Skip to main content

Bernie de la Rionda
Prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda
Rene Stutzman and Jeff Weiner at the Orlando Sentinel report:
The state expects to rest its case against George Zimmerman in the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin today, Circuit Judge Debra Nelson said this afternoon.

Nelson made that comment this afternoon during a debate about scheduling after attorneys in the case returned from the daily lunch break. The defense is expected to begin presenting its case Friday, Nelson said.  

Defense attorney Mark O'Mara is expected to hold a press conference after court today if the state rests its case.

Testimony so far Wednesday came from several witnesses, including:

• Amy Siewert: A firearms analyst from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. She testified that Trayvon Martin was killed 16 months ago by a "contact shot" with the hoodie he was wearing. The gun may not have been pressing against Trayvon's body, however. Based on the evidence, she said, when Zimmerman fired his 9mm pistol, it had a full magazine and one in the chamber, ready to fire.

•  Anthony Gorgone: A DNA analyst for the FDLE. He testified no DNA from Trayvon was found on Zimmerman's gun. Zimmerman has variously claimed that the teenager tried to grab or actually did grab it before he gained control and fired the fatal shot.

•  U.S. Army Capt. Alexis Francisco Carter Jr.: A Judge Advocate General officer and former public defender. He taught Zimmerman a Criminal Litigation course and said he "was probably one of the better students in the class," and received an "A." The class included discussion of Florida's "stand your ground" self-defense law, Carter said. Carter also testified about that law and the rest of Florida's self-defense statute under cross examination, noting that injuries are not required for someone to fear or her or his life.

The prosecution believes the classwork is important because Zimmerman claimed in his interview with Fox host Sean Hannity that he didn't know Florida self-defense law before the shooting.

2:40 PM PT: The prosecution was expected to wrap up today, but it wound up asking questions of Anthony Gorgone, the DNA specialist, until after 5 PM ET and will return with its remaining witnesses when the court reconvenes on Friday.


Originally posted to Meteor Blades on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 01:20 PM PDT.

Also republished by Trial Watch and Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Is the case convincing enough (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mayfly, SaraBeth

    that Zimmerman will be required to testify?

  •  That last item is a pretty nasty one. It calls (11+ / 0-)

    into question Zimmerman's credibility for everything he's said in his interviews and in his police interrogations.

    Plus, the Judge is allowing Trayvon's school records.

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

    by zenbassoon on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 01:31:54 PM PDT

  •  Smart move on their part (14+ / 0-)
    Prosecution likely to rest its case in Zimmerman trial today
    I don't think the state can afford to call any more defence witnesses.

    Black Holes Suck.

    by Pi Li on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 01:32:07 PM PDT

    •  You nailed it. Sadly. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NoMoJoe
      •  After we have seen the prosecutions case, (7+ / 0-)

        does it seem to anyone that they really did not want to try this case?  To me it seems they really were just going thru the motions and really weren't convinced this should have brought the case.  Maybe its just me.

        •  There seems to be a bit of that. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          chickeee

          I'm holding out on actually deciding because there is more to come and more potentially pivotal points, but there is a lack of rabidity in the prosecution's stance which I think could fairly be describe as atypical.

        •  they had a horrible case that they couldn't win. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Zornorph, Jo Bob, OMwordTHRUdaFOG
          •  I don't know what you're talking about (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            doroma, sukeyna

            Sanford, FL isn't a good place for a trial.  A coward that killed a innocent African American kid will most likely walk, I hope I'm wrong.  Zimmerman only needs one of the jurors, and that pool is made up of Sandford/Seminole. A lot people in Sanford love their confederate flags.

            I said at the beginning when the killing took place, that I wasn't surprised because it's Sanford,FL.

        •  I agree with you. (0+ / 0-)

          I know justice is suppose to be "dispassionate," and I've only really seen arguments on TV.... but isn't there suppose to be passion..  a tangible "energy" in making your case (whether pros. or defense)?  I've not seen much of that from the prosecutor's side.  But like I said, maybe that's only on TV and not in the real world?

          Also... and THIS is -really- bugging me.  What about all the phone calls and, IIRC, even trip(s) to the Sanford police station by state and/or county officials?

          I remember there was a big todo at the time because the county attorney told the police to let GZ go, and I want to remember it was at the request of a state or county offical acting after being contacted by GZ's father.

          I've googled, and I can't find reference to this anywhere, altho I have only scanned 6 out of 10 pages showing so far.

          Does anyone else remember this... and remember more clearly than me?  And why isn't this fiasco... along with the actions of the Sanford Police Dept, itself, once they got to the station, being brought up?  Wouldn't that have some bearing and impact?

          •  SlightKC - how would brining into evidence (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            OMwordTHRUdaFOG, coffeetalk

            the kerfuffle between the local State's Attorney, a prosecutor for nearly 20 years who didn't think he could prove manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt, and the State of Florida's AG and Governor's office in any way benefit the prosecution?

            "let's talk about that"

            by VClib on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 08:52:19 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  lol. I think they did a good job in bringing (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sukeyna, amsterdam

      up discrepancies.  Now it's their turn to turn the tied.  And to think they won it from the beginning with their opening statement.  This trial has turned into an opinion = fact trial.  

  •  i don't have tv.... been getting most of my info (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Desert Rose, Mayfly

    on the trial here at d/k.

    there doesn't seem to be a consensus from what i can tell
    as to what the verdict might be
    even those who believe zimmerman is guilty
    have expressed doubts that he'll be convicted.

    have the prosecution delivered any slam-dunk moments?
    have the defense?

    was there a "if it doesn't fit you must acquit" moment?
    i guess we'll find out soon.

    may justice prevail.
    please.

    every adult is responsible for every child

    by ridemybike on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 01:34:53 PM PDT

  •  Thanks for these updates Meteor Blades (23+ / 0-)

    I've found them to be informative, factual and free of bias (or if you have bias, you've kept it to the comments).

    Black Holes Suck.

    by Pi Li on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 01:35:36 PM PDT

  •  Home sick, so watched a lot (45+ / 0-)

    Who knows what the jury will do, but it seemed pretty clear to me that Zimmerman's story doesn't hold together. Lots of little  things that just add up to me that much of his story was fabricated. From the bad-movie dialog that he puts into Trayvon's mouth ("You got me", after he was shot through the heart? - give me break!) to the story about how he wasn't following him, just going down to the path to find a street sign or house number when one was clearly visible, to the story that Trayvon jumped out of the non-existent bushes, to the exaggeration of his injuries, to the story that Trayvon was smothering him, yet he claims that he was the one crying out in the background of the 911 call. It just goes on and on. Add to that his total lack of remorse, even after he found out that Trayvon was just a kid walking back from the grocery store, and you really do get a picture of depraved indifference. I'd have to carefully listen to the judges's charge to the jury to decide on exactly what the verdict should be, but I don't believe Zimmerman's story for a minute and I'd be surprised if the jury did.

      •  really? (6+ / 0-)

        This is so depressing.
        I am not watching the trial.
        At work all day, and hate him so much I can't watch the clips at night.
        This depraved murdering Scumbag lying pos  might walk free?
        Because Florida needs another reason to be disgusted with?

        We consume the carcasses of creatures of like appetites, passions and organs with our own, and fill the slaughterhouses daily with screams of pain and fear. Robert Louis Stevenson

        by Christin on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 02:45:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Spot on. n/t (5+ / 0-)

      "Anyone who thinks Obama is like Nixon is a moron. More than that, a F###ING moron". Kos, 5-24-13

      by Lying eyes on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 02:29:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree (6+ / 0-)

      with you, however, it was a Florida jury that let Casey Anthony off.  This jury could do anything regardless of  the evidence.

    •  I think that anyone (15+ / 0-)

      who has watched the trial instead of listening to the commentators, would have the same impression.

      Today was another embarrasing day for the defense. They are obviously not ready to begin their case, and have tried to pursuade Nelson to grant a continuance. When she refused West slow walked his cross exam to run out the clock. I heard from a source in the court room, that people were showing irritation with this tactic. I haven't heard anything yet about how the jurors reacted.

      The result is that the prosecution was unable to finish their case today. Court is in recess until friday 8:30 am.

    •  There are indeed some inconsistencies (8+ / 0-)

      My opinion is that Zimmerman may have exaggerated or added things to make himself look more innocent.  For example: how the fight started.  The number of types of blows he took from Trayvon.  Whether or not Trayvon actually reached for the gun.

      But other facts/testimony does lead me to doubts about his guilt too.

      --His reaction to Serino's bluff (that Trayvon may have recorded the fight on video) is a big one.

      --Calling the police ahead of time and requesting that a police officer come to the scene also makes it hard to believe that Zimmerman thought that he would be committing a violent crime of some sort.

      --His reported reaction of surprise to learn that Trayvon was dead is another.  Many people don't realize this, but a shot to the heart is not instantly fatal, especially if by a small gun that won't destroy all your other internal organs at the same time with all the force.  Blood stops pumping but the organs (in particular the brain) still have oxygen and can still do work.  Yes, you'll probably drop and you probably couldn't do anything strenuous, but you won't die instantly.  That could explain, for example, Zimmerman saying that Trayvon spoke after being shot.  It could explain how he could spread Trayvon's arms and hands but then Trayvon was found with his hands under his body.  A medical expert could correct me if I am wrong, but I think it's possible that Trayvon was still alive initially and could have brought his hands back under his torso to the wound in his chest.

      I still think Zimmerman may get tagged with a manslaughter conviction, but just based on the presented case I think it would be really, really hard to get him for 2nd Degree Murder.  With a jury you never know though.  And of course we still haven't seen the defense witnesses.

      •  If they convict him (6+ / 0-)

        they will because they believe Trayvon was the one who was screaming. That's the depraved mind, necessary for M2.

        Yesterday and today were devasting for the defense. The medical examiner that testified about GZ's injuries, called them insignificant. She was very effective and got O'Mara so frustrated that he ended up conceding the fact that the injuries were insignificant by pontificating to her that for self-defense, GZ didn't require any injuries at all.

        Today the DNA evidence delivered the next blow. No DNA from Trayvon on the gun or holster. No GZ DNA under Trayvon's fingernails, his hoody and only one bloodstain originating from GZ on the bottom right of Trayvon's bottom shirt, probably deposited by GZ himself when he was frisking Trayvon.
        No DNA from GZ was found on the lower sleeves and cuffs of both of Trayvon's shirts.

        •  I don't see that as "devastating for the defense" (5+ / 0-)

          The injuries were not significant, but the testimony today by the professor indicated that you don't even need any injuries at all to legitimately feel in fear for your life.  So it was not just O'Mara "pontificating", but an actual fact that got reinforced by a prosecution witness.

          I don't think the lack of DNA on the gun is that damaging either.  Zimmerman claimed that Trayvon reached for the gun, but in his various versions of the story for the most part (aside from his friend's book) he only claimed Trayvon reached for the gun, not that he actually grabbed it.  And of course there is no requirement for Trayvon to have actually grabbed the weapon for there to be a legit self-defense argument.

          The case is going pretty well for the defense.  The prosecution has a burden of proof and most of these witnesses have been either favorable for the defense or mostly an even wash.  They are not going to have to use Zimmerman to testify, and I supect that the number of witnesses they have to call will be low.

        •  And if Sybrina Fulton testifies, the jury is going (5+ / 0-)

          to hear that tape again, with special emphasis on the screaming. The fact that it stops at the moment of the shot is compelling.

        •  amsterdam - I think the prosecution has put (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          coffeetalk

          some good evidence on the record, but none of the evidence, including the last two days, could in any way be viewed as "devastating".

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 09:08:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Plus he laughed today (8+ / 0-)

      when they were asking about the stand your ground law, and the guy said you dont have to wait until you are actually attacked. Zimmerman smirked and chuckled briefly before composing himself again....

      We all have photographic memories. Some people just don't have any film.

      by fireflynw on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 03:00:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The most telling testimony today (7+ / 0-)

      was the fact that GZ held the gun to TM's chest ... and then pulled the trigger.

      This means that his self defense plea is phony, because he had total control of the situation. In their summation, the defense is saddled with the task of convincing the jury that GZ was fearing for great bodily harm while holding TM at lethal range gunpoint.

      Question for Pi Li, johnny, coffee, and others who believe (for very good reason, I admit) that GZ will be acquitted: What would your opinion be if GZ were black and TM were white? My opinion is that the hypothetically black GZ would be fortunate to escape murder 1 and the death penalty.

      ... but He loves you! -- George Carlin -- (-7.25, -6.21)

      by Tim DeLaney on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 05:27:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I can't speak for anyone else... (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        andalusi, coffeetalk, VClib, a2nite
        Question for Pi Li, johnny, coffee, and others who believe (for very good reason, I admit) that GZ will be acquitted
        ...but I never said that.

        Black Holes Suck.

        by Pi Li on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 07:17:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Whether or not you said that GZ would be (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Pi Li, bobatkinson

          acquitted, my question to you stands. What would your opinion be if GZ were black and TM were white? What would be the jury's verdict?

          I'm not trying to back you into any sort of corner; I'm just interested in your opinion.

          ... but He loves you! -- George Carlin -- (-7.25, -6.21)

          by Tim DeLaney on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 07:47:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Tim, I really don't know (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib, Tim DeLaney
            What would your opinion be if GZ were black and TM were white? What would be the jury's verdict?
            I was going to ignore this, but I believe you're asking in good faith so I'll answer as best I can.

            I don't know what the verdict would be in that hypothetical, I don't even know what the verdict would be in the real, instant case.

            If you're asking me if I think the police, particularly in certain parts of the country, would treat a black suspect who killed a white victim in the same manner with the same facts as this case, differently, meaning more unfairly, than a white one, I think that's very possible. In fact, had Zimmerman been black, and Martin white, I'm fairly certain he'd have been arrested that night. In my experience many police officers give the benefit of the doubt to whites more than they do blacks in certain parts of the country. That's just a fact.

            Having said that, this case has gone to trial, even with facts that are pretty difficult for the prosecution (meaning, lack thereof), so in that way the system is working. Though IMO this case was not brought on the merits, but based on political pressure. And in any event, in your hypothetical, if Zimmerman were black, could the state possibly be charging him more harshly (second degree murder) than they actually are?

            Lacking the legal clairvoyance that others on this site enjoy, I can't really give you a prediction on the jury's verdict, because I just don't know. Ask me again when the defence rests.

            Black Holes Suck.

            by Pi Li on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 08:23:54 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You posed this question: (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Pi Li, bobatkinson
              And in any event, in your hypothetical, if Zimmerman were black, could the state possibly be charging him more harshly (second degree murder) than they actually are?
              I do believe it's possible for a black Zimmerman to be charged with Murder 1. I may be wrong, and I would certainly hope I'm wrong. But my sense is that in the deep south Whites arming themselves are looked upon as acting normally; blacks arming themselves are looked upon with deep suspicion.

              Personally, I think GZ should get serious jail time. If he does not, I -- along with many other people -- will think there are two separate, but unequal, standards of justice in some parts of the country. This is why the case has drawn so much national attention, IMHO.

              In any event, thank you for a serious reply.

              ... but He loves you! -- George Carlin -- (-7.25, -6.21)

              by Tim DeLaney on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 09:42:41 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Nah (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Tim DeLaney, coffeetalk
                I do believe it's possible for a black Zimmerman to be charged with Murder 1
                Well, anything is possible, but I really can't see that happening. How do you get to pre-meditation and malice aforethought when the defendant called the police ahead of time? I mean, without a conspiracy theory please. Prosecutors who aren't under political pressure don't even charge murder two under these facts. Besides, think how messy this place would be if Zimmerman were charged with first degree murder and everyone had to temporarily set aside their stance against the death penalty.
                Personally, I think GZ should get serious jail time.
                If he's convicted of murder two, or even manslaughter, he's going to do serious time. A minimum 30+ years to life.
                If he does not, I -- along with many other people -- will think there are two separate, but unequal, standards of justice in some parts of the country.
                Well, there may be two separate, unequal standards of justice in this country, but it wont be proven or disproven by this case. If Zimmerman is convicted, I'm sure you won't be saying that our justice system is fair to blacks. And George Zimmerman doesn't carry the burden for the (very real) history of racism in this country, or the criminal justice system. This trial is not about social justice, it's about whether one specific individual committed the crime for which he's been charged. That's all it can be about.

                If the social scientists and onlookers want to talk about the social justice aspects of this trail, fair enough. But it has no place in the courtroom. We don't attempt to right the wrongs of society in criminal trials, and we don't try people for the crimes of society yet.

                On that note, Happy Independence Day! :)

                Black Holes Suck.

                by Pi Li on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 10:11:55 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I agree with this completely: (0+ / 0-)
                  This trial is not about social justice, it's about whether one specific individual committed the crime for which he's been charged. That's all it can be about.
                  The point I was making (as I'm sure you understand) is that the intense interest in this trial is all about social justice.

                  It is also, tangentially, about our gun laws which empowered GZ to kill TM. Some of us think that people should not be allowed to carry a loaded gun just anywhere they please. GZ is our poster boy for that point of view.

                  ... but He loves you! -- George Carlin -- (-7.25, -6.21)

                  by Tim DeLaney on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 10:32:56 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  If GZ were black, there would be no trial (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            a2nite

            Because the police would have shot him dead upon arrival.  

            Sorry, but I have no faith in the police anywhere.  

      •  If Martin were white and Zimmerman were (0+ / 0-)

        black I think it would be much easier to get a conviction.  Probably a conviction for first degree murder.  Partly because f the jury and the system but mainly because of the defense witnesses.  The problem I've seen so far with the prosecution case is that every witness they need has been more than willing to say things that help Zimmerman as well.  If the races were reversed I don't think you would have things like cops saying they thought he was telling the truth.

        "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

        by stellaluna on Thu Jul 04, 2013 at 05:39:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  These prosecutors have fumbled (6+ / 0-)

    this case in so many different ways. It has been painful to watch.

    "We forward in this generation, triumphantly."

    by Grizzard on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 02:07:05 PM PDT

    •  Well don't hold back (7+ / 0-)

      Tell us where they fumbled. As far as I can see they did a pretty effective job presenting the evidence.

      •  I notice lots of people... (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JoanMar, edg, doroma, bobatkinson, amsterdam

        saying the prosecution blew it, but when asked for specifics it's more or less "haven't you seen the trial?"

        This makes about as much sense as Mike Huckabee on mescaline. - Prodigal 2-6-2008

        by Tonedevil on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 04:04:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's the question, (5+ / 0-)

          because they haven't seen it and are relying on the so-called analysts.  I thought the prosecution did a very good job given what they had to work with (more effective police work would have helped) and there is plenty of basis for a conviction.  One never knows what a jury will decide.  However, I do think, regardless, that those that were paying attention will know George Zimmerman was a murderer.

        •  Mainly when they brought in the 6 videos (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          chickeee

          that tell George Zimmerman's story without him being subjected to cross examination. That was a fatal error, IMHO.
          Before they did that, he would have had to take the stand to try to prove self defense.

          "Southern nights have you ever felt a southern night?" Allen Toussaint ~~Remember the Gulf of Mexico~~

          by rubyr on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 07:17:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It was perfect (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Tonedevil, libnewsie

            They had no reason to believe he would get on the stand. It also saves the prosecutor from looking mean. If you think about the trial objectively, can you remember one moment that may have garnered sympathy for GZ?

            What I expect to have been very effective, was the interview with Serino and Singleton in which they played the nen call.

            In that nen call, Serino suggests to GZ that Trayvon probably was afraid of him, that is why he ran. That backs up exactly what Rachel has told on the stand. They thought GZ may have been a pervert.
            It is way more effective hearing the investigators say this to GZ long before they found out about Rachel's existence, than the prosecutor saying this.

            The video walk through was very effective too. You can't capture that moment when GZ claims he was knocked down with one punch, and then realizes he's got to move south about 40 ft, while questioning him on the stand.

            It is all GZ talking. The prosecutor is not inserting himself. Any emotion jurors may have about GZ being treated unfairly, are circumvented this way.

          •  What may force GZ on (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            rubyr, Tonedevil, libnewsie

            the stand, was Osterman's testimony. GZ was smart enough to omit certain details in his statements. Like how he got the gun. Which way Trayvon fell and how he got on top of him. That Trayvon got a hold of his gun.

            Because there are no details provided by GZ, the jury may insert Osterman's claims. The prosecution already showed, there are no fingerprints or DNA from Trayvon, found on the gun or on the holster.
            It is very easy to show that Osterman's detailed description of how GZ unholstered his gun, is very easy to disprove.

            That is why the defense was in disarray yesterday. They now have to show, why the DNA evidence doesn't match Osterman's claim of what GZ told him, while their client never put that in one of his sworn statements.

            I don't think GZ will go on the stand, because he probably will only make things worse. But on the other hand, the prosecution won't be at risk that any of the jurors will feel sorry for him.

            •  I hope that his not testifying turns out to (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              amsterdam, Tonedevil

              be a positive. I am more concerned that he won't be cross examined and a lot of his lies will stand.

              "Southern nights have you ever felt a southern night?" Allen Toussaint ~~Remember the Gulf of Mexico~~

              by rubyr on Thu Jul 04, 2013 at 06:29:52 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I don't think it will (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Tonedevil

                make much of a difference. The jurors have plenty of material. I they don't see it in the statements he made, they are not going to see it when he is cross examined.

                •  Well, they would see the lies he told if the (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Tonedevil

                  prosecutor called him out and asked him to specifically explain away all of his many, many inconsistencies and, well...lies.

                  Otherwise, they are going to think his statements stand as truth. I guess this will be somewhat mitigated by the State's closing, if it is strong.  

                  "Southern nights have you ever felt a southern night?" Allen Toussaint ~~Remember the Gulf of Mexico~~

                  by rubyr on Thu Jul 04, 2013 at 08:34:02 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

  •  Capt. Carter's testimony (18+ / 0-)
    U.S. Army Capt. Alexis Francisco Carter Jr.: A Judge Advocate General officer and former public defender. He taught Zimmerman a Criminal Litigation course and said he "was probably one of the better students in the class," and received an "A."
    I found these two things interesting from Zimmerman's instructors testimony, one very good for the defence, one potentially very problematic:
    Carter also testified about that law and the rest of Florida's self-defense statute under cross examination, noting that injuries are not required for someone to fear or her or his life.
    This is an accurate statement of Florida law, and just reinforces the fact that the extent of Zimmerman's injuries are not necessarily probative of whether he was in fear for his life, and in fact often there are successful self defence cases with no injuries. It also helps negate, a bit, damage that the ME caused to the defence. This was a good example of yet again the defence scoring points from a state witness.

    Note that while this does help Zimmerman with his general claim of self defence, it doesn't reconcile any contradictions between Zimmerman's statements about Martin's (alleged) assault, and Zimmerman's injuries.

    The class included discussion of Florida's "stand your ground" self-defense law, Carter said....The prosecution believes the classwork is important because Zimmerman claimed in his interview with Fox host Sean Hannity that he didn't know Florida self-defense law before the shooting.
    This, IMO, is really the only, or certainly most, potent bit of evidence testing Zimmerman's credibility. He told Sean Hannity he wasn't familiar with self defence law....which I frankly don't believe, and his teacher's statements clearly call this into question. This puts the idea in the jury's mind that Zimmerman may have indeed fabricated large parts of his story, and it could make him out to look very manipulative.

    Black Holes Suck.

    by Pi Li on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 02:11:41 PM PDT

    •  What about the street numbers? (10+ / 0-)

      GZ is a busybody, and he doesn't know there's a house number right next to him? And Rachel's testimony that TM said "why are you following me?" doesn't fit his narrative.

      No muffled helps, in spite of "His mouth being covered."

      Lastly, when the police dispatcher said "we don't need you to do that." he continues following TM.

      Someone made an analogy in another diary.
      If a woman is being raped, can't she fight back? GZ was definitely the aggressor, imo.

      If I had one wish, Republican men would have uteruses.

      by Desert Rose on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 02:29:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nah (13+ / 0-)
        What about the street numbers?
        People can disagree on this, and I wouldn't argue with someone who felt differently, but IMO this isn't a big problem for the defence. Why lie about not seeing a street number? So he'd have more time to hunt Martin down? If that was the case, why call the cops at all?  I think he probably just didn't notice it.  

        As far as the other small inconsistencies in his testimony interview to interview...look, this guy talked to the cops, what, four or five times without counsel? Did a recreation, without counsel? Allowed all this to be recorded, without counsel? Provided a written statement, without counsel? Then talked to Hannity on the record? I'll tell you right now...if his lawyer thought he was lying, or making this story up, he'd NEVER have allowed him on Hannity (a questionable decision under any circumstances).

        Trust me, the jury considers stuff like this when assessing credibility. And it's very normal for witnesses to have small inconsistencies when they tell the same story multiple times....especially following a traumatic event. That's been my experience as a prosecutor, when witnesses whose veracity I was convinced of nonetheless has inconsistencies in various statements. Even the detectives on the case said this was normal. I don't believe any of Zimmerman's are particularly damaging to him. I understand others may disagree.  I do think there have been some things in this trial that have called Zimmerman's credibility into question, but inconsistencies in his statements aren't really among them, at least in any meaningful way.

        This is actually one of the few examples when it was VERY beneficial for a defendant to waive his Miranda rights and talk to the police without counsel.  Zimmerman essentially got to testify, and tell his story right to the jury, multiple times without being subject to cross. I can't tell you, in my experience, what a big deal that is in trial.

        Then again, I've never seen a case built in quite this way.

        Black Holes Suck.

        by Pi Li on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 02:41:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks, I'm not a lawyer, (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Christin, Be Skeptical, JoanMar

          and I'm definitely biased, regardless of the evidence. I've read most of your comments in various diaries, and I get the impression that you and others think the prosecution has failed miserably. How would you have done it?

          If I had one wish, Republican men would have uteruses.

          by Desert Rose on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 02:46:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I wouldn't say they've failed (10+ / 0-)

            I'd actually say the've done about the best that could be expected given the facts they've been dealt with.

            Usually, the state builds a case with witnesses and evidence that, one on top the the other, create a scenario for the jury that allows them to convict the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. Then it's the defence's job to poke holes in this case, and create reasonable doubt.

            The problem in this case, for one, is that there's only one real witness...the defendant. The other eyewitnesses either didn't see much, or contradict each other, or favour the defence. Yeah, the state has some forensic evidence, but most of it is somewhat inconclusive.

            So that just leaves the state with George Zimmerman and his story. So rather than build their own case, all the state can try to do is poke holes in what Zimmerman is saying.  They can't do much else, because they really just don't have many facts to work with.  This is the LAST position a prosecutor wants to be in. Prosecutor's, almost to a person, only bring cases to trial they are very confident they can win. The rest get pled out.

            IMO, the police probably didn't originally charge Zimmerman, not because of racial bias, or because they didn't think he was guilty of something, but because they just didn't think they had the facts to successfully convict the guy. The original State Attorney came to the same conclusion, and I think the prosecutor's trying this case probably feel the same way. Remember, this was only filed, by a very political and ambitious State Attorney, after (very correct) public concern about the case.

            So now the prosecutors are just doing the best the can with the facts they've been given. And I still think they can get a conviction, you never know what the jury is thinking and anything can happen in a trial.

            Black Holes Suck.

            by Pi Li on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 02:57:19 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It all sounds rather bleak. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Pi Li, LaughingPlanet, Be Skeptical

              Thanks for sharing your expertise.

              If I had one wish, Republican men would have uteruses.

              by Desert Rose on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 03:00:12 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Don't pay attention (12+ / 0-)

                There is a group of people here that are very much pro Zimmerman, but pretend they are unbiased.

                The prosecution has a very strong case. The jury has been able to watch and listen to GZ telling one lie after the other.

                The media and the pro zimmerman crowd, like to talk about John Good. That witness is the only one who claims to have seen Trayvon on top of GZ. But he also admits he only watched for 10 seconds and he made material changes to his statements.
                What they don't like to talk about is the fact that 2 witnesses were watching when the shot was fired. Both of them say that the person who was on top when they heard the shot, was the same person who got up and walked away. Another witness testified that she ran outside when she heard the shot, and saw GZ straddled on top of Trayvon. One of O'Mara's biggest mistake was his request for the witness to give a demonstration about her movements. This woman happens to be an architect, so she was very good at setting up the lay out of her place inside the court room. It took her 3 seconds.

                Yesterday we heard testimony from an ME about GZ's injuries, which she called "very insignificant".
                Today we heard the DNA evidence, that contradicted GZ's claims. No DNA from GZ was found on Trayvon's sleeves and cuffs, and no GZ DNA under Trayvon's fingernails.

                Now you are probably going to be told, each of these facts are not conclusive, and that is probably true. But taking all these facts together it is conclusive.

                •  hope you are right. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  bobatkinson

                  If I had one wish, Republican men would have uteruses.

                  by Desert Rose on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 04:00:36 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Pi Li is a former prosecutor, I think (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  andalusi, johnny wurster, El Mito, VClib

                  so if anything, could relate to the prosecution more than the rest of us.  

                •  Hmmmm (5+ / 0-)
                  Both of them say that the person who was on top when they heard the shot.  Both of them say that the person who was on top when they heard the shot, was the same person who got up and walked away
                  This isn't an accurate reflection of the testimony. And if they only heard the shot, how could they say who was on top?
                  Another witness testified that she ran outside when she heard the shot, and saw GZ straddled on top of Trayvon.
                  Isn't that consistent with Zimmerman's assertion that he got on top of him after the shooting? I understand it could go either way, but remember, a tie goes to the defence under reasonable doubt.

                  I do appreciate your passion and zealous advocacy for what you believe.

                  Black Holes Suck.

                  by Pi Li on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 04:04:56 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Get the transcript (5+ / 0-)

                    That is exactly what they said.

                    They could see one person on top of the other when the shot was fired. They couldn't recognize clothing and they could only describe the person on top as being bigger than the person on the bottom. There was no change of position after the shot. The person they saw on top at the time they heard the shot, got up and walked away.

                    Zimmerman claimed that after the shot, Trayvon sat up, said you got me. Then GZ gets vague about what happened next, Trayvon made 90 degree turn before falling face down or GZ pushed him to the side. Then Zimmerman crawled from under Trayvon, holstered his gun and got on top of him spreading Trayvon's hands, just as Jon showed up with his flaslight.

                    Let's address this. The witness who saw him on top right after the shot did a demonstration to show how long it took her to get in the position where she could see outside. It took 3 seconds. She saw him straddling Trayvon.
                    She yelled at him, he turned his head to look at her, and after a while he answered her.
                    GZ never mentioned this witness because she is so inconvenient to him.
                    Instead he talks about spreading Trayvon's arms to the side, at which time Jon arrives. GZ said he asked Jon to help him restrain Trayvon.

                    Now we all know from the witnesses that GZ met with Jon while he was walking near the T. He was talking on the phone when Jon first saw him.

                    That is 3 lies and 1 omission, just in this part of his story.

                    And please spare me your condescending remarks about my zeal. You just signed up on this site in May, but I find your writing style and your arguments eerily familiar.

              •  Don't be taken in by wolves in sheep's (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Tonedevil, sukeyna, rubyr, amsterdam

                clothing. Or by those disingenuously lauding others for lack of bias as if they themselves have none.
                Just look at their comment history and you will see that these are devout followers of the murdering, lying scumbag (thanks, Christin).
                They will be a lot of high fiving  when the murderer is set free.

                Maya Angelou: "Without courage, we cannot practice any other virtue with consistency. We can't be kind, true, merciful, generous, or honest."

                by JoanMar on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 04:29:20 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  That's no fair (7+ / 0-)
                  They will be a lot of high fiving  when the murderer is set free.
                  JoanMar, I was a prosecutor. I'm not on Zimmerman's "side". I can't speak for any of the other attorneys here who may have been maligned in this way, including coffeetalk and Adam B, but I can tell you unequivocally that I have not "taken sides" on this case.  I've sent white individuals inside for life for murdering African Americans. I've prosecuted hate crimes. As I told you before, I've guided and counselled African American victims and their families through the legal process. Every year, on my birthday, I get flowers from the African American mother of a son, a son whose assailant put her son in a wheelchair for life, and I put the racist who did it in lock up for life.

                  In fact, if you want to use the word "justice" in that way, I've found more justice for African American victims, and their families, than most other people can claim. I wonder how many here who are thoughtlessly telling me I'm siding with a racist killer can say that? This certainly isn't what I was expecting when I signed up on this site a couple months ago, specifically to comment on this trial.

                  The only reason it seems as if I'm only commenting on what the Martin "defenders" say about the law is because 95% of the people participating in these threads, and frankly often getting the law wrong, are Martin defenders. I have criticised the defence many times on here when I thought it was warranted, I've said what I thought the flaws in their case were, and I've said I thought the prosecution could still win this case. I'm interested in the unique legal aspects of the case, how each side is making their arguments, and helping people understand the issues as clearly as I can.

                  And here's the thing. When the verdict comes in, if Zimmerman is found not guilty, I won't say "I told you so", because I didn't. I've never offered an opinion on Zimmerman's guilt or innocence, or made any prediction as to the outcome. I've merely discussed the law as I've seen it.  If Zimmerman is acquitted, I'll say "The state didn't prove their case".

                  And if Zimmerman is found guilty of second degree murder, I'm sure many Martin partisans will say "I told you so." And all I'll say is "The jury apparently didn't buy Zimmerman's story".

                  I have no stake in the outcome of this case. Again, were there more Zimmerman partisans on this site, I'd be happy to engage them.

                  Black Holes Suck.

                  by Pi Li on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 06:06:53 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  For what it's worth (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    coffeetalk, Pi Li, VClib, SoCalSal

                    I recognized what you were doing from the start and I'm sure the rest of us with a legal background did as well. I have rarely encountered a discussion about trials, even minor ones, where there were not a fair share of people who passionately desired one outcome and attributed anyone trying to correct a misunderstanding of the legal system as being hostile or choosing the wrong side.

                    You've been far more patient than I think I could have been.

        •  There cannot possibly be any notion that he's (7+ / 0-)

          "hiding something" when he so freely talked to law enforcement without counsel.  It's much easier to make the inference that a defendant is hiding something when he immediately clams up and calls for a lawyer.  Despite instruction to the contrary, that looks suspicious to the jury, I think.  Zimmerman did just the opposite -- volunteer to talk, over and over.  In closing, his lawyers will make this point emphatically -- along with the point that the prosecution's own witnesses testified that they expect minor inconsistencies like that.

          I agree with you that the prosecution allowing Zimmerman to tell his story, over and over and over, to the jury through audios, videos, and other witnesses, was a HUGE gift to the defense.  That video walk-through, especially.  

          •  I agree that the perception may be... (18+ / 0-)

            ...that he isn't hiding anything (I am not saying that he is or isn't). But the idea that someone who talks freely to law enforcement without counsel isn't actually hiding anything is laughable. Such a move can be part of a strategy. To be sure, it a risky one sometimes undertaken by a person who thinks s/he is smarter than the cops, a person like a wannabe cop, for instance.

            But whatever Zimmerman's case, appearing to be open is one of a liar's chief tricks.

            Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

            by Meteor Blades on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 03:42:45 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think that was the purpose of bringing in his (7+ / 0-)

              professors today. To show that he was capable of putting together an alibi. He must have read somewhere that you look more guilty if you request a lawyer right away. He also refused medical care. Didn't want some doctor to say there was nothing wrong with him. He's a slick killer!

            •  I was thinking about this in particular (6+ / 0-)
              But whatever Zimmerman's case, appearing to be open is one of a liar's chief tricks.
              In particular comparing the Zimmerman testimony and the Rachel Jeantel testimony. One is complete with "yes, sirs" and "no, ma'ams" the other is defiant and annoyed.

              Now, to those who are predisposed to believe in Zimmerman's innocence, they interpret this as his being cooperative and with nothing to hide. Whereas Rachel's testimony is interpreted as though she is disrespectful and may be hiding something.

              Personally, I think its the other way around. I see a guy that really, really wants you to believe his story and his innocence, and someone else who has no faith in the judicial system because the guy who shot her friend isn't locked behind bars with the key permanently misplaced.

              For example, when you get pulled over for speeding; if you're guilty then you are cooperative, you had over license, registration, and proof of insurance. You say things like, "I honestly don't know how fast I was going, Sir, but I thought it was within the speed limit."

              If you are innocent of speeding, and you feel you are being falsely accused, you tend to be more annoyed, and likely more obstinate, "I wasn't speeding, your radar is wrong."

              Just my point of view.

              •  Ms. Jeantel's credibility issues (4+ / 0-)

                have more to do with the fact that on April 2, 2012, she was willing to lie under oath in consideration of the feelings of Martin's mother.  And the jury has been told that by Ms. Jeantel.  And I strongly suspect the judge will give the jury an instruction that they can consider her admission of her willingness to lie under oath on April 2, 2012 in conjunction with whether they believe she is telling the truth under oath on the stand.

                •  disagree. i found her credible because her main (8+ / 0-)

                  points of testimony she did not waver, not even under the pressure of cameras and racist bullying defense lawyers.

                  She did not waver on key testimony that Z was the aggressor who followed Trayvon and Trayvon yelled "get off" right before phone died, as well as hearing the other words exchanged between the men. She is closest thing we have to eye witness at key points in time because she heard what was being said and could hear other noises too.

                  And her two lies, which she did not try to fudge away from? I think most people will understand why she lied about her age and why she missed Trayvon's funeral.

                  "It is in the shelter of each other that people live." Irish Proverb

                  by Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 05:14:18 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I completely understand if you choose to (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Pi Li, VClib, Dr Swig Mcjigger

                    believe her.  And the jury may choose to believe her, as well. That is certainly, certainly within its province as the jury.  

                    The point I am making is that, in any trial, when a witness has demonstrated that he or she is willing to like under oath, the other side is always going to point to that in conjunction with that witness' credibility, and raising that is completely proper in our justice system. In fact, I suspect the judge will give a jury instruction on the fact that the jury can take into account her prior lying under oath in conjunction with considering her credibility.  So it's an issue she has that the other witnesses don't.

                    Our justice system is built on the notion that the oath is the deterrent to lying.  If it's not a deterrent, we have no guarantee that anyone who testifies is being truthful.  That's why a lie under oath is a much bigger deal than just a lie.  

                •  then by that same token (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  bobatkinson

                  they should say the same thing of George Zimmerman; his sworn testimony doesn't add up and has major flaws, so the Jury will have to take that into consideration about whether they believe he is telling the truth.

                  •  The prosecution will certainly point out where (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Pi Li, VClib

                    they believe he was not truthful in his prior statements -- that's what they have been doing for the last several days.  

                    However, the jury will not hear from him an admission that he is willing to lie under oath for the right reason.  If he testified at trial, the prosecution could bring in his prior lying under oath in conjunction with his defense fund.  If he does not testify, they can't bring that in  (just one more reason he won't testify).  

                    •  so he won't testify (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      bobatkinson, chickeee

                      because then he'll confess to lying. Definitely sounds innocent to me.

                      •  The 5th Amendment means that (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Pi Li, andalusi, VClib

                        he doesn't have to testify and doesn't have to give a reason why.  And the jury will also be specifically instructed that they cannot use his decision not to testify against him.  That means the jury cannot use the inference you just made as evidence of guilt.  

                        That's the constitutional right of every defendant in this country.  

                        •  I know what it means, but it doesn't make it right (4+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          sukeyna, amsterdam, bobatkinson, chickeee

                          at least it doesn't make it right to the millions of people following the circumstances of this case and are looking for justice.

                          If someone chooses not to incriminate themselves, then it is up to the prosecution to prove their guilt. Fair enough. They go to those there were wronged to get their side of the story, they go to witnesses and experts, etc... and they build a case.

                          In this case, however, the defendant has the ability to lie under oath during a deposition and the only witness with firsthand knowledge of the events who can dispute the defense's claims is dead by the hands of the defendant.

                          It's a screwed-up system and if George Zimmerman is acquitted than he will quite literally get away with murder.

            •  Actually (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              coffeetalk, andalusi, VClib, chickeee
              But the idea that someone who talks freely to law enforcement without counsel isn't actually hiding anything is laughable. Such a move can be part of a strategy.
              More often, stupidity. :)

              This was one of the rare examples where not invoking Miranda rights probably helped the defendant.

              Black Holes Suck.

              by Pi Li on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 06:50:09 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Not in your world (6+ / 0-)

            but other people the physical evidence in the case, his multiple lies, the fact that he was a 28 year old man, weighing 204 lbs, trained in MMA, and armed with a gun, will find it very difficult to believe that a kid that just turned 17 3 weeks earlier, weighed 158 lbs, had no training in a fight sport, and was unarmed, would pose a legitimate threat to GZ.

        •  The arrangement for GZ to go on Hannity was (0+ / 0-)

          made before O'Mara got on the case. He was against it.

          "Southern nights have you ever felt a southern night?" Allen Toussaint ~~Remember the Gulf of Mexico~~

          by rubyr on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 07:20:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  The most extreme scenario: gun notching? (5+ / 0-)

      getting a scalp to prove something?... could be true after all?... the course, getting an A... lying about his knowledge of the law... and a lot of the other details... was he hunting for an opportunity all those months? Looking and patrolling, wanting the opportunity to "get" a bad guy? This is all conjecture but it is not altogether impossible given many details of his personality and life. His obsessive patrolling and linked activities, martial arts course, buying the gun, the many 911 calls...

      Would a justified shooting that he instigated (or not) get him brownie points and or respect from cops? Maybe a job? And more alarmingly did any of the police he knew privately encourage him in any way at all? Did ANY of those he had contact with on the local force socially or otherwise have any questionable but "justified shooting fatalities in their record? Instances where in the "course of carrying out their duties, were compelled for either public safety or their own defense or for the defense of a fellow officer or officers cause the death of a member of the public/suspect etc....

      There is a subset of officers who are "made men" in their clique... probably out there in small numbers, fewer than some alarmists might fear but more than apologists would care to credit... who unlike most officers took more than a little pleasure or pride in killing in the line of duty... actually justified or not. Killing anyone for any reason is usually a hard thing to deal with emotionally even for trained policemen... but not always... and there have been suspected instances of something like "Death squad" lite in some forces... or at least birds of a feather who have a common bond whether they actually set out to add to their death count or not...

      It is unlikely that this sort of thing exists in the sleepy town of Sanford except it has a racist past as a "sundown town" and some quiet jurisdictions are where out of line cops from larger forces are moved to... cops who had just one too many brutality complaints or incidents or poorly explained fatalities etc... not enough for charges to be brought or a case successfully prosecuted against them... but enough to trigger a transfer out. It might be interesting to know the pasts of all of his buddies just to rule out any dynamic like this... not that it could probably be examined as part of this case absent a surprise leak of some sort.

      Pogo & Murphy's Law, every time. Also "Trust but verify" - St. Ronnie (hah...)

      by IreGyre on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 02:43:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Injuries (10+ / 0-)

      While the extent of injuries or even the existence of injuries in not probative of valid self-defense, there are glaring inconsistencies between Zimmerman's statements claiming he took a vicious beating of 25 to 30 punches and also had his head pounded against concrete multiple times does not match the physical evidence. Every injury he sustained is explainable by a single punch or perhaps two punches, as the ME witness stated.

      A waist is a terrible thing to mind.

      by edg on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 02:49:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah, he seemed to help both sides (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      doroma
    •  Imagine the Irony (5+ / 0-)

      If Sean Hannity, who's been shilling for Zimmerman since nearly day one, helps offer the key piece of evidence that destroys Zimmerman's credibility.

      I'm not rooting for either side, but this would be pretty amazing.

      As soon as I get to the bottom of this, I'll get the next plane.

      by Holly Martins on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 03:58:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I wish MSNBC and the rest of the cable based (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lying eyes, bobatkinson

    media would "rest" their coverage of this trial.  I realize that there is public interest, but there are other more important things going on in the world.  I thought there was a separate COURT TV network for those few that want to see every word.

    It is no wonder that a major portion of the public is so ill informed when the public media does such a poor job of informing.  This is what we get when information and entertainment a re merged by the corporate media.

  •  Final statements (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    devis1, bobatkinson

    in this trial will be very interesting, or Zimmerman will get off.  The prosecution has, so far, not really been very evocative, or presented a very clear picture to the jury.  If he does not do so in his final statement, I will be very unsatisfied with his work.

    I am not religious, and did NOT say I enjoyed sects.

    by trumpeter on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 02:35:38 PM PDT

  •  Ok, so I haven't watched even one instant (11+ / 0-)

    of the televised coverage, but my understanding is that the defense's case rests almost entirely on Zimmerman's credibility.

    If that is true, isn't the fact the man was an accessory to his wife's perjury relevant to this case?

    When the union's inspiration /Through the workers' blood shall run /There can be no power greater /Anywhere beneath the sun /Solidarity Forever!

    by litho on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 02:36:59 PM PDT

  •  The prosecution did not rest. Trial resumes (4+ / 0-)

    with the State's witnesses at 8:30AM Friday AM.

    "Southern nights have you ever felt a southern night?" Allen Toussaint ~~Remember the Gulf of Mexico~~

    by rubyr on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 02:39:46 PM PDT

  •  found at googlenews, w/o USAToday vid: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mayfly, tobendaro
    While on the stand in the George Zimmerman trial via Skype, Scott Pleasants' testimony was interrupted when dozens of viewers started calling him.
    anyone have more than this ?

    @Hugh: There is no Article II power which says the Executive can violate the Constitution. * Addington's perpwalk? TRAILHEAD of accountability for Bush-2 Crimes.

    by greenbird on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 02:39:52 PM PDT

    •  I saw it live (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      OMwordTHRUdaFOG

      It was pretty hilarious.   I couldn't believe they were using Skype and were clearly showing the user id.

      I'm not a regular Skype user but I thought there was a way to block all other incoming calls - maybe they just didn't know enough to do this.

      It was also pretty pitiful that the audio was on a cell phone which had crappy reception instead of a more reliable land-line.

      •  thanks. (0+ / 0-)

        i wasn't getting that Pleasants was testifying via Skype... didn't know that could be allowed. odd.

        o but i'm just a wee birdie and know naught of thees.

        @Hugh: There is no Article II power which says the Executive can violate the Constitution. * Addington's perpwalk? TRAILHEAD of accountability for Bush-2 Crimes.

        by greenbird on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 08:10:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Didn't Travon Martin use "stand your ground" law (8+ / 0-)

    I don't understand, and maybe I am be too simplistic, but Travon Martin was the one who definitely "feared for his safety".

    Travon had every right to defend himself against Zimmerman, it should be just that easy.

    •  Not under Florida law, unless the prosecution (5+ / 0-)

      can prove that Zimmerman used force against Martin first.  

      See my comment above.  

      If the prosecution can prove that Zimmerman struck Martin first, or pulled out a gun and pointed it at Martin, then Martin would be entitled to use force to defend himself.  

      •  the syg law is florida is sufficiently muddled (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        timewarp, JayBat, sukeyna, amsterdam

        that people who have shown no force have been shot and the killer has rec'd immunity.

        one woman in florida opened her door to someone she thought was suspicious, shot him, and rec'd immunity.

        people have been found with bullets int he back of their heads, in their backs, and shot for turning somersaults and acting weird.

        Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, first make sure that you are not, in fact, just surrounding yourself with a-holes - William Gibson. (-9.75 / -9.05)

        by doesnotworkorplaywellwithothers on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 03:04:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  And this is not a SYG case (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        amsterdam

        But what you excuse too easily and to often is the fact that  GZ CHASED TM , TM ran away from GZ , TM loses GZ , and that is what the prosecution has laid out , GZ was acting and talking AGGRESSIVELY and ran down TM , which is not against the law , but then he shot and killed the kid he was running down , so that all applies to this case before a jury

        But then you have the phone call , and another witnesses testimony of what happened after that ,

        Trayvon says " WHY ARE YOU FOLLOWING ME ? "  

        Now people on the jury can believe GZ did not run TM down  , but a person would have to dismiss quite a bit to come to the conclusion

        Beer Drinkers & Hell Raisers

        by Patango on Thu Jul 04, 2013 at 10:18:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I don't need the story... (64+ / 0-)

    ...of what happened between them. The established facts are enough for me.

    In my humble opinion, when legally armed civilian George Zimmerman followed Trayvon Martin, then got out of his vehicle, then confronted him, whatever happened next is immaterial. When an armed civilian starts and/or chooses to escalate an avoidable confrontation, and then shoots someone, it's murder.

    But then, what do I know? I'm one of the RKBA guys... I've been carrying a concealed firearm for eight years... and I've avoided, or even fled from, a few confrontations in that time, because I don't want to shoot anyone.
    Zimmerman did.
    Fuck him.

    Things are more like they are now than they've ever been before...

    by Tom Seaview on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 02:43:41 PM PDT

    •  i hope other rtkba (10+ / 0-)

      People like you are in that jury booth.

      We consume the carcasses of creatures of like appetites, passions and organs with our own, and fill the slaughterhouses daily with screams of pain and fear. Robert Louis Stevenson

      by Christin on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 02:48:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Technical question for lawyers (3+ / 0-)

      If a confrontation happens because person A set the stage for it, deliberately passed up multiple opportunities to avoid it, and acted without reasonable prudence -- why does person A get to say that lethal force was the only way to protect his life, even if person B whom he shot was the first person to swing a fist?

      Freedom isn't free. Patriots pay taxes.

      by Dogs are fuzzy on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 04:02:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Because under the law, you are not (3+ / 0-)

        allowed to respond to "mere words and conduct without violence" by resorting to violence.  (See, for example, this case.)  

        even if person B whom he shot was the first person to swing a fist?
        If person B is the first one to resort to force, person B is almost always in the wrong.
        person A set the stage for it, deliberately passed up multiple opportunities to avoid it, and acted without reasonable prudence
        None of this gives person B license to resort to force against person A.  Only force by person A (or a threat of imminent force) gives person B license to respond with force.  

        Now, that does not give person A license to shoot person B.  The "force" person B uses has to be enough so that person A would reasonably believe that he has to use deadly force (shooting) to prevent his own death or great bodily harm.  The question is, when Zimmerman was (if the jury believes Mr. Good) on the ground under Martin, crying for help (according to Good), and Martin was punching downward at him, did Zimmerman believe that he had to shoot to prevent his own death or great bodily harm?  

        •  Except that's no longer the case here (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          doroma, bobatkinson

          We have a lot of circumstantial evidence from which the jury can infer (even if one bought your argument, which I doubt) , that the defendant didn't just use mere words

          •  That would be important (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib
            that the defendant didn't just use mere words
            If the prosecution can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman actually used force to provoke Martin into hitting him (such as if Zimmerman hit first or pulled out his gun and pointed it Martin as a threat), then this version of self defense applies, which is a bit more stringent:
            776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
            (1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
            (2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
            (a) Such force is so great that the person 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; or
            (b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
            History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.
            "provoked" under that statute is, under the case law, more than "mere words or conduct without force."

            As far as I have heard, the only evidence of Zimmerman using more than "mere words or conduct without force" is the testimony of Ms. Jeantel that she heard Martin say "get off, get off."  Of course, because the jury is aware that Ms. Jeantel was willing to lie under oath on April 2, 2012, in consideration of the feelings of Martin's mother may present credibility issues as to Ms. Jeantel's testimony.  

            Even if the jury believes Ms. Jeantel's testimony, Zimmerman may still be able to create a reasonable doubt about self defense under 776.041(2)(a) if the jury believes Mr. Good's testimony that Zimmerman was on the ground, under Martin, with Martin punching down and Zimmerman screaming for help, in the moments before the shot was fired.  That's why, as I said elsewhere, I think Mr. Good is perhaps the most important witness, and much of the question of what the jury decides depends on whether the jury believes Mr. Good's testimony.

            •  the key evidence today was (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              doroma

              if I understand the ballistics, and I don't pretend to understand it, the way in which the defendant had a chambered loaded.

              The get off my statement only corraborates along with other pieces of evidence like "they always get away", the timing of the phone call between the 19 year old girl and the victim, etc.

              ulimately, there's a lot of circumstnatial evidence of who was aggressive towards whom

              Its not a smoking gun, but cases dont' need smoking guns

              I recounted 8 last night, and several other people included more, eg, the location of the body was headed towards the victim's home is one that was stated (that again adds to the circumstantial evidence of who was aggressive toward whom).

              •  I think the question is whether (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Pi Li, VClib

                the evidence of things like Zimmerman's statements and the fact that he had a loaded gun proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was the first to use force.  What you have pointed out  is circumstantial evidence of Zimmerman's state of mind. If the jury believes that this was his state of mind, then the prosecution would be asking the jury use his state of mind to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was the first to use force.  That's possible, but certainly not a slam dunk.  There is no evidence, direct or circumstantial, that Zimmerman was the first to use force, other than Ms. Jeantel's testimony (with those credibility issues).

                But even if the jury believes, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman, by using force, provoked Martin into using force, that would not be enough to convict.  The prosecution would still have the burden of proving that, under 776.041, (1) Zimmerman was not in reasonable fear of imminent death and great bodily harm when (if the jury believes Mr. Good) Martin was on top of him beating him and he was screaming for help, or (2) Zimmerman had not exhausted all means of escaping from Mr. Martin being on top of him beating him.  

                •  First, I got to point out the creepiness (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  bobatkinson

                  of PiLi following behind you recommending everything you say against what I am saying

                  Second, i got to point out that he does that with other people even while never responding to the substance, agree or disagree, of what I am saying. i don't mind being wrong. I do have a problem with the creepiness of what he's doing on this site.

                  Now, to the substance. You keep doing this, you know, with each piece of evidence?

                  Someone wil mention evidence- seveal piece in fact. ou will say this is disproven and reaszonable doubt because i can say something about one pice of evidence

                  Your doubt has to be reasonable. Not just doubt.

                  Your claim here about reasonable fear has been disproven by the way by multiple pieces of evidence, which since you and other guy are following my comments, you can look up.

                  •  bruh - Pi Li is female (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    bigjacbigjacbigjac

                    and a former prosecutor.

                    "let's talk about that"

                    by VClib on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 09:41:12 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  That doesn't make its less strange (0+ / 0-)

                      She doesn't respond to my questions, which is her right, but  ends up talking around my post to other people about what I have said to them.  The behavior seems passive aggressive.

                      Like I said, I can be wrong about what the law and facts. That's why I've asked people to cite something more than the statute so that I can understand florida law better in case I'm misunderstanding the law. When I asked Meteor Blade why he thought the case wasn't going well, he did so, and I conceded the point may be right. In fact ,  to be clear, as far as case law, I've repeatedly made this request to both her and Coffee.

                       For example, I've asked multiple times for citations to help me understand why she believes I am wrong about provocation. Instead, she merely says to others that I don't understand the case I cite although I directly quote from the case decision and asked her to demonstrate why my citation is wrong.

                      Still this strange uprating and talking around me but not directly to me.

                •  Let me give you evidence to demonstrate (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  doroma

                  the lack of injuries, the location of the body, the lack of DNA evidence , Good's testimony that he didn't see his head hitting concrete, the patholist testimony that the injuries were not serious, etc all are circumstantial evidence (somethin that you and PiLi keep pretending doesn't matter) are evidence that demonstrate that the a reasonalb eperson would not have feared an escalation resulting in death in terms of reasonable inference from the evidence

                  What's your evidence that he feared? Please don't say that you don't have to prove it because "reasdonable doubt"

                  its a bullshit answer at this point

                  I am not saying the jury, were they as vested as you seem to be , won't buy it. I am saying its a bullshit argument from a "you made up one argument, failed to prove it, so that leaves only the homicide..."

                  •  Those are two different facts at issue. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    VClib

                    1. What  I addressed is the evidence the prosecution had that Zimmerman provoked Martin under 776.041. That requires evidence that Zimmerman used physical force against Martin first, before Martin used physical force against Martin.  The evidence of this fact, as far as I can tell, is (1) Ms. Jeantel's statement that she heard Martin say, "get off, get off" and (2) the circumstantial evidence of Zimmerman's state of mind, which would be used to argue that the jury should use his state mind to infer he resorted to force before Martin used force against him.

                    2.  What you addressed is the evidence that would show that Zimmerman was not in fear of death or great bodily harm when he shot.  And I understand those.  What I don't understand is what is the prosecution's story?  It seems to me that there are a couple of different things the prosecution could be saying to the jury.

                      Option (1) Martin was never on top of Zimmerman beating on him.  If the prosecution believes Martin was never on top of Zimmerman beating on him-- and in fact, was not hitting Zimmerman at all --  then what explanation did they supply to the jury as to how Zimmerman sustained injuries (minor or not, there were injuries) to his head? Where were the parties -- their relative positions to each other -- when the shot was fired?  were they standing face to face -- close enough for the gun to make contact with Martin's shirt?  Was Zimmerman on top of Martin?  How did the shot happen? It seems to me that if, in closing, the prosecution argues that Martin was never hitting Zimmerman at all, that leaves a lot of open questions.

                     Option (2) Martin was on top of Zimmerman throwing down punches, but those punches were not landing, or were not really hard punches, so Zimmerman, while he may have been uncomfortable, had no reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm.  That may be what the prosecution ultimately argues in closing.  That depends on the prosecution convincing the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, that when a person his on top of you hitting your head,  if you aren't being injured very badly, you have no reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm.

                    I'm just a bit frustrated because I'm not sure which of these is the story that the prosecution is attempting to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.  I think that if the prosecution says, "we don't know what happened, it could have been a number of different scenarios" it's far more difficult to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  

                    •  We have discussed provocation (0+ / 0-)

                      1. There are other pieces of circumstantial evidence

                      the gun loaded and ready for action although he wasn't on patrol that night, the timing of the TM's cell phone call (which doesn't rely on content of the call), the location of the body heading towards home, the argument that witnesses heard, the defendant's admission that he did not identify himself, the scream (the injuries as well as ID will help with this as circumstantial evidence of ho was the aggressor) . etc.

                      the state of mind circumstantial evidence just adds to the overall other pieces of evidence

                      No one piece of evidence is going to build the picture here. That's how circumstantial evidence works.  What over time is consistent with all the bits of evidence.

                      The one contra piece of evidence is may be Good, but his testimony doesn't help because it also contradicts other evidence (eg Zimmerman, not victim apparently knew MMA)

                      2. the prosecution's story is Meteor Blades, point, and I conceded that, but that has nothing to do with the evidence available to you and the jury at this point. That's a question of hand holding, which is needed, but is not one of substance of the case. .

                      There is some argument that the prosecution is waiting for the closing to do the story telling. I don't necessarily agree with that approach, and that's why I agree with meteor, but that's a different point of "is there enough evidence such that one should not have reasonable doubt?"

                      Part of the reason I suspect that the prosecution doesn't want to weave a story is because it gives defense a chance to obfuscate the overalll point: it doesn't matter if we know the exact details of how the defendant killed the victim beyond knowing he was the aggressor since it would all be speculation (no one saw it. So how would they prove it? they can't, but that doesn't mean that we surrender all common sense about what the evidence is telling us. In other words,talking to the jury I would really emphasize their doubt has to be reasonable, not merely a doubt. Saying "I don't know how X occurred doesn't mean one should ignore that it happened. If a body is not found,  but blood is found, it doesn't mean, for example, that a defendant can't be tried for murder. I wouldn't expect the prosecution to speculate on the details of the actual killing).

                      Your stories require a level of speculation that can be used by the defense, and on that level I agree with the prosecution

                      what they are doing or trying to do is poke holes in the defendant's credibility

                      For example, I read all several articles on the subject, and I was amazed that what people got out of the criminal law teacher was that "it helped the defense because the jury heard about self defense" rathe rthan it hurt them because they found out that Zimmerman lied on national tv about his knowledge of the SYG defense. That act as if the definitions were not going to be part of the case in the instructions (which unlike what i previous stated, i think its clear that the prosecution decided they would be so they needed to address the central plank of the defense- the defendant's credibility.).

                      Ultimate each strategy carries a risk fro the prosecution

                      I can see Meteor's point (and yours) but i also see the prosecutions- the tight rope is speculation allows for defense to confuse the jury

                      the one you advocate carries the danger that the defense will produce reasonable doubt about the specific theory that the prosecution chooses, especially where your goal isn't to claim you know the specific details of what happened that night, but to get the jury to use its common sense under the circumstances

                      its like someone asked "why does the lack of DNA evidence matter" and someone else responded "common sense. if someone is beating the shit out of you, DNA is going to be transferred somewhere and they are going to sustain signs of having beat someone

                    •  By the way strategy (0+ / 0-)

                      , not evidence is what I meant earlier when I said its possible tor each reasonable doubt, but if the jury pays attention to the evidence, it will be hard to do

                      the defense's case relies on someone believing the defendant's story

                      If someone says they don't believe the story, they should convicted

                      If someone says they believed the story, then it can see reasonable doubt

                      The only other way to believe the story is if you aren't following the evidence as far as the defendant's believability

                      The discussion has not been focused on strategy. at least not for me, I have been makign the point that on the evidence i see the prosecution as winning more than losing

                      the defense will be left putting on a defence based on a lot of improbabilities that must all work together

                    •  eg improbabilities such as (0+ / 0-)

                      life threating activities that neither produce wounds, nor corraborate the defendant's statements nor result in physical evidence such as blood been transferred to the alleged assailant- that's  a lot of improbabilities that all have to be happening in the same struggle

            •  "get off" should be "point of" (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              doroma

              sorry for the million typos

        •  Is there no duty of care? (3+ / 0-)

          I would consider the following hypothetical case to be unethical. Would the law allow it? Should the law be fixed if so?

          Hypothetical: Mortimer walks into a biker bar and shouts "What's the difference between a Harley and a Hoover? The location of the dirtbag!" and proceeds to describe how the mothers of the bikers were all lousy in bed. But he uses no physical force.

          Mortimer, as a foreseeable result of his actions, finds himself outnumbered by big tough people clearly intending harm. Given their size and numbers, he reasonably fears grave bodily harm against which he could not defend himself with his fists.

          He pulls out his legally carried gun and repels the attack.

          Now, the bikers are legally in the wrong for rising to the bait, yes, but is there really no legal ground on which to punish Mortimer's conduct?

          The case isn't quite parallel to GZ/TM but it addresses an issue raised by the GZ/TM case.

          Freedom isn't free. Patriots pay taxes.

          by Dogs are fuzzy on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 10:51:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  ianal but it seems that would fall under the (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bigjacbigjacbigjac

            "fighting words" category and as such, the bikers attacking might not be illegal as the aggressor is ol Mortimer....

            If Mortimer is the aggressor, all of a sudden all his stand you ground rights are gone and he must make every attempt to break off contact and get the hell out of Dodge or he can not use self defense....If he is blocked from leaving and has no choice it's either pull out the sidearm and shoot your way out or die, then he probably could claim self defense and legitimately....Granted, he did provoke the situation and deserved an asskicking, however If he is not allowed to run away like the mouse he is, then the fault switches to the Bikers.....They should respond to words with words,  fists with fists etc....

            Now this applies only to the somewhat outlandish scenario you posited.....

            I can think of a few more realistic situations where aggression can turn into self defense  legitimately.

            In this case, z should never have left the relative safety of the truck and nothing would ever have happened.

            Vaya con Dios Don Alejo
            I want to die a slave to principles. Not to men.
            Emiliano Zapata

            by buddabelly on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 11:33:27 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  In this case, there's a statute. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        johnny wurster, coffeetalk, Pi Li, VClib

        And it says that even if Z provoked the attack, he still gets to use lethal force in self-defense if he was reasonably afraid of imminent death or serious bodily harm, and had exhausted all reasonable means of escape.

      •  What the two supporters of zimmerman (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        doroma

        aren't saying is that the provocation, then escalation approach is extremely difficult to convince juries of

        If you look at Florida case law, not just the statute, the instances where it is successful as a defense are not all that high as far as I can determine

        •  Think about the sample, though. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Pi Li, coffeetalk, Dr Swig Mcjigger

          If the defendant was successful at the trial level, the prosecution can't appeal (subject to limited exceptions), so you're basically looking at the cases where the defendant lost below and is seeking to overturn a trial court's verdict.

          I'm not saying you're wrong, but reported appellate decisions aren't going to prove it.

          •  I agree with the caveat, but (5+ / 0-)

            my issue with comments here is the exaggerated since of how people are describing the evidence to people

            There are several points of evidence that physically (not just eye witness wise) refute the defendant's claims, and I am looking at this case in the contest of those cases that were appealed to ask my question of whether the defendant will have as easy a time of winning his case here. I wouldn't be surprised if he did get acquitted, but I also think all the b.s., especially in the press, is just that, b.s. about where this case stands.

            I think the best comment I've heard against my position is by Meteor blades who said that the prosecution didn't hand hold the jury through linking the evidence to , at this point, the obvious false statements by the defendant.

            If they do understand the evidence, its hard to see how they  can easily acquit as some here like PiLi and Coffee Talk have claimed before the trial even started (key emphasize on ease of how they thinkt there is no evidence or not enough, which is absurd on its face).

            we have discussed one example: the claim that TM hit Zimmerman's head repeatedly against the concrete.

            We now have physical evidence tht the wounds do not indicate that this happened, and that the DNA rebuts this assertion. You have the witness saying he didn't see that happening. I know al the absence of evidence arguments, but if all you have is the defendant's word, and three points of evidence, and you believe the defendant is a liar (which anyone reviewing the point about his lying about the SYG knowledge has to now admit he is on key issues in the case), you are left with the physical evidence, which says he didn't have his head based against the concrete as he claims. That is not even highlighting the location o the body, which also is physical evidence against this argument.

            There are other key pieces of claims by the defendant that goes to his claim that he feared for his life , or at least a reasonable person would.There are something like 10 pieces of evidence when you cut through the defense's smoke screen that corraborate through logical inference that the defendant was the aggressor inlcuding:

            1. He said the always get away
            2. He had a chambered loaded, before he fought with the defendant
            3. He argued with the defendant
            4. he did not identify himself either during the first or second encourter
            5. As was mentioned last night (but I can't confirm), that the phone call with TM's friend indicates that he was on the phone when the faithful events happened

            And several others as I have mentioned

            the point is that while one can see some finding reasonable doubt, the circumstantial evidence to me, when you start to enumerate them rather than just vaguely consider the assertions is pretty damning of the defense's argument

            And again, if you don't buy the defense argument, is murder 2

          •  one point of clarification (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bobatkinson

            while I agree with the caveat, it tells us the case law in the state as far as what is considered valid evidence and we can use that to judge what's happening here

            The case that I have cited on provocation, pretty clearly states that the causal link for the justices, was the defendant's pursuit of the victim

            The responses I have gotten is that "you don't understand the case law" without any case law to rebut it other than trying to factually differentiate, which doesn't work at the end because the factual differences are things the court said in is opinion had indicatedd the earlier altercation was not a consideration as far as the self defense claim

            What was relevant in that case was the pursuit, and here, we actually now have more than pursuit  as far as circumstantial evidence

            what I dont' buy ultimately are all these assertions without backing them up with case law and facts.

    •  The dilemma of regulation in a nutshell (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      According to Fish, Tom Seaview

      The injustice of disarming Tom Seaview, or the hazards of an armed GZ?

      Freedom isn't free. Patriots pay taxes.

      by Dogs are fuzzy on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 04:03:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'd rather have a bunch of sad (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bobatkinson

        Tom Seaviews than a bunch of George Zimmermans running around.

      •  The two are almost completely unrelated (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        buddabelly, bigjacbigjacbigjac

        There are several million carry permits in the USA. We are much less likely to be involved in crime than people without permits: persons carrying concealed without a permit, in all but a few states, are already committing a serious crime. In fact, police officers are more likely to commit violent crime than we are, as a group.

        Zimmerman is an anomaly. His words and actions indicate that he wanted to kill. I know a whole lot of people who carry like I do, and they all avoid dangerous situations religiously.

        Plus, I have no intention of being disarmed. If Delaware tried it, I would move to a more free state.

        Things are more like they are now than they've ever been before...

        by Tom Seaview on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 07:03:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Tom, sadly, it doesn't matter if you think Z is... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FreeWoman19, bigjacbigjacbigjac

      ...a slimeball. According to the plain English of Florida's SYG law (and similar laws in other states) it is perfectly OK (for example) for Zimmerman to sucker punch Martin from behind, then shoot him in the heart when he fights back. The jury just has to believe that Zimmerman believed:

      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
      It doesn't matter if Zimmerman started it. That's Florida law. Read Florida Statutes Chapter 776 and do not skip section 776.041.

      If (for example) the jury believes that everything else Zimmerman says is a lie, if they believe he was lying on his back with Martin standing over him, that Martin hit Zimmerman at least once, and that Zimmerman thought that Martin was going to hit him again and hurt him? Then if the jury is following Florida law, they have to acquit.

      It is a disgusting chunk of law.

      -Jay-
      
    •  Did you ever "forget" that you were (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bigjacbigjacbigjac

      carrying a loaded weapon and then suddenly remember?

    •  FYI (0+ / 0-)

      Dogs are Fuzzy nominated this to Top Comments tonight.

    •  Tom - your humble opinion (0+ / 0-)

      isn't how Florida self defense law works.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 09:32:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If your reading of Florida law is correct, I'm not (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        a2nite

        clear on how you can ever get a conviction when two individuals are both carrying guns & one shoots the other dead. If the circumstances of the confrontation don't matter, all the aggressor has to say is, "I saw him drawing his gun, so I shot him," and what may have been premeditated murder is legal.

        -7.25, -6.26

        We are men of action; lies do not become us.

        by ER Doc on Thu Jul 04, 2013 at 06:12:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  ER Doc - here is the summary (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          a2nite, ER Doc

          In civil liability litigation this case starts when Zimmerman leaves his truck. In this criminal case it really starts when the two first confront each other.

          Your hypothetical could certainly be true. If two armed people confront each other and one party does something provocative with his gun, the other party may shoot him in self defense.

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Thu Jul 04, 2013 at 08:05:07 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm imagining a scenario in which one individual (0+ / 0-)

            plans the premeditated murder of another, who is known to be a CCW carrier. The first individual has his weapon already drawn when he confronts the second with his weapon holstered. If the second goes for his weapon, causing the first to fear for his life, how do you convict him of what was otherwise an explicitly premeditated murder?  

            -7.25, -6.26

            We are men of action; lies do not become us.

            by ER Doc on Fri Jul 05, 2013 at 02:28:41 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Has the prosecution met its burden of proof? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pi Li, johnny wurster, JayBat, VClib

    Remember, it is the burden of the prosecution to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman did not act in self defense.  There is a witness who testified that Zimmerman was under Martin, being beaten, several seconds before the shot was fired.  If the jury thinks that it is possible that this witness was telling the truth, then the prosecution needs to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman did  not have a reasonable belief that being beaten in the head could possibly cause death or great bodily harm and that he did not have a reasonable belief that his action was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.  That's their burden of proof -- beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Their other option is to prove that Zimmerman provoked Martin into using force against him, so that the higher standard of self-defense would apply:  

    776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
    (1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
    (2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
    (a) Such force is so great that the person 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; or
    (b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
    But to prove that Zimmerman provoked the use of force against himself, the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman did something MORE than "mere words or conduct without force."  As the Florida Courts have held:

     

    Because the instruction did not limit provocation to some force or threat of force, the instruction could have misled the jury to believe that appellant's pointedly asking the victim why she failed to acknowledge her greeting and/or appellant's racial retorts and obscene gestures were sufficient provocation to preclude appellant from defending herself from an attack by the victim

    . . .

    We agree with appellant that the jury instruction given by the trial court was inadequate to properly charge the jury in this case. The instruction stated that appellant could not defend herself with non-deadly force if she "initially provoked" 445*445 the victim. By not limiting provocation to the use or threat of force, the court failed to make the jury aware that the word "provoked," as used in the instruction, did not refer to mere words or conduct without force. Stated another way, the instruction given by the court eliminated the use of non-deadly force in self-defense if there was any provocation by the defendant—no matter how slight or subjective the provocation. By that standard, a mere insult could be deemed sufficient to prohibit defending oneself from an attacker.

    This case makes absolutely clear that, under Florida law, in order for Zimmerman to have "provoked" Martin into being on top of him throwing punches toward his head (as Good testified), Zimmerman had to do MORE than follow Martin or even ask "what are you doing here."  And the prosecution bears the burden of proving what Zimmerman did that was more than "mere words or conduct without force."  

    It seems to me that the prosecution has spend a lot of its effort into trying to create a reasonable doubt about Zimmerman's version of events.  But if the jury has a reasonable doubt about Zimmerman's version of events, that is not enough for a conviction.  The question is, has the prosecution proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman was NOT acting in self-defense when he pulled the trigger.  

    •  It's an affirmative defense (5+ / 0-)

      IANAL, and my training on this matter only goes so far as my concealed carry classes; but I was led to understand that self-defense is an affirmative defense. The defendant has admitted to killing Martin and the burden is on the defendant to prove he acted in self-defense. If he can't, then it's murder.

      In practical terms? It's going to depend on the jury's instructions, I think.

      ‎"Masculinity is not something given to you, but something you gain. And you gain it by winning small battles with honor." - Norman Mailer
      My Blog
      My wife's woodblock prints

      by maxomai on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 03:06:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I may have missed something (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bobatkinson

      but I thought Good testified that he didn't see any punches thrown - only the movement of a bunch of arms.

      Couldn't it be that GZ pulled the gun on TM and then TM struggled with him to keep the gun away?   That would involve lots of arm movements and TM screaming for help even though he was on top?

      Good thinks the yells for help were coming from the person on the bottom because that person was in the vulnerable position and also some crazy theory about how it would sound different if the top person was screaming because he was facing away from him.  I'm sorry but unless Good is a highly trained audio expert I just don't see how he could tell who was screaming.   The prosecution really did a piss poor job on this witness in my opinion.

      •  What Good said to law enforcement that night (0+ / 0-)

        was that Martin was on top of Zimmerman throwing down punches -- it was that night that he said it looked to him like MMA style "ground and pound."  He has never wavered from the notion that Martin was throwing punches -- he "clarified" (his word, not mine) that because of the darkness and angle, he did not see the hand actually make contact with Zimmerman.  

        He was pretty clear from the beginning about seeing, in your words, punches "thrown."  What he didn't see is those punches actually "land."

        It will be interesting to see if the prosecution argues that, even though Martin was on top of Zimmerman, he was not hitting Zimmerman, but instead just trying (essentially) to restrain Zimmerman and keep Zimmerman from shooting him.  It's a possible scenario if you accept that Mr. Good was somewhat mistaken as to what he saw, but I'm not sure that it reaches the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt."  How would the prosecution contend Zimmerman sustained the injuries he did have to his head?

  •  Couple points (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    johnny wurster

    First, everyone seems to "know" that Zimmerman is guilty. How do you know? This is the problem with court cases being on the news. The news media builds a narrative, and suddenly everyone becomes a justice-seeking wiseguy/gal. He killed a kid and deserved a trial. He's getting one. Let the courts do their job before you assign a lynch mob to him.

    Second, this is exactly the kind of crap that the news media feeds you in lieu of actual, useful information. It's time to stop caring about things like this. It's irrelevant to the nation. If Zimmerman is indeed a murderer, and if indeed the police force didn't try to charge him because they're racist, then that's a problem for the community to sort out - i.e. it's local news fodder. What some backwater sheriff does in Podunk Florida doesn't make a bit of difference to anyone else.

  •  With all due respect to the diarist, (0+ / 0-)

    Why even here is this trial front page news? This story, heartbreaking as it is, has been well covered. How about some info about a major uprising in Egypt, an ongoing war in Syria or even something new?

    "Remember, Republican economic policies quadrupled the debt before I took office and doubled it after I left. We simply can't afford to double-down on trickle-down." Bill Clinton

    by irate on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 03:00:28 PM PDT

  •  Did the prosceution even bring up the (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tonedevil, bobatkinson

    Fact that he was carrying a gun when Neighborhood watch groups do not allow their watchers to carry a gun?

    "Republicans are the party that says that government doesn't work, then they get elected and prove it."-- PJ O'Rourke

    by nocynicism on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 03:01:50 PM PDT

    •  yes, they did. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tonedevil, doroma

      Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, first make sure that you are not, in fact, just surrounding yourself with a-holes - William Gibson. (-9.75 / -9.05)

      by doesnotworkorplaywellwithothers on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 03:10:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  That was NOT the testimony the jury heard. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      johnny wurster, Pi Li, VClib
      Neighborhood watch groups do not allow their watchers to carry a gun?
      One of the first witnesses for the prosecution, Wendy Dorival, a civilian employee for the Sanford PD, coordinated with Zimmerman in establishing the Neighborhood Watch. She was apparently a big Zimmerman fan -- very complimentary of him (despite the act that the prosecution called her).  She was specifically asked about whether Neighborhood Watch says anything about whether they can carry a gun, and her answer was that they do not tell Neighborhood Watch volunteers not to carry a gun -- something like "we understand the 2nd amendment.
      •  True that this wasn't her testimony. But... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        YucatanMan, Tonedevil

        ...what she said was bullshit.

        Here's the National Sheriff's Association statement March 28, 2012:

        "The alleged action of a “self-appointed neighborhood watchman” last month in Sanford, FL significantly contradicts the principles of the Neighborhood Watch Program,” stated NSA Executive Director Aaron D. Kennard, Sheriff (ret.). “NSA has no information indicating the community where the incident occurred has ever even registered with the NSA Neighborhood Watch program.”

        “The Neighborhood Watch Program fosters collaboration and cooperation with the community and local law enforcement by encouraging citizens to be aware of what is going on in their communities and contact law enforcement if they suspect something – NOT take the law in their own hands,” continued Executive Director Kennard.

        “The alleged participant ignored everything the Neighborhood Watch Program stands for and it resulted in a young man losing his life. Our thoughts and prayers are with the family of Trayvon Martin during this terrible time.”

        The Sanford P.D.'s Neighborhood Watch manual, which is five steps down from other NW manuals, still includes this admonition, which an NW coordinator like Zimmerman presumably read (bold face in the original):
        What you will not do is get physically involved with any activity you report or apprehension of any suspicious persons. This is the job of the law enforcement agency.
        The NW Manual put out by the Sheriff's Association itself states:
        Patrol members should be trained by law enforcement. It should be emphasized to members that they do not possess police powers and they shall not carry weapons or pursue vehicles. They should also be cautioned to alert police or deputies when encountering strange activity. MEMBERS SHOULD NEVER CONFRONT SUSPICIOUS PERSONS WHO COULD BE ARMED AND DANGEROUS.
        If the Sanford Police Department has been ignoring both its own manual in training as well as the NSA manual, they ought to be held civilly liable for Trayvon's death, and Wendy Dorival and whoever advised her apparently to ignore the SPD policy ought to be collecting unemployment.

        Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

        by Meteor Blades on Thu Jul 04, 2013 at 05:02:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  What I've learned from this trial is that I can (9+ / 0-)

    now STALK anyone I want (claim suspicious looking person roaming), confront them (don't identify myself or why I'm stalking), get physical with them or scare them enough so they can punch me (I'll probably crack my head while stumbling and  later claim he banged my head), then pull my gun and shoot in the heart.  

    I just initiated a fight that caused fear for life between both of us.  I needed that mental fear in order to execute my plan and convince myself of innocence. What's important is that I shoot first and fast in order to get away with murder.

    Only someone who has built in anger (and undisclosed mental illness) at a specific group/culture with a malicious craving to be a hero cop would do such a thing. People like GZ.

    •  well said (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tonedevil

      eom

      mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

      by wewantthetruth on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 04:06:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You've learned the wrong lesson (4+ / 0-)
      What I've learned from this trial is that I can
      now STALK anyone I want (claim suspicious looking person roaming), confront them (don't identify myself or why I'm stalking), get physical with them or scare them enough so they can punch me (I'll probably crack my head while stumbling and  later claim he banged my head), then pull my gun and shoot in the heart.  
      If you doubt that, I suggest you do as you describe and see what happens to you.

      Do you own a house? I hope so, because you're going to have to mortgage it for your defence.  Don't worry if you can't make the payments though, it won't be long before the state is providing you with furnished  accommodation.

      Or, if you're very unlucky, just a chair.

      Black Holes Suck.

      by Pi Li on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 06:40:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The trial's not over yet, you know nt (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib
    •  jane - you might want to do two things (0+ / 0-)

      1. Wait for the end of this trial to see what actually happens when the jury has a verdict.
      2. If you don't live in Florida carefully check the self-defense laws in your state. Mileage may vary.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 09:49:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  seems to me.... (6+ / 0-)

    those posting in favor of Zimmerman or complaining that there is too much of it on TV are getting their news 2nd or 3rd hand.

    I work from home and have been watching on MSNBC and I am glad they are televising so I can watch and hear directly.

    zimmerman is screwed. yesterday and today was all about showing that he is a liar and from the teachers to crime scene analysts, all the evidence and discussion proved Zimmerman to be a liar.

    the video be it the police interview, walking the scene and hannity are as good as putting him on the stand.

    add in the testimony of the girl who was martin's friend and her getting treated poorly by zimmerman's attorney and the deck is stacked against him.

    the guy is a physchopathetic liar, vigilante, cop-wannabe. he was looking for trouble, left that car with a loaded gun and confronted a young kid because of the color of his skin.

    once ziimmerman shot the kid, it was all about covering his ass.......he's a thug, growing his hair out and putting on a suit and tie does not change that fact.

    prosecution was wise to call defense witnesses,....their testimony was coming out anyway and now there will be no surprises.........

    someone pointed out above about seeing martin on top but then admitted he could not see everything and zimmerman's back was to him.....he actually said he made assumptions and assumptions are not facts.

    zimmerman's goiing down. the media and talking heads got it wrong.......it's great drama but not actually what happened. you have to see it for yourself.

    mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

    by wewantthetruth on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 04:03:55 PM PDT

    •  ten bucks says he's acquitted. (0+ / 0-)
    •  I don't know whether he will be found (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tonedevil, sukeyna, doroma

      guility or not, but based on my own checking in with the evidence and legal issues in the case I have ceases to read certain people here because I know they are full of crap.

      At the end of the day, juries are irrational so I have no idea how they will vote.

      Someone will ignore the reasonable part of reasonable doubt

      Others will be bias due to racism

      Otehrs may decide he's guilty for reasons not related to any reasoning that I am looking at in terms of the evidence

      We just don't know

      The only think, like I said, I am sure of is that most of the people defending here at this site are full of shit

      They don't care and have never cared what the evidence in the case is

      When you ask them why they have reasonable doubt, they really cannot answer the question beyond "you don't know what you are talking about"

      That's always a red flag for someone who isn't really dealing honestly in the discourse

      I was talking to a guy today, and he said he thought today was devastating to the defense. We shall see

      I still think its more probable than not Zimmerman will be convicted beause as I said his defense, when you get right down to it relies on us trusting him

      When I've asked those who say they have reasonable doubt to explain why, they often can't without relying implicitedly on him

      In fact, they seem to think any doubt is the same as reasonable doubt

      I think the physical evidence is pretty convinging. it doesn' rely on belief

      Anyone discounting it is essentially telling you they don't care what the evicence says

      •  I don't think this is true (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib
        I still think its more probable than not Zimmerman will be convicted beause as I said his defense, when you get right down to it relies on us trusting him
        I suspect that in closing, you won't hear the defense lawyers say much about trusting Zimmerman or believing his statements.  I think you will hear a lot from them about the prosecution having the burden of proving what happened, and the prosecution having the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, how it was not self-defense, and an argument that the prosecution did not meet that burden.

        If they ask the jury to believe anyone, I suspect it will be Mr. Good.  If Zimmerman is acquitted, I think, beyond question, he will be the most important witness of the trial.

        I also think the defense will point out that the prosecution has not provided the jury with its version of what happened - of how Martin ended up on top of Zimmerman, beating him, with Zimmerman yelling for help (according to Mr. Good); of how Zimmerman got his injuries; of how Martin ended up near the top of the "T" in the time frame.  

        I've pointed out that the prosecution has the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and it's curious that they have not provided the jury with a their own version of what happened in those last crucial moments, but instead have chosen to focus on casting "reasonable doubt" on Zimmerman's story.  

        Casting "reasonable doubt" on Zimmerman's story is not enough for a conviction.  As a practical matter, I think the prosecution has to present its own version of what happened between the two, and have the jury believe the prosecution's version beyond a reasonable doubt.  

        •  I don't think the prosecution... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          amsterdam, doroma, bobatkinson

          has answered the question how did Mr. Martin get on top of Mr. Zimmerman because there is exactly one witness who says that happened, Mr. Good, while others have said it was the live guy who was on top.

          This makes about as much sense as Mike Huckabee on mescaline. - Prodigal 2-6-2008

          by Tonedevil on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 05:09:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Do you think the prosecution will (0+ / 0-)

            argue that Mr. Good is dishonest? or that he did not see what he said he saw?  In opening, the prosecution did not even mentione the fact that anyone saw Martin on top of Zimmerman punching down.  Do you think they will argue that Martin was never on top of Zimmerman beating on him?

            If they make that argument, how do they explain Zimmerman's injuries?  While there may be some difference as to how many blows caused those injuries, and how severe they were, it's clear that something happened to injure Zimmerman in the head.  Again, in opening statement, they did not mention those, IIRC.  What do they want the jury to believe as to how those injuries were sustained, and -- more importantly -- what evidence do they point to?  

            I know what the defense will say about the only witness who said she saw Zimmerman on top before the shooting -- that she was mistaken as to when she heard the shot, because Zimmerman was not on top until after the shot was fired, according to the defense theory.  The defense said exactly this on opening.  And is that the witness who said that she based the "Zimmerman on top" theory based solely on size, and she was basing Martin's size on a picture of him at 12 or 13 years old?  She's the one who said, by the end of the cross, that she couldn't really say who was on top without looking at recent pictures of Martin, and the judge would not let the defense show those to her while she was on the stand.  

            •  the prosecution doesn't need to argue that (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Tonedevil, doroma, bobatkinson

              it was at night, for a period of  (and I may remember this wrong) up to 10 seconds?, in the rain, in which the one witness stated that the victim used "MMA style" fighting

              what are the likelihoods he got the colors wrong at night?

              What are the likelihoods he got the physical motions wrong?

              The MMA style by itself raises questions about who was on top based on good's testimony

              The mistake you are making is assuming that we  have to think everyone is lying. This is essentially situation whre there is no direct witness who saw it all

              They are going on very brief interactions

              Even if good is sure, he still could be wrong

              The point is to compare and contrast the many accounts with the physical evidence and what we know of the parties

              we know Zimmerman knew MMA.

              •  If the defense had the burden of proof (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                VClib

                all those questions might compel a conviction.

                The prosecution has the burden of proof.  As a practical matter, if the prosecution is saying to the jury, "we don't know what happened -- we don't know whether Martin was on top of Zimmerman beating him in the moments before the shot was fired," that's not going to meet their burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it was not self defense.

                I think that, as a practical matter, the party with the burden of proof has to be able to give the jury at least the basic facts of what happened, even if they are fuzzy on the minor details.  In this case, I think the prosecution needs to be able to give the jury a story of what happened in those final moments to cause those injuries to Zimmerman's head -- a scenario that excludes self defense beyond a reasonable doubt.  

                •  And if we were living in teh fantasyq (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Tonedevil, amsterdam, doroma, bobatkinson

                  world that you seem to inhabit in white the jury don't need to believe the defendant to believe a story that we only know through the defendant, I might actually take your reasonable doubt argument into consideration

                  As it is, this is only one point of evidence, and in the real world, where cases are really tried, cases seldom come down to one witness, but they do, when the defense is relying on the claims of  a defendant, rely on veracity.

                  I concede the Meteor blade point about holding the jury hands, but not your point which seem keeps essentially, as it core, pretending circumstantial and physical evidence doesn't matter.

  •  Odds, I still say more probable (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tonedevil, bobatkinson

    than not that he will be convicted.

    I do take into account your argument that the prosecution should have done more hand holding

    Its a good point

    But on the evidence, when you cut ot all the media opinion, the jury has a lot to demonstrate the defendant was  lying and his cases depends on believing him

    •  Actually, to be nitpicky about it... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      coffeetalk, Pi Li, Tonedevil

      ...his case depends on the jury not completely disbelieving him. That isn't quite the same thing. A juror could think that Zimmerman is probably lying but still have a reasonable doubt and not able to say certainly lying.

      I believe the evidence is there. But I am not hampered by the constraints on evidence presented and by the inadequate linkage the prosecution has shown to come to my opinion about guilt in the case. A juror is. So that better be one helluva closing statement.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Thu Jul 04, 2013 at 04:42:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But imo (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Tonedevil

        then " reasonable doubt " can be applied to everything , my experience is that juries are instructed on how to really apply that while on the jury , then of course it all plays out in the trial  , R D does not apply as broadly as most people believe , once you are in a jury being asked to come to a conclusion on a case

        Beer Drinkers & Hell Raisers

        by Patango on Thu Jul 04, 2013 at 10:42:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I have a question about the t-shirt burns. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tonedevil, bobatkinson

    Where was his AZ drink?  The first cop to give him resuscitation said he felt a cold can in his inside pocket  

    The sergeant testified that he sat the body upright to feel for an exit wound and felt a cold can in Martin’s hooded sweatshirt pocket – the Arizona brand fruit drink he had purchased at a 7-Eleven http://usnews.nbcnews.com/...
     

    Would't the drink create a space between the hoodie and his chest and exclude the presumption of Trayvon leaning over GZ?

  •  If Trayvon was sitting Zimmermans chest, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bobatkinson

    how did he get the gun to line up perfect with his clothes to get a heart shot? Did Trayvon just sit there and pose for him.

  •  Zimmerman killed a innocent kid that's a fact (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sukeyna, bobatkinson, a2nite

    Zimmerman and his father goes on Fox News because they know it's friendly to their bs.

    There were protests and Fox News calls it rioting.

    Zimmerman's just another gun carrying coward that killed a innocent person.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site