George Zimmerman Trial

[TechMan]

I vote for riots as well.

http://twitchy.com/2013/06/27/ima-kill-me-a-cracka-death-threats-against-george-zimmerman-random-white-people-explode-during-trial/

[T.O.M.]

Couple of points I'd like to bring up, from the perspective of someone who sat in that prosecution chair for a long time...

1.  You don't get to choose your witnesses in a prosecution.  Yes, you may choose which ones testify, but sometimes, you are just plain stuck with the losers who saw things happen.  As I was once told, the sins of the devils are rarely witnessed by angels.  You have to put devils on the stand sometimes...
2.  Jurors cannot be excluded or chosen on the basis of gender or race.  That it's an all-female jury means that they were the first six that were not excluded for other reasons.  In a media circus like this, I'm sure that the judge made each side explain the basis for its peremptory challenges, to make sure there were no racial/gender issues.
3.  The charge is homicide, not murder.  Don't know Florida law well, but murder in Ohio means with premeditation.  Homicide would cover a situation like this, and basically means that the shooter wrongfully took the life of the other. preplanning and such is irrelevent to this case.  Rightfully so.
4.  One point that seems to be getting lost in all of this is that the law of self-defense requires that the shooter (I'll use that term because we are all shooters) not be at fault for creating the situation.  And I believe that this is where Zimmerman may find himself in deep.  He was told not to follow.  He did follow.  A confrontation occurred.  Martin was shot and killed.  A jury could conclude that Zimmerman is at fault for creating the situation by following Martin, which would mean that the self-defense argument is gone.  I think it's important for all of us to consider as armed citizens that DeSelby has a valid point.  If you leave a position of safety and pursue someone, you are going to find yourself under much more scrutiny if you have to shoot in self-defense than if you sit in that safe spot and call it in.  We're not cops.  We're not armed to protect ourselves while we investigate/pursue/follow/etc.  We are armed to protect ourselves and our families.  When you start to cross that line, you will start to feel the heat.

[makattak]

Couple of points I'd like to bring up, from the perspective of someone who sat in that prosecution chair for a long time...

1.  You don't get to choose your witnesses in a prosecution.  Yes, you may choose which ones testify, but sometimes, you are just plain stuck with the losers who saw things happen.  As I was once told, the sins of the devils are rarely witnessed by angels.  You have to put devils on the stand sometimes...
2.  Jurors cannot be excluded or chosen on the basis of gender or race.  That it's an all-female jury means that they were the first six that were not excluded for other reasons.  In a media circus like this, I'm sure that the judge made each side explain the basis for its peremptory challenges, to make sure there were no racial/gender issues.
3.  The charge is homicide, not murder.  Don't know Florida law well, but murder in Ohio means with premeditation.  Homicide would cover a situation like this, and basically means that the shooter wrongfully took the life of the other. preplanning and such is irrelevent to this case.  Rightfully so.
4.  One point that seems to be getting lost in all of this is that the law of self-defense requires that the shooter (I'll use that term because we are all shooters) not be at fault for creating the situation.  And I believe that this is where Zimmerman may find himself in deep.  He was told not to follow.  He did follow.  A confrontation occurred.  Martin was shot and killed.  A jury could conclude that Zimmerman is at fault for creating the situation by following Martin, which would mean that the self-defense argument is gone.  I think it's important for all of us to consider as armed citizens that DeSelby has a valid point.  If you leave a position of safety and pursue someone, you are going to find yourself under much more scrutiny if you have to shoot in self-defense than if you sit in that safe spot and call it in.  We're not cops.  We're not armed to protect ourselves while we investigate/pursue/follow/etc.  We are armed to protect ourselves and our families.  When you start to cross that line, you will start to feel the heat.

Your last point is unproven and out of order. Zimmerman was following. He was then told "we don't NEED you to do that". You are interpreting the events.

Further, we have no proof that AFTER being told "we don't need you to do that" (your "told not to follow) that he continued to follow.

I have no issue with "much more scrutin.y" I have an issue with "The police applied scrutiny, the DA applied scrutiny and, well, we don't like what they came up with so we're going to apply an even lower standard and charge him with murder.¹"

1: Yes, it's murder, not "homicide": http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/04/11/11147895-second-degree-murder-charge-against-george-zimmerman-in-trayvon-martin-shooting-surprises-legal-experts

[charby]

The Nooz has been pushing Zimmerman as a Caucasian from day one. They still are.

I vote riots if acquitted.  Serious riots, spreading within a day or two from Florida to NY, LA, Houston, Atlanta, and probably a few other places.  Let's just say, I'll be keeping a rifle in the truck from the moment the jury is sent to deliberation to about 3 days after the verdict is read.

Maybe even in the smaller towns too.

[HankB]

. . . And I believe that this is where Zimmerman may find himself in deep.  He was told not to follow.  He did follow.  . . .

When told not to follow, Zimmerman said "OK"  . . . that implies agreement and compliance. The rest of the 911 call transcript consists of Zimmerman identifying himself, talking about where he wanted to meet with police, his phone number, etc. It's not clear to me from the rest of the transcript that Zimmerman continued to follow after being told "we don't need you to do that" by the dispatcher.

(One lesson to take from this: If I'm EVER on a neighborhood watch and see someone/something suspicious, I'm going to keep my distance, stay in my car, and make darned sure that's what the recording of my 911 call will make clear!)

And if Zimmerman is acquitted, I expect riots in some places, which will probably sputter out quickly when Holder's justice department comes after Zimmerman for violating the civil rights of the delinquent druggie who was beating on him.

[TommyGunn]

4.  One point that seems to be getting lost in all of this is that the law of self-defense requires that the shooter (I'll use that term because we are all shooters) not be at fault for creating the situation.  And I believe that this is where Zimmerman may find himself in deep.  He was told not to follow.  He did follow.  A confrontation occurred.  Martin was shot and killed.  A jury could conclude that Zimmerman is at fault for creating the situation by following Martin, which would mean that the self-defense argument is gone.  I think it's important for all of us to consider as armed citizens that DeSelby has a valid point.  If you leave a position of safety and pursue someone, you are going to find yourself under much more scrutiny if you have to shoot in self-defense than if you sit in that safe spot and call it in.  We're not cops.  We're not armed to protect ourselves while we investigate/pursue/follow/etc.  We are armed to protect ourselves and our families.  When you start to cross that line, you will start to feel the heat.

Alan Dershowitz was on the Geraldo radio program this morning and explained that this is wrong, and it is the most misreported "aspect" of the case.  In fact he specifically researched Florida law with regards to this point.

Dershowits vs. DeSelby

 

That I gotta see...........
but I think I'll put my vote in Dershowitz's favor.

Plus Zimmerman was told "we don't need you to do that" (regarding following Martin) by the 911 operator, but this has no legal authority.
Another point with regard to this; one iteration of the events* Zimmerman IS breaking off the matter and returning to his car, in response to the 911 operator's statement, and it is during this period that Trayvon Martin intercedes and pounces on Zimmerman.
If that is true IMHO I think Zimmerman's self-defense claim remains pretty secure.



*I use this term because IMO this event has been so misreported by both guil and incompetence I cannot be sure exactly what the real timeline of facts is.  I am just offering an alternative theory to the above, not necessarily endorsing it.

[T.O.M.]

First, I apologize.  I'm an Ohio lawyer, so I used Ohio terminology.  Didn't realize that he was charged with "Murder" and Florida law included "depraved indifference" in their murder statute.

Second, HankB gets the point I'm trying to make.  I'm not arguing that because Zimmerman followed he should be convicted.  I'm arguing that because Zimmerman followed he may be convicted, and that is the lesson we should all take from this.  I don't believe that it matters that Zimmerman was told to stop.  What I am concerned about as an armed citizen is that the jury will be in a position of judging the self-defense claim, and a key component of that is who was at fault for creating the situation.  If the jury concludes that Zimmermen was at fault, because he followed Martin, and this created the situation, Zimmermen loses.

HankB said it perfect...

"One lesson to take from this: If I'm EVER on a neighborhood watch and see someone/something suspicious, I'm going to keep my distance, stay in my car, and make darned sure that's what the recording of my 911 call will make clear!"

As for rioting if an acquittal occurs, I believe it is probable in Florida, and possible in large metro areas.  

[T.O.M.]

@TommyGunn...Don't know what Dershowitz said, but I'll explain it as it was explained to me.  Once upon a time, there was a burglary at a home, and the intruder shot and killed the home owner.  The intruder was charged with murder.  At trial, the intruder claimed self-defense, because the home owner fired on him, and the intruder was reasonably in fear for his life.  The court ruled in the common law, that a person may not claim self-defense if he is at fault for creating the situation which led to the use of deadly force.  In other words, you can't break into someone's home and claim self-defense when you kill the homeowner in the resulting gunfight. 

Again, I'm not saying that Zimmerman should hang because he followed Martin.  I'm saying that the act of following Martin was not only tactially bad, but legally bad, in that it put the question of who created the situation in front of the jury.  As armed citizens, that is a key lesson to keep in mind.

[TommyGunn]

@TommyGunn...Don't know what Dershowitz said, but I'll explain it as it was explained to me.  Once upon a time, there was a burglary at a home, and the intruder shot and killed the home owner.  The intruder was charged with murder.  At trial, the intruder claimed self-defense, because the home owner fired on him, and the intruder was reasonably in fear for his life.  The court ruled in the common law, that a person may not claim self-defense if he is at fault for creating the situation which led to the use of deadly force.  In other words, you can't break into someone's home and claim self-defense when you kill the homeowner in the resulting gunfight.  

Well, I'm not a lawyer myself.  IMO I would regard that to be the concept of the "righteous shooting."  That is a person commiting a crime cannot claim self defense.  If you rob a bank, shoot the teller and a guard, and run out the front and the local SWAT team engages you, you may very well fear that they will shoot you.  But that doesn't mean you have a legal right to shoot at them; you don't.  In fact the SWAT guys may very well have the legal right on their side if they perceive a threat to themselves.  

Again, I'm not saying that Zimmerman should hang because he followed Martin.  I'm saying that the act of following Martin was not only tactially bad, but legally bad, in that it put the question of who created the situation in front of the jury.  As armed citizens, that is a key lesson to keep in mind.

I get that.
But if Zommerman did turn around when the 911 op told him to I can't regard that as all that bad.  It seems to me that if that's true it is even evidence that Zimerman did NOT wish to go outside propriety or become a vigilante, or whatever.
I don't know how this trial is going to turn out myself.   I think Zimmerman should be found "not guilty" but that's only because I think that the scenario I outlined above is likely true -- BUT I COULD BE WRONG.
What the jury thinks.....dunno.  I even wonder if they could find Zimmerman guilty and throw him to the wolves just to avoid societal unrest or even attacks against them ...
We shall see what happens.

As armed citizens, that is a key lesson to keep in mind.

Absolutly.   After Zimmerman there's NO WAY I'm gonna follow anyone around and hopefully I will have the presence of mind not even to allow an action that could cause others to interpret my actions in that light.

[roo_ster]

The Nooz has been pushing Zimmerman as a Caucasian from day one. They still are.

I vote riots if acquitted.  Serious riots, spreading within a day or two from Florida to NY, LA, Houston, Atlanta, and probably a few other places.  Let's just say, I'll be keeping a rifle in the truck from the moment the jury is sent to deliberation to about 3 days after the verdict is read.

Gee, thanks for pegging my paranoia-o-meter.  Or is it thanks for reminding me of my folding stock shotgun ensemble?

Either way, I will do the same with my Rem870.

[T.O.M.]

But if Zommerman did turn around when the 911 op told him to I can't regard that as all that bad.  It seems to me that if that's true it is even evidence that Zimerman did NOT wish to go outside propriety or become a vigilante, or whatever.
I don't know how this trial is going to turn out myself.  

I agree that is key.  My concern is that the truth on that issue could get lost in all of the other crap.  And that is probably my biggest worry about being involved in a deadly force situation outsde of my home.  The "facts" of what happened are going to be dependent on how others percieve the circumstances, and I'll be at the mercy of their judgments.  What was I doing at the grocery store at midnight?  Why was I carrying a handgun?  Everything I do from right before the incident starts to its conclusion will be judged, first by the cops, then by a prosecutor, then maybe a grand jury or a jury. 

What scares me the most about all of this Zimmerman case is that I have seen something I thought was suspicious, so I have gone to check out what was going on.  There, but for the grace of God, go I...

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Someone observed. How did a pudgy 30 year old catch a 17 year old.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

[SADShooter]

Someone observed. How did a pudgy 30 year old catch a 17 year old.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

On a related note: We've all seen the pictures on Zimmerman's injuries. What injuries did the autopsy indicate Martin sustained, beyond the obvious GSW?

[cordex]

On a related note: We've all seen the pictures on Zimmerman's injuries. What injuries did the autopsy indicate Martin sustained, beyond the obvious GSW?

Autopsy report:
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/05/17/trayvon.martin.autopsy.pdf
Other than the GSW:

Other Injuries: There is a 1/4 x 1/8 inch small abrasion on the left fourth finger.

There is an illustration that identifies something on the right knuckles too.

[roo_ster]

Day Four:
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/zimmerman-trial-day-end-of-day-analysis-video-of-states-witnesses/

In general:

Once again, it was simply not a very good day at all for the prosecution. The primary State witnesses today were Rachel Jeantel, Jenna Lauer, and Selma Mora. The first had her credibility substantively destroyed, the second was powerfully–almost humiliatingly–co-opted by the defense, and the third provided testimony entirely consistent with the defense’s theory of lawful self-defense. There was also some (I expect temporary) hubbub that O’Mara may have inadvertently opened the door to allow the State to introduce evidence of specific prior bad acts by George Zimmerman, and I address that in detail, as well, below.

Jentel:

There were, of course, other issues with Jeantel’s testimony, but to my mind none of them are anywhere nearly as destructive to the credibility of that testimony than the extraordinarily coercive environment in which it was taken. As West himself put it to the court, this environment allowed the young and unsophisticated Jeantel to be led right down the path to what the several highly experienced and motivated questioners wanted her to say.

Long story short: Jentel said the version most damageing to Zimmerman (of the multiple versions)  she gave under oath was a product of her biasing the story so as to soften the blow to Martin's mother, as she was interviewed by the DA while sitting next to the weeping mother and in the same room as the Martin's attorney.

Dear Lord in Heaven, what a train wreck of a witness.

Jenna Lauer, neighbor & earwitness:

On direct examination by de la Rionda, all of Lauer’s testimony was completely consistent with the defense’s theory of lawful self-defense, and to some degree even contrary to some of the State’s theory...
...
Things really got interesting when O’Mara started his cross-examination, however. On direct examination de la Rionda had revealed in questioning that Lauer, as a board member of the HOA, had known Zimmerman personally, if only slightly, because of his work with the Neighborhood Watch Program. At one point of the night of the shooting the police had asked Lauer if she would be willing to see if she could identify the man who had identified himself as the shooter.

Shockingly, she was unable to identify Zimmerman, because of the severity of his injuries. This powerful testimony obviously strongly supported the defense’s theory of the case that Zimmerman had been the subject of a brutal aggravated assault by Martin, against which he had necessarily used deadly force in self-defense. With that statement Lauer had struck a heavy blow against the State’s theory of the case, of an innocent young black boy ruthless murdered, and in favor of the theory of the defense.
...
O’Mara then asked a few questions that will undoubtedly–if incorrectly–become great overnight fodder for the legal pundits. He asked Lauer if in her personal interactions with Zimmerman he had acted appropriately. Yes, she answered. Did he appear to be a hot head? No. A wannabe vigilante? No. Did he seem to be a well-intentioned neighbor trying to help his community? Yes.

The DA used this as an opportunity to try and bring in Zimmerman's past history.  May or may not be successful.

Don't miss the prosecutor covering himself in glory with his technical and social media prowess.



Part of Day 5:
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/zimmerman-trial-blockbuster-transcript-eyewitness-good-black-guy-in-black-hoodie-on-top-punching-down-mixed-martial-arts-style/
ZIMMERMAN TRIAL BLOCKBUSTER — TRANSCRIPT — Eyewitness Good: Black guy in black hoodie on top punching down Mixed Martial Arts style

The State seems to have suffered the most destructive of its own witnesses to date in calling John Good to the stand.Good was composed, coherent, and direct through his extensive testimony, the entirety of which was entirely consistent with the defense’s theory of lawful self-defense.

Indeed, as has become the pattern in this trial, the longer the State’s witness was in the stand, the more damage he did to the State’s theory of the case. The continually growing climax was realized at the very end of the testimony, when O’Mara held a copy of Good’s initial statement to then-lead Investigator Chris Serino (a transcript of is provided below):

O’Mara (defense lawyer): Just to clarify what was actually talked about with Chris Serino, Investigator Serino, during this, we’re going to call it for the moment the Ground-and-Pound conversation. We have a rule called completeness, so what I want to do is put it in context for you, ask you if this is what you said to Chris Serino. OK?

“Yeah I pretty much heard somebody yelling outside. I wasn’t sure if it was, you know, a fight or something going wrong. So I opened my blinds and I see kind of like a person out there. I didn’t know if it was a dog attack or something. So I open my door. It was a black man with a black hoodie on top of the other, either a white guy or now I found out I think it was a Hispanic guy with a red sweatshirt on the ground yelling out help! And I tried to tell them, get out of here, you know, stop or whatever, and then one guy on top in the black hoodie was pretty much just throwing down blows on the guy kind of MMA-style.”

Is that the context in which that happened?

Good: Yes.

O’Mara: And then Investigator Serino said, a word that I have, and the transcripts may differ, ground, couldn’t figure it, maybe he said Ground-and-Pound, and then you said:

“Yeah, like a Ground-and-Pound on the concrete at this point, so at this point I told him I’m calling 911.”

(back & forth between lawyercritters)

O’Mara: OK. And do you stand by that today, that what you saw is was a Ground-and-Pound event?

Good: It looked like that position was a Ground-and-Pound type of position, but I couldn’t tell 100% that there were actually fists hitting faces.

O’Mara: But you did see [reading] “the guy in the top in the black hoodie pretty much just throwing down blows on the guy kind of MMA-style.”

Good: Meaning arm motions going down on the person on the bottom. Correct.

O’Mara: You’re’ not going to tell the jury here today that you saw fists hit flesh or face if you didn’t actually see it, right?

Good: I wouldn’t tell them that anyway, because i didn’t actually see it.

O’Mara: Great, thanks very much , no further questions.

BDLR (prosecutor): Not to elaborate but the thing that Mr. O’Mara said from the transcript, the bottom line, you needed to clarify after that to make sure that everybody understood that you did not hear or see fists the guy on the top hitting the guy on the bottom.

This is a witness for the state?  

[Tallpine]

@TommyGunn...Don't know what Dershowitz said, but I'll explain it as it was explained to me.  Once upon a time, there was a burglary at a home, and the intruder shot and killed the home owner.  The intruder was charged with murder.  At trial, the intruder claimed self-defense, because the home owner fired on him, and the intruder was reasonably in fear for his life.  The court ruled in the common law, that a person may not claim self-defense if he is at fault for creating the situation which led to the use of deadly force.  In other words, you can't break into someone's home and claim self-defense when you kill the homeowner in the resulting gunfight. 

Again, I'm not saying that Zimmerman should hang because he followed Martin.  I'm saying that the act of following Martin was not only tactially bad, but legally bad, in that it put the question of who created the situation in front of the jury.  As armed citizens, that is a key lesson to keep in mind.

Pretty big difference between breaking into someone's home and just walking around the neighborhood.

[Jamisjockey]

@TommyGunn...Don't know what Dershowitz said, but I'll explain it as it was explained to me.  Once upon a time, there was a burglary at a home, and the intruder shot and killed the home owner.  The intruder was charged with murder.  At trial, the intruder claimed self-defense, because the home owner fired on him, and the intruder was reasonably in fear for his life.  The court ruled in the common law, that a person may not claim self-defense if he is at fault for creating the situation which led to the use of deadly force.  In other words, you can't break into someone's home and claim self-defense when you kill the homeowner in the resulting gunfight. 

Again, I'm not saying that Zimmerman should hang because he followed Martin.  I'm saying that the act of following Martin was not only tactially bad, but legally bad, in that it put the question of who created the situation in front of the jury.  As armed citizens, that is a key lesson to keep in mind.

Which this line of thinking ends at the moment Martin put hands on Zimmerman.
Zimmerman' s story is that he was walking back to his car when Martin doubled back and started the altercation.

[Chester32141]

Zimmerman Defense Fund ...  

http://www.gzdefensefund.com/donate/index.php/updates-2/21-zimmerman-defense-fund-out-of-money

[MechAg94]

Pretty big difference between breaking into someone's home and just walking around the neighborhood.

I would agree there.  Following someone is not at all equal to or even on the same planet as breaking and entering.  It doesn't matter what a 911 dispatcher said.  

I will grant that it doesn't matter what is right or what my opinion is.  It only matter what the judgement is of the 6 jurors. 

[MechAg94]

Which this line of thinking ends at the moment Martin put hands on Zimmerman.
Zimmerman' s story is that he was walking back to his car when Martin doubled back and started the altercation.

This is the order of events I had always seen.  Zimmerman lost Martin and was returning to his car.  At that point, the argument about "following" no longer has an validity. 

[MicroBalrog]

What stakes?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

I will vote very simple:

There will not be 'riots in every major city' as people here suggested, lasting for multiple weeks, nothing like the LA Riots will occur.

However because it is impossible for me to guarantee there will not be any riots at all, I would like to forestall the possibility that somewhere in Florida someone will flip a car and people will go 'see, riot'.

I'm going to bet there won't even be massed car-burnings like in the Paris Riots.

[MillCreek]

^^^ I agree.

[RevDisk]

I suspect a couple idiots will be idiots if Zimmerman is acquited. But likely a lot less violent than say, the LAPD is towards pickups.

[JN01]

Someone observed. How did a pudgy 30 year old catch a 17 year old.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

If he was a typical 17 year old, he probably tripped over his pants when they fell down to his ankles.

[Jocassee]

I don't understand how following someone creates a situation where you would not be OK to defend yourself. Following someone is not against the law. Not smart of course.

The only way Zimmerman gets convicted is if they prove he started the fight. But the notion of a slightly pudgy somewhat out of shape man attacking someone taller and stronger than him strikes me as unlikely.

My personal theory is that Zimmerman came around a corner not expecting Trayvon to be so close, Trayvon was cooked on purple lean, go aggro and jumped him.