Skip to main content

View Diary: Zimmerman Jury Selection Begins (118 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I watch The Good Wife. (4+ / 0-)

    Don't you think the quote

    "shit he's running"
    Makes the I walked up to him and he punched me defense a little shaky.

    No I would never get on the jury, I am way too opinionated.

    give the NRA the Royal Flush join Stop The NRA

    by 88kathy on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 10:07:27 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Too much unknown. Reasonable doubt. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      88kathy, Demeter Rising

      I can imagine 2 different T-punched-first scenarios:

      1. T ran. Z chased him, shouting, "Young man! I just want to talk with you!" T turned around and punched Z. If this is what the jury believes: acquittal.

      2. T ran. Z chased him, waving his gun and shouting, "I'll kill you, you ni**er thug!"  T turned around and punched Z.  If this is what the jury believes: conviction (probably).

      As I noted above, the problem is that apparently there are no witnesses about scenario 1 vs. scenario 2 other than Zimmerman. If there's reasonable doubt, then Z is acquitted.

      Why am I not discussing Z-punched-first scenarios? I assume Z will testify T punched first; I assume there are no eyewitnesses to say otherwise.

      Tangentially: why am I using Trayvon's first name and Zimmerman's last name? Only because Trayvon was a minor and Zimmerman was an adult. Recent reminder of the south's old racist practice of calling African-American adults by their first names:

      Starting in late 1962 and extending weeks beyond the sit-in, the boycott had several goals: the hiring of black police officers in Jackson; the elimination of segregated water fountains and lunch counters; the use of courtesy titles for black adults, who routinely were called by their first names rather than "Mr." or "Mrs."; the hiring of black clerks at Capitol Street stores; and the change to a first-come, first-served approach for waiting on customers at downtown stores rather than making black customers wait until whites had been helped.

      "Today, that doesn't seem like a lot. But, 50 years ago that was a huge deal," said Anderson, who was a Tougaloo junior in May 1963 but did not participate in the Woolworth's action.

      http://www.ajc.com/...

      "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

      by HeyMikey on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 10:53:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Imagine nobody threw any punches at all (6+ / 0-)

        Because that's what the evidence shows.

        What happened is that Zimmerman grabbed Martin by the front of his clothing to detain him. A struggle of the push and shove ensued.

        Zimmerman then dropped his flashlight to pull out his gun to intimidate Martin into stopping struggling. This didn't have the desired effect, and the terrorized teen became even more hysterical in his attempts to free himself from the stranger who had accosted him for no reason.

        Zimmerman then shot Martin. It was either a thoughtless, impulsive act or a moment of righteous rage at this asshole who always got away. Zimmerman has a history of both.

        The third alternative, that the gun all but fired itself, is unlikely because this gun requires a trigger pull force of almost five pounds. It also has the strongest recoil of all 9 mm handguns, and that can explain Zimmerman's minor nose boo-boos. The recoil sent his fist, still holding the gun, smack into his own face.

        •  We'll see. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Demeter Rising, libnewsie, ladybug53

          You seem to be more familiar with the evidence than I am. But I expect:

          * Zimmerman will have some story to tell the jury that establishes (if believed) the elements of self-defense under Florida law.

          * There will be no direct eyewitness to contradict what Zimmerman says.

          If I'm right about those two things, then there is a significant possibility the jury will find reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt = acquittal.

          "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

          by HeyMikey on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 03:28:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  What about credibility? (8+ / 0-)

            I agree that we will have to see. Juries can be unpredictable.

            But while there's no eyewitness to contradict what Zimmerman says, there's also no eyewitness to support what he says. And given Zimmerman's lack of credibility and generally fantastic narrative, I don't think his word will be enough.

            Recall the recent notorious case of Jodi Arias. She too claimed self-defense and there were no witnesses to say otherwise. She claimed she dropped the victim's camera, a clumsy act that so enraged the victim that he charged at her like a linebacker, leaving her with no choice but to reach for a gun that was on a shelf eight feet from the floor and shoot him.

            After that, she claimed, her pent-up PTSD from his ongoing abuse triggered a frenzy in which she took a knife and stabbed him multiple times after he was dead.

            There was no witness to say it happened otherwise, but her multiple lies, and the fact that the victim had defensive knife wounds on his hands and arms, led the jury to disbelieve her.

            In Zimmerman's case, the trivial nature of the injuries is very strong evidence that he did not receive any kind of a beating.

            Like I tell people, this is a beating but this is not a beating.

            •  We'll see what we see. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Tonedevil, ladybug53

              My best friend is a judge. He's told me about some of the crazy defense stories that some juries end up buying.

              This is not a yes-no question. It's a bell-curve question. What are the odds the jury will convict? Even if the odds are 1,000-to-1 in favor of conviction, Zimmerman might end up with that 1 jury in 1,000.

              Somebody will end up with that jury. Might be Zimmerman.

              "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

              by HeyMikey on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 09:16:29 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Stories he told after arrest (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Tonedevil, amsterdam, libnewsie, ladybug53

            Zimmerman has been telling stories about what happened, and it sounds like he was making up a lot of stuff that didn't happen. That's what some people do when they're convinced they can talk their way out of trouble.

            If he retracts those stories now, he's clearly somebody who lies. If he doesn't, then the other evidence can be compared to his story--and I don't think it will line up.

            He was a strange adult male, armed, in pursuit of a teenager and in a nasty frame of mind.

            I don't think Trayvon hit him--if he had, I think there would be some DNA or blood on Trayvon's clothing or under his fingernails--but I wouldn't fault any teenager for trying to get out of the clutches of an angry armed stranger.

            Zimmerman has probably long believed that there won't be a lick of evidence except for the story he spins.

            Soon we'll know.

            •  I believe GZ's memories are scrambled (0+ / 0-)

              because he's unable to take responsibility. It's so important to him that it's Not His Fault that he's going to remember it the way he needs to he can claim he's the victim. Makes me ill to think about it, he's such a horrible coward.

              Giving birth (giving life) should be a gift not an obligation or women and poor people are 2nd class by definition

              by julifolo on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 07:33:58 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  and the back of his head? How did that happen? (0+ / 0-)
          •  Minor wounds (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Tonedevil, libnewsie, ladybug53

            EMS thought he had minor wounds, not serious ones.
            Wounds on the skull tend to bleed a lot,but that doesn't make them any more serious.

            I cannot answer your question about how that happened.

            However, given that there was some time between when he shot Trayvon and when the first officers arrived, I daresay Zimmerman was thinking as fast as he could about what story he would tell them. He could have been responsible for his own minor wounds.

            •  Do you understand it was literally a minute (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Demeter Rising

              before officers were on the scene and  two minutes before the first pictures of the wounds were taken?  

              Officer Timothy Smith, the first on the scene, Zimmerman's "back appeared to be wet and was covered in grass, as if he had been laying on his back on the ground. Zimmerman was also bleeding from the nose and back of his head." This was at 7:18- 7:19 pm.  Shot fired at 7:16:56.

              •  Bleeding from the OUTSIDE of his nose (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Tonedevil, amsterdam

                Sure, Zimmerman's back appeared to be wet. He had been in the rain, after all. The question is why didn't he have grass stains and mud if he had been on the ground?

                As for his injuries, blood was not coming from his nostrils. It was coming from two small cuts on the tip of his nose. The medical records show that his mucous membranes (the inside of his nose) were normal and that he didn't have a deviated septum (common in broken noses).

                As for his head injuries, any cut to the scalp bleeds profusely because the scalp is rich in capilaries. That's why a hat in cold weather makes you so much warmer than a heavy jacket.

                As you can see in this picture, if anything, there's a remarkably small amount of blood. It doesn't even reach his neck on the right side, and on the left side, there are four rivulets, two of which end halfway down his head.

                Notice also the direction the blood is flowing. If he were on his back, how would the blood have flown in the direction? How could it violate the laws of gravity?

                •  The officer said he had grass on him and again (0+ / 0-)

                  how did the injuries get there?  Between the shot and the officer seeing him we are talking one minute...two tops.  That's all the time we are talking. Maybe even less.

                   It is highly doubtful that he could shoot someone, and then  recover from that and then think fast enough to then bust his face and then think to also hit the back of his head... and do so fast enough that no one saw him...and/or no skin or his own blood on the gun (if we are to presume he used his gun to do it or the recoil did part of it)

                  •  How do you know (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Tonedevil, RobertSF

                    he didn't already have the injuries before the beginning of the altercation?
                    He may have slipped on the wet grass when he was trying to find Trayvon.

                    Again it doesn't matter, the injuries are not consistent with the forensic evidence. Forget about the lack of GZ blood and DNA on Trayvon's clothes and under his fingernails, the cuts are too high up on GZ's skull to touch the ground if his head would've been slammed on the ground. If you take a sphere and bounce it on the ground, only a small portion would catch the impact.

                    •  Ok, so even though we have witnesses who either (0+ / 0-)

                      saw or heard a fight ... enough so that several of them actually called 911 before the shot, and also describe it to police...

                       but you find it more plausible...that the injuries with fresh blood came from him falling once as he was running on wet grass and apparently hitting his head (twice...since there are two places injured) and then he got up and then ran some more and fell again but on his face and nose this time?  Or did he fall on his face the first time and then roll and hit his head in two places during the same fall?

                      If you bounce a perfect sphere on the ground that is perfectly flat and only once...only a small portion could catch impact....yes, mostly likely true.

                        If the bounce happens more than once and/or in a struggle, with both sphere involved and surface involved that are not perfectly round and/or perfectly flat...then you could have more than one place that could be injured, even simultaneously.   Place in the factor of pebbles, rocks, sticks, cracks in concrete, slants, uneven places etc....and there is even more of a chance. This was not the case of a ball being bounced on a perfect slab of polished granite. Thus, you can not measure a head against concrete or the ground...by the outcome of hitting a ball on a perfect slab of polished granite.  They are not the same thing, at all.

              •  We don't know (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Tonedevil

                when or how he got the injuries on the back of his head, we do know the forensic evidence doesn't back up he got them in the way GZ said he did.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site