George Zimmerman Trial

[roo_ster]

Haven't seen anything about this, so I will link several pertinent pages.


The Backwards Trial: A George Zimmerman Prosecution Primer
The bizarre trial, in which the prosecution must impeach the police investigation, begins.
http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-backwards-trial-a-george-zimmerman-prosecution-primer/?singlepage=true

The shooting of Trayvon Martin on February 26, 2012, in Sanford, Florida, was an unremarkable event — similar self-defense related shootings occur regularly. In virtually all of those cases, the local police do their work, local prosecutors review it, charges are filed or declined, and only local communities are aware of or care about it. Whereas the Trayvon Martin case is an anomaly that reverses all of the conventions and behaviors normally present in the criminal justice system.

....

As the trial begins, the defense will rely on the police and their investigation — on the facts — and the law. Expect them to move for dismissal at the beginning of the trial, and multiple times during the trial. In an unbiased court, this case would never have been filed. No rational judge would have issued an arrest warrant based on such a badly flawed and inadequate affidavit, and no professional judge would have allowed it to continue.

Zimmerman’s self-defense argument is supported by all the evidence and is not contradicted by any competent evidence. The prosecutor will be put in the unenviable position of arguing against the police, the evidence, and the law. Their case is the narrative, a provably false tale of race and hatred grounded only in a desire to inflame racial passions.

Goes into the primary actors: The Scheme Team, prosecution, defense media, Deedee.

The author is rather incredulous that such an incident would get national coverage or go to trial, given the facts.


Prosecutors admit Trayvon Martin’s girlfriend lied under oath
http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/06/prosecutors-admit-trayvon-martins-girlfriend-lied-under-oath/

The murder case against half-Latino neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman was dealt a devastating blow Tuesday, when prosecutors acknowledged that their star witness, the 19-year old former girlfriend of the late Florida teenager Trayvon Martin, lied under oath.

The woman, who also told police she was on the phone with Martin shortly before his death, falsely testified that she was in the hospital on the day of Martin’s funeral — perhaps to garner sympathy.

“In fact, she lied,” defense attorney Don West said. Prosecutors also acknowledged her lie, but were reportedly vague about whether they would charge the woman with perjury.

This is the Deedee above.  She or the prosecution also initially lied about her age to shield her from scrutiny (privacy laws WRT minors).

Zimmerman Trial Day 2 – Analysis of State’s Witnesses
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/zimmerman-trial-day-2-analysis-of-states-witnesses/

Today can only be characterized as an utter debacle for the prosecution in Florida v. Zimmerman. Besides the testimony of a couple of highly professional law enforcement witnesses, the testimony of the the other State witnesses ranged from signing George Zimmerman’s praises, to acknowledging the utility of following a suspicious person from a distance, to being utterly discredited by razor sharp cross-examination of the defense.

Read some of the summaries of the witnesses.  The prosecution looks like it is trying to say that GZ was a model citizen and neighborhood watch participant who just snapped in rage.  Very odd.

[French G.]

I'm not following too closely but I do note that Zimmerman is halfway up the gallows according to all the standard media.

[Tallpine]

A neighbor heard "Martin screaming" but also hear multiple shots fired     

[makattak]

A neighbor heard "Martin screaming" but also hear multiple shots fired     

I liked that. "It sounded like a boy screaming, to me." Hmm... odd. Especially since a 17 year old male is just as likely to sound like a "boy" as a 30+ year old...

[Monkeyleg]

Who shouts "help me" in a deep, throaty male voice?

[Regolith]

Who shouts "help me" in a deep, throaty male voice?

Chuck Norris would, but he never needs help. 

[De Selby]

I'm not following too closely but I do note that Zimmerman is halfway up the gallows according to all the standard media.

His problem is the phone call he made which essentially outlines the crime, not the media.

Again, good self-defense advice is to be had here:  if someone is trying to avoid you, don't chase them and force a confrontation while armed.  You WILL end up facing consequences for it.

[Gowen]

If I remember correctly,  the judge and jury are all women.  Is he going to get a fair trial?  I highly doubt that could be called an impartial jury.

[dogmush]

I'm not following too closely but I do note that Zimmerman is halfway up the gallows according to all the standard media.

So was Casey Anthony. The media doesn't have a great track record.

[BlueStarLizzard]

If I remember correctly,  the judge and jury are all women.  Is he going to get a fair trial?  I highly doubt that could be called an impartial jury.

 That's what I heard and it makes me very dishearted by the jury selecetion process in this country.

[makattak]

His problem is the phone call he made which essentially outlines the crime, not the media.

Again, good self-defense advice is to be had here:  if someone is trying to avoid you, don't chase them and force a confrontation while armed.  You WILL end up facing consequences for it.

A-S-S-U-M-P-T-I-O-N-S

[De Selby]

A-S-S-U-M-P-T-I-O-N-S

??  What's the assumption there?  That Zimmerman followed someone running away (he said that on tape - a witness at his trial today testified that the victim was on the phone saying he was trying to lose him), or that doing so before a lethal confrontation will land you in court?

Say what you will about Zimmerman, I guarantee you that pursuing a running person and ending in a shooting (no matter what happens in between) will land you in the hot seat.

[makattak]

??  What's the assumption there?  That Zimmerman followed someone running away (he said that on tape - a witness at his trial today testified that the victim was on the phone saying he was trying to lose him), or that doing so before a lethal confrontation will land you in court?

Say what you will about Zimmerman, I guarantee you that pursuing a running person and ending in a shooting (no matter what happens in between) will land you in the hot seat.

Ah, and, as per usual, you change your terms when called out.

"Followed someone running away.... before a lethal confrontation" is what actually happened.

"Chase them and force a confrontation" is your ASSUMPTION. It's also a nice way of putting responsibility for the confrontation on the person you wish to see hanged without evidence that he initiated the confrontation. Say that it doesn't matter who initiated the confrontation, HE FORCED IT!

It's a very clever switch. Quite lawyerly.

[De Selby]

Ah, and, as per usual, you change your terms when called out.

"Followed someone running away.... before a lethal confrontation" is what actually happened.

"Chase them and force a confrontation" is your ASSUMPTION. It's also a nice way of putting responsibility for the confrontation on the person you wish to see hanged without evidence that he initiated the confrontation. Say that it doesn't matter who initiated the confrontation, HE FORCED IT!

It's a very clever switch. Quite lawyerly.

Uh, the shootee was running away from Zimmerman by his own account - so in what universe was Zimmerman not forcing a confrontation by pursuing him???  If someone is trying to get away from you, and you insist on getting closer, that's forcing a confrontation...and if you try to pretend otherwise, the jury is only likely to be harder on you.

Like I've said before in these threads, if you doubt me, find yourself a local attorney and give the zimmerman facts to him - see if he'd be willing to say you're within your rights to go after someone who ran away from you, and still be in a position to use lethal force.

[makattak]

Uh, the shootee was running away from Zimmerman by his own account - so in what universe was Zimmerman not forcing a confrontation by pursuing him???  If someone is trying to get away from you, and you insist on getting closer, that's forcing a confrontation...and if you try to pretend otherwise, the jury is only likely to be harder on you.

Like I've said before in these threads, if you doubt me, find yourself a local attorney and give the zimmerman facts to him - see if he'd be willing to say you're within your rights to go after someone who ran away from you, and still be in a position to use lethal force.

"Forcing a confrontation" is an interesting term. Quite different from "initiating a confrontation" which is where the issue should be decided. "Forcing a confrontation" is left up to interpretation, precisely the way lawyers like it.

So, if you see someone committing a crime, are you "forcing a confrontation" by observing them? They might not like it and come after you. You "forced" that confrontation by observing them and being in a position to report on them.

[CNYCacher]

Uh, the shootee was running away from Zimmerman by his own account - so in what universe was Zimmerman not forcing a confrontation by pursuing him???  If someone is trying to get away from you, and you insist on getting closer, that's forcing a confrontation...and if you try to pretend otherwise, the jury is only likely to be harder on you.

Like I've said before in these threads, if you doubt me, find yourself a local attorney and give the zimmerman facts to him - see if he'd be willing to say you're within your rights to go after someone who ran away from you, and still be in a position to use lethal force.

??  What's the assumption there?  That Zimmerman followed someone running away (he said that on tape - a witness at his trial today testified that the victim was on the phone saying he was trying to lose him), or that doing so before a lethal confrontation will land you in court?

Say what you will about Zimmerman, I guarantee you that pursuing a running person and ending in a shooting (no matter what happens in between) will land you in the hot seat.

Yeah... Except he wasn't in the hot seat.  The police cleared him.
Getting involved in a national media circus is what landed him in a hot seat.

[MechAg94]

Uh, the shootee was running away from Zimmerman by his own account - so in what universe was Zimmerman not forcing a confrontation by pursuing him???  If someone is trying to get away from you, and you insist on getting closer, that's forcing a confrontation...and if you try to pretend otherwise, the jury is only likely to be harder on you.

Like I've said before in these threads, if you doubt me, find yourself a local attorney and give the zimmerman facts to him - see if he'd be willing to say you're within your rights to go after someone who ran away from you, and still be in a position to use lethal force.

De Selby has been championing an interpretation of events that hangs Zimmerman from day 1.  No point in arguing with someone who refuses meaningful discussion.

[cordex]

Uh, the shootee was running away from Zimmerman by his own account - so in what universe was Zimmerman not forcing a confrontation by pursuing him???  If someone is trying to get away from you, and you insist on getting closer, that's forcing a confrontation...and if you try to pretend otherwise, the jury is only likely to be harder on you.

If Zimmerman was attempting to do as he claimed, namely observing from a distance and reporting events to police, then he was neither forcing a confrontation nor pursuing (which has a connotation of attempting to catch).  Nor is observing from a distance illegal, unethical, immoral or imprudent.  In fact, doing so is encouraged by police departments everywhere.

If, however, Zimmerman actually forced a confrontation, pursued Martin with the intent of catching him or if he initiated any sort of physical contact - not the extremely loose De Selby interpretation that comes close to equating getting out of bed in the morning and simple assault, but in the actual definitions of each of those phrases - then he may bear some responsibility.

[RevDisk]

If Zimmerman was attempting to do as he claimed, namely observing from a distance and reporting events to police, then he was neither forcing a confrontation nor pursuing (which has a connotation of attempting to catch).  Nor is observing from a distance illegal, unethical, immoral or imprudent.  In fact, doing so is encouraged by police departments everywhere.

If, however, Zimmerman actually forced a confrontation, pursued Martin with the intent of catching him or if he initiated any sort of physical contact - not the extremely loose De Selby interpretation that comes close to equating getting out of bed in the morning and simple assault, but in the actual definitions of each of those phrases - then he may bear some responsibility.

This. If he followed at a distance and did not initiate hostile conversation, he's in the clear. If he did cause a confrontation or other hostile actions, he's in the wrong. The level of which is obviously a matter for the courts, but he's in the wrong.

It'll be very hard to find a good impartial jury for this case, I'll say that much.

Uh, the shootee was running away from Zimmerman by his own account - so in what universe was Zimmerman not forcing a confrontation by pursuing him???  If someone is trying to get away from you, and you insist on getting closer, that's forcing a confrontation...and if you try to pretend otherwise, the jury is only likely to be harder on you.

Like I've said before in these threads, if you doubt me, find yourself a local attorney and give the zimmerman facts to him - see if he'd be willing to say you're within your rights to go after someone who ran away from you, and still be in a position to use lethal force.

Not necessarily. Following at a distance is not ipso facto confrontation. Smart or not, it's not directly confrontation if the person following is legally allowed to do so. (ie no restraining orders, public property, or any property which the following person is legally allowed to be on, etc)

Plenty of legal activities are stupid ideas.

[HankB]

Zimmerman had not directly confronted Martin at the end of his 911 call. (Q: How often does someone contemplating murder call 911 first?)

Once the 911 call ended, we have no actual evidence of what was happening until an uninvolved eyewitness saw Martin beating the snot out of Zimmerman - a beating that only ended with a single gunshot. Zimmerman's story - admittedly uncorroborated - is that he was returning to his car when Martin circled around and attacked him. Local, state, and Federal law enforcement haven't been able to punch a hole in this story. Unless you think a doofus like Zimmerman is actually a genius criminal mastermind who can fabricate a consistent story that holds up to that level of scrutiny while suffering from a bloody head and nose (not to mention the adrenaline dump of being involved in a shooting), maybe he's telling the truth.

There's lots of inference, speculation, politics, and downright wishful thinking surrounding this case, but given the absence of actual, hard evidence (eyewitnesses, security cam footage, forensics, etc.) contradicting Zimmerman's story, there seems to be an abundance of reasonable doubt in regard to the charges.

[CNYCacher]

If you watch the video where he walks through the scene with police it's all very plausible.

[Tallpine]

If you watch the video where he walks through the scene with police it's all very plausible.

Apparently the police thought so too.

[makattak]

Apparently the police thought so too.

As well as the DA.

[Jamisjockey]

This. If he followed at a distance and did not initiate hostile conversation, he's in the clear. If he did cause a confrontation or other hostile actions, he's in the wrong. The level of which is obviously a matter for the courts, but he's in the wrong.

It'll be very hard to find a good impartial jury for this case, I'll say that much.



Not necessarily. Following at a distance is not ipso facto confrontation. Smart or not, it's not directly confrontation if the person following is legally allowed to do so. (ie no restraining orders, public property, or any property which the following person is legally allowed to be on, etc)

Plenty of legal activities are stupid ideas.

Even if, let's say for the sake of argument, he chased Martin.  Unless he physically put his hands on Martin first and tried to detain him or assault him, Martin never had a right to put hands on Zimmerman. 
Period.
And that right there is where De Selby's argument falls flat.

[Monkeyleg]

As well as the DA.

You don't think the prosecution of Zimmerman is politically motivated?