Anyone keeping up with the trial? I have been watching the trial on CNN and yesterday I wanted to punch the prosecuting attorney for being such a bully to the young friend of Trayvon's. I know the prosecution has to make his points but I think he simply went to far in not remembering Rachel is not a older adult and it clearly showed she did not want to be up on that stand, IMO and I think she has a heavy broken heart in realizing she was the last person who spoke with her friend and talked to him before he was murdered. I hope as she goes on in life this doesn't haunt her. I loved her reply to one question when she said "that's retarded, sir". I hope this trial doesn't go on long and I hope in the end Zimmerman is sentenced to 25 years to life for ending the life of a young man who was simply on his way home with a can of tea and a package of skittles.

i have tried to keep up with it when the commentators get off the camera and actually let us hear bits and pieces of the trial. I have a lot of unanswered questions about the shooting and think most of Rachel's testimony was speculation, with perhaps the exception of what she repeated under oath as to what Trayvon actually said...

Rachel was an interesting "witness"--she did not see the fight, but did testify as to what Trayvon said. Her English might not have been impeccable, but never have I heard the word "Sir" said in such an almost insultive tone so frequently: she had that down pat.
I have my own thoughts as to what took place but will wait and see...the prosecution kept pointing out the injuries that Zimmerman suffered: he was told by police not to confront Trayvon and he took it on himself to disobey that order. For sure Trayvon got in some licks, some mean ones, but he was no match for a bullet. Besides walking through a neighborhood, what made Trayvon so suspicious looking? Wearing a hoodie?
People should not be stalked and then shot because they are wearing a hoodie...

On CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 yesterday, all of the attorneys except one female attorney were saying it's over. Zimmerman will prevail.

That was the defense attorney she said that to.

You are right and I was thinking of the right man but didn't write it correctly.

I don't think Zimmerman will prevail as some attorneys think he will. He can claim self defense all he wants but when you are told by authorities not to follow that means don't follow. He was the aggressor, not Trayvon. He stated this, not Trayvon. And Trayvon was no match up against a man with a gun. I truly would love to see George get the max but that I am not so sure of.

If Zimmerman wins, Trayvon's family should sue him like OJ got sued a few years ago. No matter what the jury finds, there's no question Zimmerman's actions resulted in Trayvon's death even if it was to the extent that Zimmerman's skulking after him caused Trayvon to attack.

Arguing the point legally, just because Zimmerman was the initial aggressor does not mean that he should therefore automatically go to jail. I'm not defending Zimmerman, just pointing something out.

The scenario might have been:

Zimmerman approached Martin and asked him what he was doing. Martin told Zimmerman to fuck off. Zimmerman got angry and got in Martin's face. Martin punched Zimmerman. The two scuffled on the ground. Zimmerman got his head smashed into the sidewalk. Fearing for his life, Zimmerman pulled out his gun and shot Martin.

That's a possible scenario, isn't it? And if that is what happened, Zimmerman would have shot Martin in self-defense -- even though he was the one who approached Martin first.

SciFi... you do make a good point but the bottom line, IMO, is the Zimmerman should have never approached nor followed Trayvon as he was not acting in the capacity of a law official. A home owners watch program doesn't equal having a right to shoot a person under any circumstances. Where hubby and I lived in Houston, TX was a gated community and had this sort of program for awhile until homeowners decided we wanted a real policeman patrolling the community. IMO, no matter what reason Zimmerman gives for shooting Trayvon will never convince me he was acting in self defense against an unarmed teenager wearing a hoodie. I feel so bad for his young mans parents. No parent should have to bury a child under these circumstances.

Clearly, Zimmerman is responsible for Martin's death ~ in my own mind, I believe it was murder ~ but I'm not confident that Zimmerman will be convicted of murder ~ or that he will see any significant prison time ~ my doubts were increased greatly a few weeks ago when I read/posted our Two "stand your ground" Florida legal decisions thread ~

Sooz

From all I have heard it was Trayvon who finally stood his ground with this nut who was following him for no reason. The fact that this guy was doing that gave Trayvon a reason to fear for his life, imo, and to act to defend himself.

Legally, if you start the confrontation, you cannot claim self defense, so in your scenario SciFi, that would be guilty.

Dee wrote:


I agree. But that doesn't mean he is guilty of murder.


Not so. A person has the right to shoot a person in self-defense.

Mpicky wrote:

Not so. If you go to up someone and start arguing with them, and they pull out a gun and start shooting at you, is it your contention that you cannot shoot them in self-defense?

If that is your contention, you would be wrong.

Folks, just because someone confronts another doesn't mean that they cannot shoot someone in self-defense. Someone might confront another expecting only that the other person will turn and leave, or at the most argue back. They might not expect things to get so out of hand that they begin fighting for their lives.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I do not believe that Zimmerman approached Martin with the intention of killing him. I think he approached Martin only with the intention of causing (what Zimmerman believed was) a hoodlum to leave the grounds. But things got out of hand. A fist-fight ensued. During the scuffle, Zimmerman's gun was exposed. Zimmerman believed that Martin was about to grab that gun and shoot Zimmerman. So fearing for his life, Zimmerman shot Martin first.

That is what happened.

And that is self-defense.

Arguing and laying hands on someone are not the same things. Your scenario was Zimmerman hitting Martin first. Read the law in FLA. It specifically says if you start it you cannot claim self defense.


You have NO idea what happened. Only 2 people know, 1 is dead and the other has a vested interest in saving his ass. We will never KNOW for sure, all we will know is what the State is able to prove to a jury of 6 white women.

I don't know whether that was his intention or not. But this guy to me is full of crap. He said he didn't realize he was wearing his holster with the gun in it until Martin started going for it. If that's the case, dude should NEVER have been allowed to own let alone carry a weapon. I carry a couple of different guns at different times and there is NO WAY I could 'forget' I had it.

Sci, you are going by what Z says happened. He may be telling the truth and he may not. And because there is that doubt, I think Zimmerman is going to be aquitted. I do think he is guilty of at the very least negligent homicide because he left his vehicle armed and followed Martin. There was no reason for him to do that once he called the police. He should have stayed in his vehicle and waited for them to arrive. Because he didn't, because he followed M, because he was armed, because a confrontation ensued because of his previous actions and because a 17 year old who was out minding his own business and the paranoia of a cop wanna be resulted in his death, he has to be held accountable, IMO! You can not cause the confrontation and then claim self defense. That notion is beyond absurd!

why does everyone keep saying that? 2nd degree murder is a big reach for prosecution.

but manslaughter sure as hell isn't.

i am not following your rationale here at all. if i am driving drunk, and i swear up and down that i am sober, and i run over an old lady in the sidewalk, there is no way in HELL i am getting off.

yet, because Zimmerman says "X", we are to believe that this casts doubt on whether he is innocent or not? hardly. if there is any person who can't be trusted here, it is the defendant.

if anything.

I think it is manslaughter. I don't think the prosecution can prove intent, which is required with murder.

yeah, i don't think that the standard should be what a person thinks. a paranoid person thinks everyone is out to get them, but they obviously don't have the right to kill everyone.

the standard should be whether a REASONABLE person could ASSUME that their life was in jeapordy. i honestly don't know how Zimmerman could make that case. fistfights are rarely fatal.

I guess I should just ignore the coward and dick comments.

The standard IS a reasonable person, at least here. Zimmerman is claiming that Martin was banging his head in the sidewalk and smothering him. And then he claims Martin saw his gun, went for it saying "You are going to die mother fucker". I don't believe him, but the jury has been given evidence that Martin WAS on top of Zimmerman and Zimmerman clearly was getting his ass beat.

The key in the case is: Who started the PHYSICAL confrontation. It isn't illegal to follow someone. It isn't illegal to be out walking the neighborhood in the rain. Martin did not legally have to retreat to his home. So, who started the physical fight? The State HAS to prove that Zimmerman did and so far they are not being successful.

Here's the thing about this;

Zimmerman claims he shot martin in self defense and that he felt he live was threatened, but his injuries don't show this.

Did you see the interview Zimmerman did with Hannity? The prosecution has used it in the trial. Hannity asks him if he would do anything differently and Zimmerman says "no". Really? A young man - who was not breaking any law - was killed and he would take the same actions?

There was a segment on my local news last night that I just caught the end of ~ apparently a doc who examined Zimmerman said his injuries were not extensive or life-threatening ~ and clearly said there was no evidence that his head was repeatedly slammed on the pavement ~

Sooz

I agree. I do not think he is telling the truth. But the law does not require one to sustain grievous or life threatening injuries to claim self defense.

IMO, he'll walk on a murder charge.
The burden of proof is on the prosecution and the evidence appears pretty slim.