George Zimmerman /Trayvon Martin General Discussion #14 Friday July 12

[cityslick]

I'm shocked its not necessary for Zimmerman to take the stand in a self defense case. It's unheard of where I come from.

Do you live outside the US? In this country, a defendant has the right not to self-incriminate himself on the stand.

 

[PrairieWind]

No, I believe you misunderstand something very important. Zimmerman is not assumed to be innocent, nor is it assumed that he is telling the truth.

Zimmerman killed an unarmed teen. He has admitted to doing so. Killing unarmed people is against the law. However, Zimmerman is claiming that he had no choice but to kill this kid, and that therefore he should be excused from the normal penalties that might apply.

Zimmerman is the one making this claim. It is his job to provide some evidence to justify his choices. The prosecution's job here is not to prove what happened, but to show that Zimmerman's version of events is not necessarily believable. Every questionable statement Zimmerman has made, every flaw in his various stories, the lack of any meaningful injuries, all these must be weighted by the jury. They are not weighting the prosecution's case -- as there is no question that Zimmerman pulled the trigger -- they are weighting Zimmerman's excuse.

The reason for this is simple. If the law did not work in this way, virtually any time a murder took place away from witnesses the defense could claim self-defense. Yes, I stopped the woman at gunpoint, but I never planned to kill her -- she grabbed for my gun! Prove me wrong! Yes, I followed this kid around with a gun, but I never planned to kill him -- he attacked me, he went for my gun! Prove me wrong!

See how that works? Zimmerman is the one making the claim, and it's a bloody big one. We have an unarmed dead teen, a teen who (by the defendant's own admission) was attempting to get away. Getting from that to "I had to kill him" is a mighty big leap, and Zimmerman's story has quite a few holes.

IMO

Yes and no. The state has the burden to prove all the elements of 2nd degree murder or manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt AND prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't self defense.

 

[AngelWings444]

Im not saying I don't believe you but I have had more than one root canal, Wisdom teeth extractions and have never looked like I have been beaten up like GZ was.

And it was painful. I had a root canal in my front tooth.3 times.

O/T
Yikes...you may want to see a different dentist because once they remove the nerve by doing the root canal the first time, there shouldn't be another root to remove. Sorry for your pain. Hate dealing with dental stuff.

 

[katydid23]

Guy sounds schmaltzy and phony, imo, after hearing O'Mara's more natural, style and tone. Guy sounds rehearsed and stilted, and overly dramatic, imo.

 

[logicalgirl]

WHERE DO YOU LIVE? because here in AMERICA we are all presumed innocent of charges until they are proven.

Does that include TM? Apparently not...

IMO

 

[JusticeJunkie]

I think this guy had more acting classes than legal training.

IMO

 

[lisalei321]

Still waiting for evidence that proves GZ started the fight....

Thats ok, I'm still waiting for evidence that proves TM started the fight...

I don't think we'll ever see either

Sent from my Kindle Fire HD !

 

[Isabelle]

Don't forget it was raining and DNA evidence doesn't last in rain or when sealed wet in plastic bags. There is no way to know if there was any DNA, and the shoddy collection practices benefit the defense. They get the benefit of the doubt. Innocent until proven guilty.

:twocents::twocents::twocents:MOO:twocents::twocents::twocents:

Evidence collection didn't matter since no charges were going to be filed in this case and were not until more than a month later. Makes sense to me. IMO

 

[rose222]

It's frightening to think that educated people cannot or do not want to apply the law as stated. It's ok to want to change the law but when given the responsibility to apply the law you do exactly that...apply it!

IMO.

 

[sacrablue]

WHERE DO YOU LIVE? because here in AMERICA we are all presumed innocent of charges until they are proven.

Or if you carry a gun things are a little different. IMO

 

[glamourkitty1922]

Once again!
GZ did start this altercation that ended up in cold blooded murder.

And I Quote
"WE DON'T NEED YOU TO DO THAT"
Not once but TWICE.
Please tell me what is so un-understandable about that.

That is not proof of anything other than an operator said it to Zimmerman and he said ":OK" back. I don't see how that is anything other than a phone conversation. Zimmerman may have been on his way back to the truck when he was attacked. There is proof he was attacked, his head is all bashed up.
MOO

 

[katiewonders]

The truth Guy wanted didn't come from the state's witnesses, either. IMO

 

[AngelWings444]

Drive it home State...lies, lies and lies.

We owe the truth to the dead! Trayvon is entitled to the TRUTH!

JMO

 

[sacrablue]

I think this guy had more acting classes than legal training.

IMO

MOM needs to take a class or two. IMO

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Fortunately no one is saying that. You left out quite a few very important details.

Zimmerman, an armed adult, pursued an innocent teen because he thought walking home in the rain, at dinnertime, was suspicious. He pursued him to the clubhouse, he pursued him around the corner and down the street, he pursued him until the teen panicked and ran behind some buildings to escape the "creepy" guy following him. He then exited his vehicle, and against LE advice, pursued him further still.

At some point they met, a tussle occurred, and the teen was gunned down. Zimmerman is claiming that he had no choice but to kill this kid, and he has offered several conflicting versions of events as justification. He has failed to offer a consistent version of what took place leading up to the physical conflict, and his version of what happened during the fight has changed as well -- and none of his versions match the physical evidence found at the scene.

Trayvon Martin is dead. His killer, a man with a history of violence and lying under oath, has offered nothing but inconsistent excuses and stories in his defense. The right to defend yourself is not on trial, George Zimmerman is, and he damn well aught to be found guilty.

IMO

Facts not in evidence.

 

[logicalgirl]

Guy sounds schmaltzy and phony, imo, after hearing O'Mara's more natural, style and tone. Guy sounds rehearsed and stilted, and overly dramatic, imo.

Not to me - clear, concise and on point. Doing extremely well.

IMO

 

[Mahouston69]

here we go again.... calling a full grown young man a child.

might as well show pictures of Trayvon when he was 10.

JMO

I hope I don't read later on this board anyone ticked off about the use of child, boy, kid....
any underage kidnapped girl, raped by an adult man .....a girl, child or kid.

Seriously. He was. Fact.

 

[JusticeJunkie]

Kathi Belich, WFTV @KBelichWFTV

The state again is focusing on #Zimmermanon9 's statement rather than evidence of what happened.

IMO

 

[rose222]

Apparently not according to posters here - you can even shoot them dead.

IMO

Here in the United States it's okay to shoot someone who punches your nose and hits your head on the concrete. Self-defense.

IMO.

 

[faefrost]

No, I believe you misunderstand something very important. Zimmerman is not assumed to be innocent, nor is it assumed that he is telling the truth.

Zimmerman killed an unarmed teen. He has admitted to doing so. Killing unarmed people is against the law. However, Zimmerman is claiming that he had no choice but to kill this kid, and that therefore he should be excused from the normal penalties that might apply.

Zimmerman is the one making this claim. It is his job to provide some evidence to justify his choices. The prosecution's job here is not to prove what happened, but to show that Zimmerman's version of events is not necessarily believable. Every questionable statement Zimmerman has made, every flaw in his various stories, the lack of any meaningful injuries, all these must be weighted by the jury. They are not weighting the prosecution's case -- as there is no question that Zimmerman pulled the trigger -- they are weighting Zimmerman's excuse.

The reason for this is simple. If the law did not work in this way, virtually any time a murder took place away from witnesses the defense could claim self-defense. Yes, I stopped the woman at gunpoint, but I never planned to kill her -- she grabbed for my gun! Prove me wrong! Yes, I followed this kid around with a gun, but I never planned to kill him -- he attacked me, he went for my gun! Prove me wrong!

See how that works? Zimmerman is the one making the claim, and it's a bloody big one. We have an unarmed dead teen, a teen who (by the defendant's own admission) was attempting to get away. Getting from that to "I had to kill him" is a mighty big leap, and Zimmerman's story has quite a few holes.

IMO

The defense has the obligation to provide a prima facia case in support of self defense. They do not have to prove that it was self defense beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense met their burden. The prosecution still has to prove that it was not self defense beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that in a self defense case the defense has some burden of proof and must put forth an affirmative defense in no way diminishes the prosecutions burden of proof.

The defense has said it was self defense. They have provided clear third party evidence and testimony of that. Not the least of which was a steady stream of prosecution witnesses such as the initial investigating Law Enforcement. A reasonable case for self defense has been made.

Whereas the prosecutions case seems to involve saying "Nuh uh!" And "Wannabe Cop!" A lot, but without showing any clear timeline or sequence of events or even putting forth a full theory of the crime.

I don't like this. I don't like Zimmerman. I don't like that he killed a teen because he made bad assumptions. But those are matters for a civil court examine a question of wrongful death. Here in this criminal court the Prosecution has not established their criminal case beyond a reasonable or even mildly half assed doubt to my eyes. They have pretty much done the defenses work for them.