unappealing to some jurors, but her credibility about her testimony was not "destroyed."
"She was not making over the top or incredible cliams about what she heard, and I can see how a jury might believe her."
-- Believe her about WHAT? That an altercation happened where Martin may or may not have been the first one to say something?
That's the problem; she lied about a lot of stuff, and what she has to say about the case is irrelevant to the actual case.
Sadly, this is a show-trial that is likely to end in a conviction based solely on fears of race-riots.
Even if it doesn't, most people see it for the farce it is, even if they think that the ends -- mollifying the mob, bringing "closure" to Trayvon's mother -- justify the means. As a result cynicism and contempt for the system will increase all around.
What a disaster.
But but but... Martin was black!!!!! So it don't matter if Z was getting slammed into the pavement buy the kid after he sucker punched Z. Z provoked it by existing on the same block as Martin!
And Martin was a sweet young pot smoking racist man who had his life cut short by the mean Spanish/black.. I mean white, man!
So convict Z or there will be race riots!
Martin Sablan: Your summary shows you did not listen to her testimony. Understandable. But surely the jury did. Her testimony, taken as a whole, reflects that Zimmerman was stalking Martin. I would not find that testimony alone enough to convict, but your comment shows that you discounted what she said in its entirety. A jury will approach this more seriously than you do.
Patrick said...
But starting the fight is something the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. To date, they've provided no evidence of it. At all.
No. They must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Each fact that might tend to show guilt need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
I am most troubled by the news that Angela Corey, de la Bria took a key witness in a murder/ self-defense investigation (Rachel Jeantel)to be deposed not at her residence, not to state offices...but to the home of Trayvon Martin. In the presence of one or both the parents during the entire deposition. Along with Al Sharpton associate Ben Crump being in the room, who was representing the parents in the criminal probe and in several hefty lawsuits already launched or planned to be launched that would enrich Crump and the parents.
And that these people were there throughout the interview except the father left the room at some time.
And to this point, no one knows if the mother Lucinda Hudson or Ben Crump or other Sharpton associates participated in asking questions of the witness or commenting at the witness verbally or by other cues when the witness supplied answers to questions.
raditionalguy said...
The Martins get closure, which is all they have asked for as if they are American Citizens or something.
You're an ugly, stupid racist.
traditionalguy said...
Marshall...we all comment on what we see At Trial of the case.
I am not against Z if the facts support him. But before the Trial all we had was PR releases and prophets.
The goal is a fair trial.
The goal of the system is a fair trial. The idea that the prosecutor called a particular witness because he felt otherwise the defendant would not receive a fair trial is ridiculous.
jacksonjay said...
Dee-Dee was interviewed by the prosecutors in the presence of Trayvon's parents. Is this normal procedure?
And the Martin family attorney who coached Dee-Dee and misrepresented the conversation to the court.
It is misconduct and not normal at all.
Too bad ol' Ann's not a lawyer or anything, huh? What brilliant legal analysis!
It "could" be this or that.
It doesn't matter what it could be, it's what the evidence shows. And the evidence shows zero--ZERO--of what you think it might possibly sorta kinda show.
" taken as a whole, reflects that Zimmerman was stalking Martin"
-- No it does not. She clearly stated Martin tagged home, essentially. If Zimmerman were stalking him, the confrontation SHOULD have happened there, or he could have walked inside.
That is not what happened, which means Zimmerman is either incompetent at stalking (But intended to stalk him), or Zimmerman was not stalking Martin, or Zimmerman WAS stalking Martin but in such a fashion that Martin was not really scared.
Honestly: How much do you know about the case?
by other cues when the witness supplied answers to questions.
The LI version: Further, Wests deliberate questioning soon had Jeantel admitting without hesitation that she had molded her testimony to minimize any pain she might cause Sabrina Fulton, silently weeping beside her. In that room on that day Jeantel told not the truth and the whole truth, but a version of the truth customized to meet the perceived needs and interests of her audience.
Matthew Sablan said...
If Zimmerman were stalking him,
Why follow their "assume the verdict" language? Zimmerman followed him, a perfectly legal action. Stalking is a crime. Zimmerman's actions are so far from "stalking" anyone making that claim should simply be ignored as too ignorant to contribute to an adult conversation.
Because our goal is to see if Zimmerman stalking Martin makes sense with the testimony.
It doesn't, except for some corner cases I outlined. However, none of the other evidence points to stalking -- except hearsay from Trayvon Martin via someone who couldn't even see what he saw.
Her testimony, taken as a whole, reflects that Zimmerman was stalking Martin.
Once you discount all the lies, embelishments, inconsistencies and coaching.
I watched her testimony. (As did Matthew Sabian based on his comments in real-time). I watched how easy it was for both attorneys to lead her in their questioning.
When she was trying to describe what wet grass "sounded" like, she began to offer that it was like two people rolling around. The prosecution immediately objected as it was obvious she was about to introduce a whole new description of events that she had never offered before. You could literally watched her making up whatever she thought she needed to say to conform to the outcome she thought was correct.
Taken as a whole, she has no credibility whatsoever.
The more I learn of the prosecution's tactics, the more I see it's right out of the playbook of Mike Nifong [the Duke prosecutor].
CommonHandle brings up a good point. IANAL but the legal analysis and descriptions of testimony I've read so far make it seem like murder II is off the table but the state still has the potential for conviction on Florida's version of manslaughter. I think the key is going to be how the jury views the various actions of GZ and TM in sequence in assessing the claim of self-defense. Will the juiry conclude that exiting his truck made GZ the aggressor? Can the defense substantiate that GZ was headed back to his truck and TM was headed back into the Twin Lakes complex when they finally met up? Will the jury see that as a seperate action or tie it into the chain of events that started with GZ stopping to watch TM (i.e. the stalking charge)? Right now I'd have to say to me it's still up in the air.
CommonHandle brings up a good point. IANAL but the legal analysis and descriptions of testimony I've read so far make it seem like murder II is off the table but the state still has the potential for conviction on Florida's version of manslaughter. I think the key is going to be how the jury views the various actions of GZ and TM in sequence in assessing the claim of self-defense. Will the juiry conclude that exiting his truck made GZ the aggressor? Can the defense substantiate that GZ was headed back to his truck and TM was headed back into the Twin Lakes complex when they finally met up? Will the jury see that as a seperate action or tie it into the chain of events that started with GZ stopping to watch TM (i.e. the stalking charge)? Right now I'd have to say to me it's still up in the air.
pauld and Hagar, don't worry, traditionalguy has already assured us that Zimmerman's "nose was not SERIOUSLY broken" and therefor of no consequence to the trial. In Tradguy's mind, Zimmerman had a duty to wait to incur more immediately life-threatening injuries before he could defend himself.
I'm actually heartened to hear TG soften his cheerleading for the prosecution today, which I take to mean their case has gone entirely to shit.
Zimmerman was stalking Martin"
No he wasn't.
That's preposterous bullshit.
I guess in traditionalguy's America, if someone broke into my home and started choking my wife and threatened to stab her by holding a knife to her neck and I shot said bad guy, the bad guy's parents deserve a trial because "America"
Or something.
What a fucking idiot that racist clown is.
Your summary shows you did not listen to her testimony. Understandable. But surely the jury did. Her testimony, taken as a whole, reflects that Zimmerman was stalking Martin. I would not find that testimony alone enough to convict, but your comment shows that you discounted what she said in its entirety. A jury will approach this more seriously than you do.
Her testimony is now suspect through and through. She has fully admitted to 'adjusting' her testimony to spare 'TMs' mother hurt feelings. This is an admission that makes all of her testimony suspect. If she has adjusted her testimony in one fact to make it appear that TM was different from reality, what else has she altered that we do not explicitly know about.
Are her other statements that she claims were made by TM altered as well? Has she left out anything that was discussed on their phone call?
Were I a juror, I would currently discount her testimony as not credible on what she has said, and I would be very suspect that she was omitting relevant information that would put her 'boyfriend' in a bad light. After all, she has admitted to attempting to spare feelings of the mother whom she didn't know at all. It isn't a leap of logic to understand that she would do the same to make TM look better as well, especially if it helped bring down that creepy-ass cracker.
Unfortunately, the goal in our system is a fair trial - for one side, the goal is to get a conviction no matter what, for the other side, the goal is to get an acquittal no matter what. Guilt or innocence is not a factor in that.
Her testimony, taken as a whole, reflects that Zimmerman was stalking Martin
Her testimony, assuming you believe it, reflects that Martin thought Zimmerman was stalking him.
Which is entirely possible. It would certainly explain why Martin attacked Zimmerman.
"if Zimmerman is found guilty, there will be zero rioting or looting in white neighborhoods."
That would be unfortunate
Not really. I don't want to lower myself to the level of people who engage in race riots.
Rioters riot and I do not because I am a better person than they are.
where the analysis is clearly pro-defense
If you ask me this whole trial so far is clearly pro-defense!
The Martins get closure.
So you think acquittal is going to bring closure for the Martins? Do you really feel that their lawyer, Crump, will not cry foul when Zimmerman is let go? Civil suit is sure to follow....that's your closure?
I would not find her testimony alone enough to convict
So what else have read, seen or heard that would lend you to convict? Certianly not the testimony from Mr. Good today.
"Are her other statements that she claims were made by TM altered as well?"
-- Now, let's say what she says Martin told her is what he actually said. What makes us think that Martin is A) Being honest B) Fully explaining the situation C) Not just accidentally incorrect in his honest interpretation.
"A fair trial assuages the passions of the mob of vigilantes of both races."
Perhaps so. But you will never be able to define "fair" to everyone's satisfaction. How could you, when it often comes to mean little more than "I got what I wanted"?
The state has done an excellent job of putting reasonable doubt in the juries mind.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fucking idiot or has not been paying attention.
Or both, in the case of some of the liberal retards on this site.
One thing I haven't seen commented upon is the fact that Trevon Martin's mother is allowed in the courtroom and Zimmerman's mother has been banned.
When I first heard this I was puzzled. Then I read that the Zimmermans are witnesses.
OK.
Today someone above said the PROSECUTION listed them as witnesses -- to keep them out of the courtroom?
What an incredible load of bull crap this whole thing is.
@ traditionalguy
"The Martins get closure, which is all they have asked for as if they are American Citizens or something. "
Are you stupid?
You are aware that the Martins have settled out of court for an undisclosed sum on a civil lawsuit against the HOA right? So "closure" isn't all they're asking for is it?
I could go on with other examples of your rather idiotic comments but really who has time for that?
re: Martins allowed in the courtroom
I believe as the family of the victim (Trayvon Martin) the Martins are allowed in the courtroom as the law allows this. But the family of the supposed assailant isn't automatically given such dispensation by the law.
I am not sure it has anything to do with being listed as a witness as I do not believe Zimmerman's parents are listed as witnesses.
@ Ex-p If race were not a factor, the matter would have gone to a grand jury, which would have refused to return an indictment.
If race were not a factor this would not have even made it to the Grand Jury. It only became an issue (after the SPD investigated) months later when Al Sharpton the quintessential lying race hustler ("Hey Tawana Brawley, honey dear") did his rrace thing./
I don't know if we have many (any?) regular black commenters here, but help me out -- When are blacks going to get the idea that they are being used. used. used?
If this was a black on black not. one. single. thing. would have happened after it was investigated.
As for civil lawsuits -- the Martins (IIRC) could not have filed a civil suit against GZ if he were not charged.
So this is to pave way for that. Regardless of the verdict.
The Martins have already settled with the gated community for a ton of money (of which Crump pocket a huge amount).
This isn't abuot justice or a fair trila, it is a massive shakedown miusing the American justice system.
Someone needs to pay but so far it appears it should not be George Zimmerman.
It should be chickens coming home to roost for the race hustlers time.
It is the American people and the system which is supposed to be fair and just and honest which is getting screwed royally here (with George Zimmerman and his family tied on the front.)
Oh -- one more thing.
C4 posted another comment (I think that makes 2 in what? 5 years?) that I agree with.
Way to go, C4.
Interviewing Rachael in the (one of the sometime homes of the victim and in front of the victim's parents and lawyer(s) was such malpractice that the case should have been thrown out before it even got this far.
Unbelievable. Irresponsible.
Now -- who points that out, specifically, to the jury?
(Don't these prosecutors even watch TV?)
ed -- I read elsewhere that that is why the Zimmermans are out -- they are witnesses and witnesses are not allowed in the courtroom during other testimony.
Lawyers -- is that correct?
I don't think they can be excluded just because they are the defendant's family. The defendant is, after all, INNOCENT until proven guilty. That would make no sense. (Unless they had been disruptive.)
re: Zimmerman stalking Martin
Seriously. Really?
Let's test this for reasonableness. Would you "stalk" someone taller than you, heavier than you, younger than you in the middle of the night in a rainstorm while on the phone with 911/Police??
And having lost sight of said target of this "stalk" would you continue on "stalking"?
That is totally fucking ridiculous. At the very least you don't want to be on the phone with the 911/Police when doing something like that. Another point is that if you lose track of someone you're stalking even during the daytime let alone at night and in the rain you end the stalk and go to a safe spot before you get ambushed.
Talk to anyone who served in an infantry unit or even anybody who has played paintball in the woods. Last thing you want to do is lost track of a target because that means the target could be stalking you. And even worse is to be on the phone because voices carry a longer distance at night since there are fewer competing sounds to drown it out.
I don't believe Zimmerman was stalking Martin at all. All he was doing was trying to keep him in sight (at most) in order to vector the police in. At worst he lost track and then sought both the shelter of his truck and to find out a nearby street name/number so he could direct the police to where he was.
Not stalking.
Just to be conspiracy theorist, what if...
1) the prosecutors knew that they had a loser of a case and believed Zimmerman innocent under Florida statute
2) the prosecutors also knew that they had to bring charges against Z to try to prevent charges of racism
3) so in order to get the result they wanted (acquittal), they called witnesses that were so incredible that the prosecutors' own witnesses made the defense believable and Zimmerman's acquittal a fait acompli
I know it's the opposite of Ockham's hypothesis, but the other explanation for the prosecution calling such unbelievably bad witnesses is that these prosecutors are completely and utterly incompetent, and it's also unlikely that a State's Attorney is so incompetent. Isn't it?
ed said...
I am not sure it has anything to do with being listed as a witness as I do not believe Zimmerman's parents are listed as witnesses.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/24/justice/zimmerman-trial
Tracy Martin is a potential witness, and potential witnesses can be forced to sit outside of the courtroom to keep their testimony from being tainted by other witnesses. But the next-of-kin of victims are allowed to remain in court even if they're expected to testify.
... Martin remained in court -- but Zimmerman's parents were covered by the rule regarding potential witnesses and had to sit outside, as did Benjamin Crump, the lawyer for Martin's parents.
Public shootings of unarmed persons have always created a duty for a public trial starting with a with a charge, and then an inquest that takes tesitimony and dismisses many charges,and in some cases sends it on for a Jury trial.
That is the American way. It establishes reliance on the Authorities by both sides to the fight/duel, and it clears the name of a righteous killer.
But skipping that duty when black males are the ones that were shot is not the message we need to be sending.
Frankly, the comments going on and on about imaginary riots and poor little George Zimmerman being the victim of a bad Judicial System is making a claim for vigilante justice to deter the imaginary riots and avoid bad Juries. That was also the clever secessionist's charge in 1856-60.
The burden of proof in the case at hand has shifted to the prosecution big time since there is now a reasonable doubt. Yesterday there was none.
Too bad Z never learned how to wrestle. MMA is really wrestling; and Z's escape could have been very easy. Just turn over, bring up your knees under you and stand up.
Traditional bitch you are absolutely not a lawyer and either are just trolling at this point or are retarded as Dee Dee.
The burden of proof was, is, and always be on the prosecution, period.
What does the state sanctioned lynching of a Hispanic man have to do with seccesionists in the 1800s? Fuck all, that's what. There was never enough evidence to get a guilty verdict, and it is a political show trial that it was ever brought this far.
Your zeal to use the power of the state to satisfy your racist bloodlust is disgusting, and I hope that you get to practice what you preach about escape from being underneath a Trayvon who is pounding you in the face being so fucking easy.
You stupid racist prick.
Public shootings of unarmed persons have always created a duty for a public trial starting with a with a charge, and then an inquest that takes tesitimony and dismisses many charges,and in some cases sends it on for a Jury trial.
In other words, there should have been a grand jury, which in this case, there was not. This skipped your 'inquest' stage and jumped straight to the trial.
That is the American way. It establishes reliance on the Authorities by both sides to the fight/duel, and it clears the name of a righteous killer.
The authorities determined right from the start that this was justified self-defense based on all the evidence. This has only become the circus it is now because of deliberately inflamed race hustlers. This is the 'New American Way' apparently.
But skipping that duty when black males are the ones that were shot is not the message we need to be sending.
Tell me again about the black on black crime that happens at epidemic levels in this country that is treated in this same manner, in the national media, garnering comments from the President himself.
Frankly, the comments going on and on about imaginary riots and poor little George Zimmerman being the victim of a bad Judicial System is making a claim for vigilante justice to deter the imaginary riots and avoid bad Juries. That was also the clever secessionist's charge in 1856-60.
Imaginary riots? You live in a fantasy world. Before GZ was even charged there were already demonstrations, marches, national commentators all working up a fervor to convict GZ, even without a trial. This is all just waiting now for the acquittal to erupt. Do you really need examples from history of riots after the 'wrong' verdict is handed down?
The burden of proof in the case at hand has shifted to the prosecution big time since there is now a reasonable doubt. Yesterday there was none.
There burden of proof was ALWAYS with the prosecution, that is the way the system works. The proof was never there, that is why he was never charged initially.
Too bad Z never learned how to wrestle. MMA is really wrestling; and Z's escape could have been very easy. Just turn over, bring up your knees under you and stand up.
No need to wrestle a vicious thug when you are armed. It is the great equalizer.
traditionalguy said...
Public shootings of unarmed persons have always created a duty for a public trial starting with a with a charge, and then an inquest that takes tesitimony and dismisses many charges,and in some cases sends it on for a Jury trial.
That is the American way. It establishes reliance on the Authorities by both sides to the fight/duel, and it clears the name of a righteous killer.
But skipping that duty when black males are the ones that were shot is not the message we need to be sending.
==================
Trad Guy, you have long gone into Freder Frederson territory as a certified moron.
Freder didn't just get that from a dumb post or two, but from his imbecile habit of being so stupid he couldn't understand why he was being stupid and then doubling down and digging deeperc when challenged.
There is no fucking American tradition of charging, then indicting people then sending them to public trial when an inquest rules self-defense, justifiable homicide.
You fucking moron who claims to have attended law school and practiced law for decades!!! Claiming it has always been a longstanding DUTY and the American Way to do so makes me wonder if you and Rachel Jeantel did about the same in US history and civics classes...assuming you did finally graduate High School...
In your insipid cretin world, you would charge anyone that was a possible suspect in any crime or someone just suspected of defending themselves, then have the inquest, then conduct trials so that "public opinion" would exonorate people that appeared to have committed no violation of law.
Honestly, Trad Guy, it's too late to undo the damage you have done to yourself. IT's like Freder's Laws of Thermodynamics. Or Freder arguing that it would be better for America to have several cities nuked than "disgrace itself" interrogating a Muslim terrorist that was part of the effort to bring in and detonate nukes and knew the locations. Paraphasing your cretinous comrade:
"The world would be so impressed if Americans died in the millions to honor the principle of precious terrorist rights and it is better to have several nuke cities than inflict physical or emotional distress on a terrorist. It is something the world would admire us for doing, forever. Because those killed are just dead in war..but the stain of violating international law and the UN Convention Reagan signed on Torture would harm us more than a few million dead."
The burden of proof is words spoken to the Jury by the Judge. It gives the jurors a peg to hang their hat on when they do not want to convict. That's all it is.
Getting the jury to want to convict is easy, but can be eliminated by convincing testimony as to who the victim actually was.
Can the State get that jury back to the stage of wanting to convict Z now? I doubt it. Stay tuned.
But this white female jury will not throw Z under the bus for any reason if they see him as the victim.
Althouse wrote:
So Z could have been the first aggressor and then TM wrestled around to the top.
But the State has to prove a fact. Reminding the jury of a possible, but not necessarily probable, scenario is the prerogative of the Defense. After all the testimony the State has failed to establish a single fact that contradicts Z's account.
I will take the center in the debate over trad's claim that those killing in probable self defense were traditionally tried for such. Traditionally, just the opposite - BUT in recent years, it has become quite common, which is one reason that civil and criminal immunity for self-defense was added to FL law when Stand Your Ground was added. It was added precisely because a number of people with strong self-defense claims were sitting in jail and incurring large legal fees after exercising their right to self-defense. Unless, of course they were police officers.
As a result GZ was entitled to an early SYG hearing, where if he had proven his SD claim, he would have had civil and criminal immunity. Many have guessed why his attys didn't do this. One was that they had to prove SD by a preponderance of the evidence, while at trial, the state would have to disprove SD beyond a reasonable doubt. Another is that it would give away defense strategies. And consider this - if they had had the hearing, and it went as the trial had, and the defense had lost, the prosecution could redo their strategy, with a different witness list and better prepped witnesses.
traditionalguy said...
Public shootings of unarmed persons have always created a duty for a public trial starting with a with a charge, and then an inquest that takes tesitimony and dismisses many charges,and in some cases sends it on for a Jury trial.
There are a lot of dead burglary suspects around who didn't have pistols when they tried crawling in the wrong window.
I think you have your wires crossed on the polarity of what "presumed innocent" means.
Bruce Hayden - I agree completely. And remember additionally that this is not necessarily an SYG case. SYG statutes repeal the common law duty to retreat before deadly force can be used. That duty only exists if a way of retreat existed. Here the defense theory (which all evidence to this point supports) is that GZ was pinned to the ground. With no available way of retreat no common law duty would have existed anyway so SYG is inapplicable. This is a pure self defense issue.
Hayden...The shooting death of an unarmed human in public was always brought to a charge just so it could be dismissed once the "self defense" was shown by convincing witnesses.
You are conflating private property trespassers with public shootings.
The Hernandez public shootings were or will be charged. And any self serving tight end's story that the dead man frightened him so he drew his 45 is not going to stop that case.
And the fear of New England Patriot fans rioting and wiping out New York Jets fans is not going to be why the State of Massachusetts takes Rodriguez to trial.
David wrote:
Your summary shows you did not listen to her testimony. Understandable. But surely the jury did. Her testimony, taken as a whole, reflects that Zimmerman was stalking Martin.
Unequivocally not true, David. You're reading in an unwarranted conclusion. Stalking is a loaded word with a strict legal definition in Florida:
A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
Zimmerman was following Martin by his own admission, but it was not a repeated incident, nor can be shown that Zimmerman had malicious intent.
Hayden...The shooting death of an unarmed human in public was always brought to a charge just so it could be dismissed once the "self defense" was shown by convincing witnesses.
I think that's around the tenth time t-guy has made that silly claim without bothering to provide a citation.
Understandable, since it is impossible to provide a hyperlink to one's own imagination. :)
"It doesn't matter what it could be, it's what the evidence shows. And the evidence shows zero--ZERO--of what you think it might possibly sorta kinda show. "
No. The evidence becomes a basis for inferences that could go different ways, and the two sides will make arguments. I'm talking about how the material could be used. You seem to think evidence just has a meaning that is only one thing. This is just wrong.
Althouse displays that she knows about as much about the standard of reasonable doubt and evidence as traditionalbitch.
Not surprising since she displays about as much knowledge about constitutional law as President Choom.
Affirmative action must have already been in full swing the 30 years ago or so when Althouse was applying to and attending law school.
Professor said: "No. The evidence becomes a basis for inferences that could go different ways, and the two sides will make arguments. I'm talking about how the material could be used. You seem to think evidence just has a meaning that is only one thing. This is just wrong."
Actually Professor this is incorrect. In Florida, the evidence is insufficient to support a guilty verdict when the evidence supports two reasonable inferences - one consistent with guilt and the other consistent with innocence.
See State v. Law, 559 So. 2d 187, 188 (Fla. 1989)""Where the only proof of guilt is circumstantial, no matter how strongly the evidence may suggest guilt, a conviction cannot be sustained unless the evidence is inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence."
In other words, a jury may not "be permitted to consider a single set of circumstances, which are at once susceptible of opposing reasonable hypotheses on the issue of guilt or innocence in a criminal case, and return a verdict of guilty based on their view of the more reasonable of the two." Grover v. State, 581 So. 2d 1379, 1381 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
Anyone with a legal background who has access to the details of the Zimmerman trial and does not recognize and condemn the miscarriage of justice being perpetrated by this political show trial is retarded, a hopeless partisan hack, or in most cases both.
So Z could have been the first aggressor and then TM wrestled around to the top...the testimony could be portrayed as TM holding down Z
There's no need for the prosecution to invoke anything that far-fetched. What happened is obvious. First, Zimmerman murdered Martin in cold blood. Then Martin got up and beat the crap out of Zimmerman.
Honestly, it's like some of you people have never seen a zombie movie.
traditionalguy said...
Hayden...The shooting death of an unarmed human in public was always brought to a charge just so it could be dismissed once the "self defense" was shown by convincing witnesses.
http://lawlibrary.case.edu/2012/04/11/stand-your-ground-laws/?__hstc=223762052.36429c4c43cfaf5e0773b144eb20e502.1372349551600.1372349551600.1372451854208.2&__hssc=223762052.1.1372451854208
Tguy has never been as obstinately off base as he has been on this issue.
Premature post:
Link summary: case of SYG with (a) no charges filed, (b) zero protests thereof, because (c) shooter was black and therefore it didn't fit the narrative.
Marshall: "Tguy has never been as obstinately off base as he has been on this issue."
Tradguy knows 2 things:
1) Zimmerman is a WHITE Hispanic
2) Trayvon Martin is black
That's all Tradguy knows and that's all he needs to know.
Tradguy is Nifong on steroids.
What's even funnier is Tradguy speaking as if riots in "white" communities over any possible verdict is of equal probability to riots in "non-white" communities over any possible verdict.
Absolutely astonishing.
Next thing you know is that Tradguy will be making references to Zimmermans forebears being a part of the Scottsboro boys mob.
There is no falsehood/innuendo/outright lie that Tradguy won't reach for in his rush to convict Zimmerman.
President-Mom-Jeans wrote:
[The] miscarriage of justice being perpetrated by this political show trial...
Dead on. The preponderance of evidence presented so far by the prosecution goes nowhere except to reinforce Zimmerman's account. The State knew this a least a year ago, yet the AG went ahead because he wanted to punish Zimmerman by extra-legal means, to keep him in jail for months and to hobble him in debt-slavery for the rest of his days. Bernie de la Rionda must have known this as well. Losing a high-profile case is not a feather in a prosecutors cap, yet he has soldiered on. This case could have been delegated to a lower ranking prosecutor, and should have been if normal procedure were followed. Watch this man carefully. He'll be given the nomination for the next available safely Democratic congressional seat.
Tradguy is Nifong on steroids.
There's far more ambiguity in the Zimmerman case than there was in the Duke case. One of the guys charged in that case was on security video miles away at the time Mangum claimed to have been attacked. To be analagous Zimmerman would have to have been identified solely on the basis of Dee Dee's voice recognition and put on trial even though he was provably visiting his relatives in Miami that day. Plus the other witness admitted no attack ever ocurred.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to say we aren't sure who the initial aggressor was in the Zimmerman case. I think the evidence we do have points to Martin more than Zimmerman and therefore those certain it was Zimmerman seem to be basing it on something besides the evidence. But at least there's doubt.
Reading all thses idiotic "convict Zimmerman he's gulity" commenters have convinced me of something.
If me or any member of my family ever confronts an intruder in the middle of the night in my isolated house in rural Amrica, my tractor is getting a workout that night, and the police WILL NEVER BE CALLED.
Overall, it would be a lot easier. Let the stupid dead intruder's family wonder where he went. And a gallon or so of diesel fuel is a lot cheaper then one hour of a lwayers time.
"And remember additionally that this is not necessarily an SYG case. SYG statutes repeal the common law duty to retreat before deadly force can be used"
Common law, in England and America, has never had a duty to retreat. Defense (stand your groun, IOW) has alwyas been common law.
Duty to retreat was established by statute, because the elite hated the idea that the common man actually acted to protect himself instead of relying on police and bodyguards like they do.
I don't mean to pile on Rachel Jeantel. She's definitely not ready for prime time, but neither did she seek the spotlight or all this scrutiny. That said, she's a woman of limited literacy and zero social skills. I don't think she's destined for a happy life. But she has a large claque of not just defenders but of admirers. She was given an exhausting cross examination, and I suppose out in twitter land she was made fun of. Nonetheless, the cross examination was not especially harsh as those things go, and whatever ridicule she suffered wasn't a patch compared to what has been directed at Zimmerman......I'm perplexed at the number of articulate black women who feel that they need to provide a protective cordon around her as though she is some kind of heroine in this drama. I don't think Zimmerman should be regarded as a hero, but he's far closer to the better angels of our nature than Martin or Rachel.
The fact that so many consider her cross examination to have been unfair and violative of her honor is to some extent why Trayvon Martin considered Zimmerman's eyeballing to be a personal affront to his manhood.
TradGuy said:
"Too bad Z never learned how to wrestle. MMA is really wrestling; and Z's escape could have been very easy. Just turn over, bring up your knees under you and stand up."
MMA is way more than just wrestling, striking and submissions are also very important, for example. Re: your proposed escape, when you turn, you are very vulnerable to being choked out from behind.
Z man lost the fight to Martin, which is why Martin was able to mount Z man and bang his head on the concrete. Banging Z man's head on the concrete was a threat to Z man's life. At that point Z man could either trust Martin to stop the head banging before Z man sustained brain damage or he could shoot. I don't think anybody has mentioned that Z man showed restraint by only firing one shot. In a similar situation, I would have kept firing until I was sure Martin was dead or there were no more bullets in the gun.
Harold @ 4:32 -- re claim that duty to retreat was not of common law -- see Little V. State, 111 So. 3d 214 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) "In addition, the Florida Supreme Court recognized a common law duty to retreat that required a person to 'retreat to the wall” or use “every reasonable means within his or her power to avoid the danger.' Weiand v. State, 732 So.2d 1044, 1049, 1050 (Fla.1999)."
You can also get a good view of the proceedings at talkleft with Jeralyn Merritt doing the narration. She's simply telling it like it is.
traditionalguy said...
The burden of proof is words spoken to the Jury by the Judge. It gives the jurors a peg to hang their hat on when they do not want to convict. That's all it is.
Oh, bullshit. The judge will give the jurors a piece of paper, and you check the box as to whether the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt their case against the defendant, or didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt their case against the defendant. The appropriate box will be checked and the jury foreman will sign on the doted line. If all jurors can't reach a decision, the judge will be notified and you'll be told to keep deliberating. If a unanimous verdict can't be reached a mistrial will be called.
The burden of proof is words spoken to the Jury by the Judge. It gives the jurors a peg to hang their hat on when they do not want to convict. That's all it is.
First we had to endure weeks of t-guy droning on about how it is Vitally Important to arrest and prosecute Zimmerman so we can truly determine if this was self-defense or not.
Now we're being subjected to t-guy droning on about how juries ignore the law, ignore the evidence, ignore the judge's instructions, and just rule however the hell the want based on the prosecution's opening speech.
The irony being that if he's right this time (this hypothetical calls for vigorous suspension of disbelief), he was not only wrong to claim that justice required Zimmerman's arrest, but wrong to belief there is any value in the American legal system.
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2013/06/27/13-year-old-arrested-for-murder-of-missing-5-year-old/
In case you're looking for some news about a murder that will noy be covered by the national media, and won't be in your local Sunday paper.
Do we need to discuss why or do we all know why?
Prof. Althouse wrote: "1. The witness didn't see the fight start (I believe, I came in in the middle). So Z could have been the first aggressor and then TM wrestled around to the top." As Omar would say, "true dat," but to meet its burden of proof here the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Z was the aggressor and it has not offered any evidence at all as to who threw the first punch. At this point in the trial, if the judge were to be completely honest, she should grant a motion to dismiss for lack of evidence. Of course, the safe thing to do is to let the jury acquit and if they don't, then the judge can dismiss.
I think lhe thing that drives me the craziest is that we hear so often the narrativel, instead of something fact or evidence based. The only evidence in the case that I have heard of that miht support the theory that GZ was the initial aggressor is the very ambiguous testimony of Jeantel. While the defense has been methodically building a solid basis that the evidence is consistant with GZ's repeated statements the first night and tthereafter that Martin was the aggressor (despite it being the state's case right now), the prosecution has apparently been much less successful in this area. There is already evidence in the trial that Martin was the initial aggressor. Essentiallly none to the contrary. And, yet, you still hear a lot of speculation about how GZ could have been, esp with his supposed record of violence. Or, really, that GF "stalked" Martin. And, yet, you continue to hear the Narrative here and in the national media.
I found this from Brutus interesting:
See State v. Law, 559 So. 2d 187, 188 (Fla. 1989)""Where the only proof of guilt is circumstantial, no matter how strongly the evidence may suggest guilt, a conviction cannot be sustained unless the evidence is inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence."
In other words, a jury may not "be permitted to consider a single set of circumstances, which are at once susceptible of opposing reasonable hypotheses on the issue of guilt or innocence in a criminal case, and return a verdict of guilty based on their view of the more reasonable of the two." Grover v. State, 581 So. 2d 1379, 1381 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
At this point in the trial, the state has seemingly failed to provide an evidentiary basis for a hypothesis that GF was the initial aggressor (while the defense has provided such for the opposite hypothesis), and little eividence to support their hypothesis that GF was "stalking" Martin, had a racial animas, etc. Of course, they stll have time. But, if they were to rest their case now, I think that the judge should grant a motion for a directed verdict. Highly unlikely in such a high profile case, but I think that she shoud. And, since little of the prosecution's evidence is much of a surprise, except maybe how flaky Jeantel is, and the specifics of the circustances of her original statement (used as a basis for filing suit), is even more evident that GF should never have been tried, and that the trial was completely politically motivated. Something that we knew, but this just reinforces it.
I see tradguy is still insane on this subject.
1. The original PD investigation turned up no evidence for charges against Zimmerman.
2. Prosecutor Corey bypassed the grand jury which is the traditional, common-law way to decide whether to bring felony charges.
CommonHandle,
No, not at all.
If you started the confrontation, you need to have tried seriously to leave it/break it off, before any concept of self-defense again becomes viable. Otherwise you're engaged in something you started, or at the very least engaging in mutually-agreed-upon combat where self-defense doesn't really apply.
David,
Even if her testimony supports the notion that Zimmerman was "stalking" Martin, so what? Being followed, even at fairly close range, does not by itself justify initiating a violent confrontation--not even in Florida.
tradguy,
"Public shootings of unarmed persons have always created a duty for a public trial starting with a with a charge, and then an inquest that takes tesitimony and dismisses many charges,and in some cases sends it on for a Jury trial."
Completely and totally wrong, but no surprise that you think so. What is surprising, given your otherwise reasonable discourse here over the years, is that you took this stance to begin with, and can't seem to let go of it.
But it's Not. True. At. All.
Take the Westlake self-defense shooting in Seattle. The shooter was released after a very brief interview with the shooter (and, presumably, some of the witnesses.) End. Of. Story. No grand jury. No futher investigation at all. Clearly a case of self-defense, nothing further to be said, no prosecutor did anything after that initial interview right after the shooting, etc...
Post a Comment