Skip to main content

View Diary: Trayvon Martin Case (69 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Really? I'm going to have to start bookmarking (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tonedevil

    what I'm reading.  Didn't at least one women witness testify she saw Zim on top? And I just heard a guest on The Alex Witt Show say that some witnesses saw Zim on top and others saw Trayvon on top... as I'm typing this reply.

    WTF

    I don't take what I hear on some MSNBC "news" programs to the bank though. But I have been under the impression that Good is the only witness who has stated with complete assurance that Zimmerman was straddled by Martin during the whole encounter.

    I will dig in a little deeper johnny, thanks.

    •  Only Good put T on top. All others said Z or they (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      amsterdam, Tonedevil

      weren't sure. At least 2 and I think 3 said they saw Z on top--often by inference. For example, one witness saw the man on top, who was astride the other man, stand up. That, by inference, had to be Z.

      Some people fight fire with fire. Professionals use water.

      by Happy Days on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 12:20:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's the information I have been getting from (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Tonedevil

        what I have read and heard. I find the trial footage hard to watch. Even if Zim wasn't hunting Trayvon, and I think he was, his poor judgement and pursuit of young Trayvon ended up killing the kid.

        Was it reckless stupidity or murder that took Martin's life? It doesn't read or smell like self defense to me.

      •  The other witnesses said they were not sure. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Grabber by the Heel, VClib

        For example, one witness said that her statement that Zimmerman was based on size comparisons, using pictures of Martin when he was 12 or 13 years old.

        The witness who said that she thought Martin was screaming for help said she had never heard either voice.  She based that on the fact that she heard two voices, one lighter pitched than the other, and assumed the lighter pitched voice was that of the "boy."  If the jury listens to Martin's voice and decides it sounds high pitched like a boy's, or at least higher pitched than Zimmerman's on the video's, that helps the prosecution.  If not, her testimony does not help much.  

        But keep in mind, if you have conflicting testimony as to who was on top beating on whom, and the testimony on each side is credible, that's reasonable doubt and that means acquittal.  That's how the criminal justice system works.  The prosecution must prove their scenario beyond a reasonable doubt.  The defense simply needs to raise a reasonable doubt.  

        •  I agree that what I think and intuit about what (0+ / 0-)

          I hear and read about this case has no value in a court room.

          I believe Zimmerman is guilty of murder and that he has a pretty good chance he'll getting away with it.

        •  It is about justifiable homocide (0+ / 0-)

          Even if the jury believes Trayvon was on top of GZ at some point, that doesn't mean that passes the threshold of justifiable homocide.

          You don't get to pull out your gun, if someone slaps you with a bag of skittles. GZ may have been justified to slap Trayvon with a bag of skittles, he wasn't justified to nudge the photo button on Trayvon's shirt out of the way with his gun in order to have a clean shot at his heart.

          •  It's not a question of justifiable homicide. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib

            It's a question of self-defense.  The law is here:  

             

            However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
            (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another
            The prosecution's theory of the case, as outlined in the opening, is that Zimmerman was frustrated that there had been crime in the neighborhood, that he had previously called law enforcement and all the "punks" and "assholes" had gotten away, that he was a building time bomb, that he followed Martin, that there was an exchange between Martin "why are you following me," and Zimmerman "what are you doing here," that there was a blow, the sound of Martin saying "get off, get off"  (all as per Ms. Jeantel's testimony) meaning Zimmerman was on top of Martin, the phone cut off, and Zimmerman shot Martin "for no other reason than that he wanted to," according to the prosecution in its opening, meaning Zimmerman was not being beaten when he fired the shot.  The prosecution has not yet explained to the jury the angle of the shot and the positions of the two when the shot was fired (we haven't heard forensics from the prosecution) nor where it contends the injuries to Zimmerman's head came from.

            The defense theory of the case, as outlined in their opening,  is that Martin didn't like Zimmerman ("creepy ass cracker") following him and so Martin attacked Zimmerman, ended up on top of him "MMA style" (according to Good), "throwing down" punches in a style like "ground and pound" according to Good, although because of the angle and darkness he didn't see the contact between Martin's hand and Zimmerman's head.  The defense theory is that its reasonable to conclude that those blows made contact with Zimmerman's head and caused the injuries to Z's head, which the prosecution's witnesses testified could have been serious enough to cause a subdural hematoma (which carries a risk of death and qualifies as great bodily harm). The defense contends that Martin was on top of Zimmerman beating him when Zimmerman shot (they apparently will have a forensics expert to testify to that that  the forensics support a conclusion that Martin was leaning over Zimmerman when the shot was fired).  

            The question is whether the prosecution can point to evidence  to convince the jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that scenario 1 is what happened, and convince the jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that scenario 2 could not possibly have happened.  The defense, to the contrary, simply needs to convince the jury that while scenario 1 may have happened (or even that it's likely that scenario 1 happened), but that it's possible that scenario 2 might have happened.  That's reasonable doubt.  

            You don't get to pull out your gun, if someone slaps you with a bag of skittles.
            I have no idea where you got this from.  I heard nothing about people slapping people with a bag of skittles since the trial began.  
            •  I want to hear from GZ's MMA instructor (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Tonedevil, Grabber by the Heel

              Zimm was the one receiving training in MMA. According to his health records, he was going 3x/week.

              If John Good actually saw TM on top of GZ before Good called 911, I wonder if GZ had the MMA skills to turn the tables and mount TM instead.

              He did have a 45 pound advantage over TM.  I'd like to hear from that MMA instructor!

              GZ could have pulled the gun once he got on top--that's when TM screamed for 8 seconds until he was shot dead. Then as GZ dismounted TM, his leg rolled the body over to its stomach where it was found.

              Some people fight fire with fire. Professionals use water.

              by Happy Days on Sun Jun 30, 2013 at 08:15:19 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Why is Good an expert in MMA? How does he rate on (0+ / 0-)

                on identifying other types of fighting styles? If all the witnesses
                are being truthful, including the gung fu master, then it was a dynamic encounter with 1st one and then the other having the advantage of being on top. Which is not much of an advantage if the other guy is able to pull a gun out and kill you.

                Martin was profiled, stalked, and bagged by his hunter. And ZimHole, his executioner, seems to have a very good chance of getting away with murder, or manslaughter, or reckless endangerment, or whatever word jugglers care to call what happened to this young innocent.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site