What evidence does the prosecution have?

[wishuwerehere]

I thought this thread was needed so that we may debate the prosecution's case against Zimmerman, for better or worse.

[wishuwerehere]

For starters, the prosecution has Zimmerman’s own words on the 911 recording and I believe they will be used to show Zimmerman’s intent.

The State also has Trayvon’s girlfriend’s testimony about what she heard over the phone. (I believe she is going to be a key witness in this case and will be used to show Trayvon’s fear.)

jmo

[songline]

I believe that they have nothing.

The 911 call has nothing on it that is in anyway going to hurt GZ.

1) OK - They 911 oporator said "we do not need you to do that" (follow the guy) but it is still legal for him to do that.

2) Some want to hear that there is a racial slur on the tape. I do not hear that at all.
But even if he did say a racial slur, we have all said a slur which does not mean we are racists.

3) TM is no child as it was falsely portrayed, he was IMO giving the impression of a thug, and GZ had a right to suspect him based on the history of that area.

[wishuwerehere]

Originally Posted by songline

I believe that they have nothing.

The 911 call has nothing on it that is in anyway going to hurt GZ.

1) OK - They 911 oporator said "we do not need you to do that" (follow the guy) but it is still legal for him to do that.

2) Some want to hear that there is a racial slur on the tape. I do not hear that at all.
But even if he did say a racial slur, we have all said a slur which does not mean we are racists.

3) TM is no child as it was falsely portrayed, he was IMO giving the impression of a thug, and GZ had a right to suspect him based on the history of that area.

BBM - He can suspect him all day long. Call the cops. Call Trayvon names, if he likes. But what he had no authority to do was to pursue Trayvon in an effort to detain him. That is exactly what I think transpired. Trayvon stood his ground. Zimmerman killed him for it. I believe the prosecution will set out to prove this.

jmo

[iluvmua]

Originally Posted by wishuwerehere

BBM - He can suspect him all day long. Call the cops. Call Trayvon names, if he likes. But what he had no authority to do was to pursue Trayvon in an effort to detain him. That is exactly what I think transpired. Trayvon stood his ground. Zimmerman killed him for it. I believe the prosecution will set out to prove this.

jmo

We have NO idea if he pursed him or not. Everybody is just assuming he did.

they don't have enough evidence to prove with out a resonable doubt that GZ set out to kill Trayvon.

[wishuwerehere]

Originally Posted by iluvmua

We have NO idea if he pursed him or not. Everybody is just assuming he did.

they don't have enough evidence to prove with out a resonable doubt that GZ set out to kill Trayvon.

I disgree. I believe Zimmerman's 911 call will be used to show intent. Zimmerman exited his vehicle before the end of the call. IMO this demonstrates that he never had any intention to wait for the cops. Zimmerman was going to be the cop that day.

jmo

[Nova]

Originally Posted by iluvmua

We have NO idea if he pursed him or not. Everybody is just assuming he did.

they don't have enough evidence to prove with out a resonable doubt that GZ set out to kill Trayvon.

The prosecution is not arguing that GZ "set out to kill Trayvon", so they don't need to prove that.

[suzihawk]

Originally Posted by songline

I believe that they have nothing.

The 911 call has nothing on it that is in anyway going to hurt GZ.

1) OK - They 911 oporator said "we do not need you to do that" (follow the guy) but it is still legal for him to do that.

2) Some want to hear that there is a racial slur on the tape. I do not hear that at all.
But even if he did say a racial slur, we have all said a slur which does not mean we are racists.

3) TM is no child as it was falsely portrayed, he was IMO giving the impression of a thug, and GZ had a right to suspect him based on the history of that area.

1) While it may be 'legal' to follow someone, it will be VERY hurtful to GZ with SYG or self-defense. There is no doubt in my mind that he continued to follow TM after the dispatcher told him not to. Every piece of evidence points in that direction.

2) While he may not have said racial slurs (and I'm not convinced he didn't), his preconceived notion of these f'ing punk" a$$holes" always getting away shows that he was profiling TM in itself. The REAL f'ing a$$holes that were always getting away were, in fact, younger black males. That will be incriminating to GZ at trial as well

3) TM is not a thug and GZ knew absolutely zero about him before that night. That will never wash in a court of law. On the contrary, it will only make #2 point against him stronger.

[LambChop]

Originally Posted by songline

I believe that they have nothing.

The 911 call has nothing on it that is in anyway going to hurt GZ.

1) OK - They 911 oporator said "we do not need you to do that" (follow the guy) but it is still legal for him to do that.

2) Some want to hear that there is a racial slur on the tape. I do not hear that at all.
But even if he did say a racial slur, we have all said a slur which does not mean we are racists.

3) TM is no child as it was falsely portrayed, he was IMO giving the impression of a thug, and GZ had a right to suspect him based on the history of that area.

So do you think the dispatcher just told GZ that in lieu of "have a nice day?" GZ knews from his training he was not to follow. It was not a "legal" matter. LE's directions were not to, NWP training was not to, just call it in. He was wrong, morally and ethically wrong in doing what he did since TM had every right to be where he was.

How was TM giving the impression of a thug? Would that not be in GZ eyes, his mind, his thought process? Isn't that profiling when you have no reason to think a person is up to no good but because he fits a description of a normal black male you need to call it in??? That would have been fine had he stopped right there.

GZ had not rights after he stepped out of that truck. He had already called LE and once he left his truck he was taking matters into his own hands putting everyone's life in jeopardy around him because he was carrying a gun. jmo

[iluvmua]

I don't think they have anything at all because everything so far backs up George's and the eye witnesses claims.

[Karmady]

Originally Posted by iluvmua

I don't think they have anything at all because everything so far backs up George's and the eye witnesses claims.

I think they have a dead black teenager, an admitted shooter, a law/2nd amendment issue/gun lobby that a lot of folks really can't stand, a prosecutor known for being a hard a**, and more public pressure (at least initially) than is typically seen, and that's quite an understatement, imo.

I think when they made the arrest they had all of the above, and THOUGHT they had a hate crime element, too. jmo

[wishuwerehere]

Originally Posted by Karmady

I think they have a dead black teenager, an admitted shooter, a law/2nd amendment issue/gun lobby that a lot of folks really can't stand, a prosecutor known for being a hard a**, and more public pressure (at least initially) than is typically seen, and that's quite an understatement, imo.

I think when they made the arrest they had all of the above, and THOUGHT they had a hate crime element, too. jmo

There may be a hate crime element to this case. But it is so subjective. This case already is a lightening rod as you stated above. There would be no way they would list hate crime with the charges, not in that climate.

jmo

[Karmady]

Originally Posted by wishuwerehere

There may be a hate crime element to this case. But it is so subjective. This case already is a lightening rod as you stated above. There would be no way they would list hate crime with the charges, not in that climate.

jmo

I understand what you mean, I think, but I also think it depends on what you mean by "hate" crime. For it to be a true hate crime, the bias would have to be against a protected class and they don't have the racial slur anymore, or, afaik, any other evidence of bias against black people. Imo, now it would have to be bias against those "expletives" who always get away -- and also afaik, bias against suspected criminals isn't a hate crime even if your suspicion is completely unreasonable. I definitely think they would never have put punks in the APC if they had a choice. jmo.

[KateNY]

Tossing a question out ...

do all cell phones have GPS, and if so, would be any value to LE in determining , who actually was where

[sleonardelli]

Per FT “I think any time you use a weapon, there are certain anger issues working,” Taaffe said. “I think he had fed-up issues. He was mad as hell and wasn't going to take it anymore.”

IMO, sounds like "depraved mind".

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20...s-shooter?lite

[JBean]

so what evidence does the prosecution have? That's the topic.

[sleonardelli]

Originally Posted by JBean

so what evidence does the prosecution have? That's the topic.

They now have a potential witness (FT) as to GZ's state of mind.

[Emma Peel]

Originally Posted by JBean

so what evidence does the prosecution have? That's the topic.

I'll tell ya after the doc dump tomorrow. :moo:

[saguaro]

Originally Posted by Emma Peel

I'll tell ya after the doc dump tomorrow. :moo:

Tomorrow?

[Emma Peel]

Originally Posted by saguaro

Tomorrow?

okay, wishful thinking.

But ... maybe we could start a pool?

[sleonardelli]

Does anyone have a link to the NWP training in Sep 11? Or a link to the Retreat of Twin Lakes NWP guidelines?

IMO, I think the fact GZ chose to follow in the first place would violate those guidelines; that he chose to carry a weapon violates those guidelines; that he played a role in scuffle and acted like LE violated CCW protocol. The NWP guidelines and CCW protocol might end up as part of the prosecution.

[i.b.nora]

Originally Posted by sleonardelli

Does anyone have a link to the NWP training in Sep 11? Or a link to the Retreat of Twin Lakes NWP guidelines?

IMO, I think the fact GZ chose to follow in the first place would violate those guidelines; that he chose to carry a weapon violates those guidelines; that he played a role in scuffle and acted like LE violated CCW protocol. The NWP guidelines and CCW protocol might end up as part of the prosecution.

I think links to those items got posted in the Timeline thread. Today or last night.

[suspicious1]

Trayvon's Autopsy Report.

IMO, it seems GZ wants us to believe that TM was shot while on top of GZ...but what if the bullet trajectory do not match that?

[csziggy]

Originally Posted by suspicious1

Trayvon's Autopsy Report.

IMO, it seems GZ wants us to believe that TM was shot while on top of GZ...but what if the bullet trajectory do not match that?

Also if there are no indications of any injuries to TM that could have been associated with the 'attack' on GZ, that would indicate that GZ's stories are not true. Or if TM's autopsy only has defensive wounds.

I presume the prosecution has medical reports and hopefully police documented photographs on GZ's injuries that show they do not match his stories. As in no broken nose, no 'gashes' on the back of his head, the small wounds on his head not in the correct position for someone whose head was "beaten" against concrete. No dirt or debris on or in the head injuries or on his head at all.

Maybe other injuries on GZ that could indicate that he was the aggressor?

I'd expect there are crime scene photographs - could they show indications that GZ's stories are not true? No blood on any of the concrete? Position of TM's body no where it could have been from any of GZ's variations on how TM was positioned when shot and how TM fell?

The problem is that we have so little so far, so anything we think of now is pure supposition. We need a document dump!

IMO, JMO, etc.

[Rubys]

I have been lurking on WS for quite some time but this is my first post. I can't see that this has been brought up yet but I have to admit I did not read everything (it would take weeks :).

If TM was on top of GZ (as he and a witness claim) when he was shot, why isn't his blood all over GZ? He had a chest wound and was unable to be resuscitated even though emergency workers were on scene within a minute of him being shot. I speculate that he was shot in the heart for this to be the case. It had to be an obviously fatal wound for them not to transport to the hospital and declare death on scene. If he was shot while sitting/straddling GZ, uttered some words, then fell over, surely GZ would have had a noticeable amount of blood on him.

I would think this would be useful for the prosecution.