Zimmerman Trial Updates - Ongoing

[Guest Gwith40]

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/05/18/megyn-kelly-interviews-alan-dershowitz-bernie-goldberg-is-there-such-a-thing-as-a-but-if-clause-video/

Alan Dershowitz explains why Zimmerman leaving his car should have no bearing on this case.

[mcurrier]

Remember just a few months back what the jury down there did for Casey Anthony... They actually made a decision based on the court's terrible case and not running into the courtroom with their pitch forks and torches.

Only a single race involved in that case too, so race wasn't a (the) issue.

[Guest Gwith40]

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/05/18/when-you-professionally-lie-you-end-up-with-a-professional-problem-and-alan-dershowitz-describes-how/#more-40006

Ruh-Roh!

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I don't want him to be guilty, I just think that it's logical that he instigated the incident. This is the part that makes him guilty of manslaughter because he entered into a scenario that he knew he may have have to use deadly force. If Martin had been committing a crime then I would think different.

The reason I say it is logical that Z instigated it is because he had admitted to following him. The only way for Martin to have instigated it would to attack him unprovoked. Since there is no evidence that Martin has done this before or had the intent to conduct such an attack when he went out for snacks suggests to me that Z instigated the incident. Martin wasn't following Z when the 911 call was made, it was the other way around. In fact Z was out of breath which suggests he was running. I have no problem with someone protecting their neighborhood from criminals, but no one has any evidence that Martin was committing a crime. Z did not witness him commit a crime. How/why did these two come face to face then? It just doesn't seem logical that Martin just got a wild hair and decided to beat the crap out of the next person he saw.

Does this mean I would convict him based on what I know or my logic? No, that's why we have courts. But I still will have an opinion on this because I'm not sitting on a jury. If he did nothing wrong he has nothing to worry about. Casey Anthony got away with killing her kid just a few miles up the road where Zimmerman will be tried.

Just another thing to add, before I heard the 911 tape I thought there was more to it. I figured Martin was up to no good and a citizen tried to stop him and had to defend himself. After hearing the 911 tape I don't believe that anymore. Walking home isn't a crime. Running away from someone following you isn't a crime. Cutting through yards to flee someone following suggests to me his rational fear of Zimmerman. Until someone can point out to me why a young man walking home from the store is a crime worthy of armed pursuit I will hold this opinion.

And watching out for the neighborhood must be a sin, also. I also don't see your logic by saying Zimmerman "instigated" the fight. Someone

guilty of something is likely to be an aggressor or flee. i doubt and can see no logic in Zimmerman starting a fight, and the autopsy, witnesses

and evidence point to this, also. When you take the color, age and gender out of the equation and use logic and reasoning, like a jury should

do, you might have a different set of reasoning. Of course there's not a reasonable jury out there, now. This is purely racial.

Just so you know, TMF, I made my mind up without having to watch any of this crap on TV and was easily able to see where Zimmerman could

have been assaulted by the hoodie guy. I'll bet you there's not a shred of evidence out there that will back up your logic. I haven't seen any, yet.

And, please tell me how I could put myself in Martin's shoes. What you are saying is that Martin is a victim, and by somehow prosecuting

Zimmerman, making him into another victim, it can make this right. Nonsense! All you are saying is no one can be proactive by doing something

to protect property. If you extend your logic a little bit more, the Castle Doctrine might as well be without merit, also.

Without further evidence somehow justifying Martin beating the crap out of Zimmerman, close to death, Zimmerman had every reason to shoot

Martin. I think he was lucky to get a shot off if his head was pummeled into the concrete.

[TMF]

And watching out for the neighborhood must be a sin, also. I also don't see your logic by saying Zimmerman "instigated" the fight. Someone

guilty of something is likely to be an aggressor or flee. i doubt and can see no logic in Zimmerman starting a fight, and the autopsy, witnesses

and evidence point to this, also. When you take the color, age and gender out of the equation and use logic and reasoning, like a jury should

do, you might have a different set of reasoning. Of course there's not a reasonable jury out there, now. This is purely racial.

Just so you know, TMF, I made my mind up without having to watch any of this crap on TV and was easily able to see where Zimmerman could

have been assaulted by the hoodie guy. I'll bet you there's not a shred of evidence out there that will back up your logic. I haven't seen any, yet.

And, please tell me how I could put myself in Martin's shoes. What you are saying is that Martin is a victim, and by somehow prosecuting

Zimmerman, making him into another victim, it can make this right. Nonsense! All you are saying is no one can be proactive by doing something

to protect property. If you extend your logic a little bit more, the Castle Doctrine might as well be without merit, also.

Without further evidence somehow justifying Martin beating the crap out of Zimmerman, close to death, Zimmerman had every reason to shoot

Martin. I think he was lucky to get a shot off if his head was pummeled into the concrete.

No, you misunderstand what I say.

It is illogical for me to think that this was an unprovoked attack. I'm not saying it isn't possible, but to me it isn't probable that Martin just got it in his head suddenly that he was going to deliver a beat down. It takes two to tango and since Zimmerman was following him from the outset it is more logical that he started it. There are many things that others believe that I choose not to because I think it is illogical. A billion people believe in Islam; I don't. I think it's illogical. People believe that Casey Anthony didn't kill her kid. To me it's illogical that there is another explanation. A lot of people think OJ was set up by police. I think it is illogical that he didn't kill those two. I think this way because I have no emotion towards these things which allow me to think rationally.

You said above that Zimmerman was beaten "close to death." I did not know this. Usually when someone is beaten near death they are hospitalized with severe injuries or coma. As I understand Zimmerman was treated at the scene by EMS. Is there something you know that we don't?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Maybe that was why he took the shot. He didn't want to die.

Have you not seen kids(teenagers or young adults?) that look like they got out of bed angry? I've seen too many to believe

it's possible, whether or not they were high, to do stupid things. White or black, doesn't matter. I've heard that Governor's

Square Mall, at one of the entrances, would be a good place to find out. It's why I don't go there anymore in the evenings.

Why don't you hang out over there a while and do some social work? I've been around places that could ignite easily. I avoid

that kind of stuff. Clarksville has too much of a gang problem for you not to notice.

Look at the picture of Zimmerman's head with the gashes in it. Does that not equate to having his head bashed into the

concrete? It doesn't take but one or two to put some people into a situation of having severe brain damage. Zimmerman's

knuckles were clean and Martin's knuckles were shredded. Who started what? Can you not draw a conclusion without

going out of your way defending the poor kid?

I see nothing other than embellishments to the narrative that could make Martin the good guy. If Zimmerman is guilty of anything,

it's defending himself. He was well within his rights protecting his own life. If he asked Martin what he was doing, that's no reason

to try to pummel someone else. That's also not starting a fight. We have no other witnesses to what may have been said and it's

unreasonable to interject fantasy.

[Guest Gwith40]

Yes there are several things here that are illogical...let's start with the media narrative about the police calls.

If you go back and carefully listen to the call with Zimmerman talking to the dispatcher and then compare the media reporting, you will find the sequence of events has been reported erroneously. You will also note that after the dispatcher says "we don't need you to do that", Zimmerman says "ok" and the noise subsides.

A large part of the media narrative in this case was ginned up by a combination of news media, particularly local media, Ryan Julison, who is a media consultant, with ties to the white house and the Martin attorneys. Several of the statements made by the family attorneys are demonstrable lies. Recall the first lie that was told....Trayvon went to the store during half-time of the game. That was not possible, because he was dead by the time the game started.

Remember that several people were fired from NBC, for altering the police tape. The national media used the local reporting in their coverage. It turns out that the media promoter, Julison, worked closely with local media in Florida. He has since scrubbed much of his earlier information from his websites. Fortunately, much of it was captured anyway.

Next, think about the logic of Zimmerman chasing down Martin. This has bothered me from the beginning. How does an overweight, out of shape Zimmerman chase down a high school athlete? Add to this the photos from the police station that night: Zimmerman is wearing heavy boots. Not exactly track running material. Remember also, the Martin family narrative has been that Trayvon was scared of Z. If he was scared and ran, there is no way on this planet that Z would have caught M. The only logical conclusion is that Martin doubled back or hid to confront Zimmerman.

It goes on...but, no more time for this case today...time to go shooting!

[DaveTN]

Next, think about the logic of Zimmerman chasing down Martin. This has bothered me from the beginning. How does an overweight, out of shape Zimmerman chase down a high school athlete? Add to this the photos from the police station that night: Zimmerman is wearing heavy boots. Not exactly track running material. Remember also, the Martin family narrative has been that Trayvon was scared of Z. If he was scared and ran, there is no way on this planet that Z would have caught M. The only logical conclusion is that Martin doubled back or hid to confront Zimmerman.

The victim was being pursued by someone that was following him and then jumped out of a truck and came after him. His choice was fight or flight. So you are saying he had a duty to retreat? If he was scared because he was being stalked by a stranger; instead of engaging his pursuer and protecting himself he should have simply ran away?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Who are you calling the victim, DaveTN? If you use that, you are assuming Zimmerman could catch him, start a fight with him and

make it look like Martin is beating the crap out of him and then shoot him. Doesn't make any sense. That doesn't jive with the audio

and witness, either. Whatever happened, theory will not replace testimony and self defense is logical. Wouldn't the aggressor be

the one with the bloody knuckles? Martin's only defensive wound was a shot into him. Zimmerman had multiple wounds found on

people having been attacked. witness testimony backs his claim up.

[Mr. Brooks]

You are forgetting 6.8, because Zimmerman followed Martin he deserved to be beat to death. Or haven't you heard?

[mikegideon]

You are forgetting 6.8, because Zimmerman followed Martin he deserved to be beat to death. Or haven't you heard?

He's heard. He just doesn't buy it. Neither do I

[gjohnsoniv]

Mistakes were made on both sides of the story, we can all agree on that. To me personally I would assume that Zimmerman would ask Martin what he was doing, this being the point at which all of this went south. Unfortunately that assumption might be incorrect, who knows.

[Guest profgunner]

This case might distill down to who the jury believes instigated the final encounter. I say final because there seems to be some evidence that after initially making contact Trayvon Martin ran from Zimmerman. If Zimmerman pursued and caught up with him, Martin (who had a right to be where he was, and was not committing a crime) would be entitled to defend himself with force, provided he was in fear for his life, and Zimmerman would be a murderer. On the other hand, if Martin re-initiated contact with Zimmerman (who had a right to be where he was, and was not committing a crime) Zimmerman may have been in fear for his life and responded with force. We will never know what Martin was thinking. It just might come down to who has the best lawdogs - the prosecution or the defense. -Steve

Edited May 19, 2012 by profgunner

[mikegideon]

From what I saw in the bail hearing, Zimmerman has the best lawdog.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Mistakes were made on both sides of the story, we can all agree on that. To me personally I would assume that Zimmerman would ask Martin what he was doing, this being the point at which all of this went south. Unfortunately that assumption might be incorrect, who knows.

I'm not even sure that's the case, but I do see where

us armchair quarterbacks can see that. There is a gap

of knowledge relating to how things went down and is

mere speculation up to the point of how the evidence

pushes the event in one way or another.

Zimmerman saw something suspicious and acted on

it. After the audio record plays out, it becomes

speculation. The evidence only fills in some more,

but not completely.

If the bad actors want to incite a riot with this being

thrown out, or by being not guilty, bring it on. That's

a most inappropriate response to respecting justice

and will end up badly.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gjohnsoniv]

I'm not even sure that's the case, but I do see where

us armchair quarterbacks can see that. There is a gap

of knowledge relating to how things went down and is

mere speculation up to the point of how the evidence

pushes the event in one way or another.

Zimmerman saw something suspicious and acted on

it. After the audio record plays out, it becomes

speculation. The evidence only fills in some more,

but not completely.

If the bad actors want to incite a riot with this being

thrown out, or by being not guilty, bring it on. That's

a most inappropriate response to respecting justice

and will end up badly.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not trying to get involved or take sides, that's just how I see it.

[mcurrier]

Derschowitz Says Drop Zimmerman Murder Charge

www.nydailynews.com/opinion/drop-george-zimmerman-murder-charge-article-1.1080161

[mcurrier]

I'm not even sure that's the case, but I do see where

us armchair quarterbacks can see that. There is a gap

of knowledge relating to how things went down and is

mere speculation up to the point of how the evidence

pushes the event in one way or another.

Zimmerman saw something suspicious and acted on

it. After the audio record plays out, it becomes

speculation. The evidence only fills in some more,

but not completely.

If the bad actors want to incite a riot with this being

thrown out, or by being not guilty, bring it on. That's

a most inappropriate response to respecting justice

and will end up badly.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

All true. And I,ve heard that there is a possible video and witnesses that we (the public) have yet to hear from.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I'm not trying to get involved or take sides, that's just how I see it.

I knew you weren't.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[R_Bert]

Derschowitz Says Drop Zimmerman Murder Charge

www.nydailynews.com/opinion/drop-george-zimmerman-murder-charge-article-1.1080161

fixed link - http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/drop-george-zimmerman-murder-charge-article-1.1080161

[gjohnsoniv]

I knew you weren't.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Haha good. This is one of those things I don't want to say anything until everything is on the table, because this isn't a good case for speculation.

[mikegideon]

Haha good. This is one of those things I don't want to say anything until everything is on the table, because this isn't a good case for speculation.

Too late for that

[gjohnsoniv]

Too late for that

Touche'

[TMF]

Maybe that was why he took the shot. He didn't want to die.

I've never debated that Zimmerman wasn't in fear of his life or great bodily injury. The available evidence suggests that a reasonable person would be in fear of imminent death. I was simply inquiring about your description that Zimmerman was beaten "close to death".

Have you not seen kids(teenagers or young adults?) that look like they got out of bed angry? I've seen too many to believe

it's possible, whether or not they were high, to do stupid things. White or black, doesn't matter. I've heard that Governor's

Square Mall, at one of the entrances, would be a good place to find out. It's why I don't go there anymore in the evenings.

Why don't you hang out over there a while and do some social work? I've been around places that could ignite easily. I avoid

that kind of stuff. Clarksville has too much of a gang problem for you not to notice.

Sure. I don't see how any of that would influence my interpretation of what happened between Zimmerman and Martin.

Look at the picture of Zimmerman's head with the gashes in it. Does that not equate to having his head bashed into the

concrete? It doesn't take but one or two to put some people into a situation of having severe brain damage. Zimmerman's

knuckles were clean and Martin's knuckles were shredded. Who started what? Can you not draw a conclusion without

going out of your way defending the poor kid?

I see nothing other than embellishments to the narrative that could make Martin the good guy. If Zimmerman is guilty of anything,

it's defending himself. He was well within his rights protecting his own life. If he asked Martin what he was doing, that's no reason

to try to pummel someone else. That's also not starting a fight. We have no other witnesses to what may have been said and it's

unreasonable to interject fantasy.

I don't feel as if I'm defending him. I just don't think that this was an unprovoked attack from Martin, which would make Zimmerman liable for the outcome. I see some folks say that it matters who swings first, but it actually doesn't. If someone pulls a gun on you do you have to wait for them to shoot before you shoot back? If someone comes at you in an aggressive manner do you have to wait until they land a blow before you defend yourself? I've been in a few fights myself that I threw the first punch before they had the chance to. When somebody gets in your face in an aggressive manner it's safe to assume they intend to physically assault you. In fact, I know of a guy who preemptively punched a guy in a bar who had aggressed him, which resulted in the death of the aggressor. The charges were dropped after there was evidence that he attempted to avoid confrontation with the aggressor. The aggressor never threw one punch.

I know that this is anecdotal, but I'm trying to illustrate that these things aren't just cut and dry. Just because Martin was beating this guy's head in doesn't mean that Zimmerman is clear of criminal wrongdoing. Remember, before all the cries from the media the investigator recommended charges of manslaughter. I'd say there's a pretty good chance that this isn't cut and dry as you want to believe.

Edited May 19, 2012 by TMF 18B

[DaveTN]

Haha good. This is one of those things I don't want to say anything until everything is on the table, because this isn't a good case for speculation.

It what we do; it’s all we can do. A jury will have all the information laid out in front of them. They will not only know what the witnesses have to say, but they will judge their credibility. They will get to see everything and have everything explained to them in detail. We only get whatever the media gives us.

We aren’t going to be on this jury, and if someone from Florida develops an opinion based on what they read here, they would have to lie to make it through jury selection. We are just discussing; our opinions mean nothing.

I don’t think the jury will have a problem determining what happened. I think the big question will be a legal one. Can you stalk, engage, and cause a citizen that is committing no crime to become fearful of you, and then kill him claiming self-defense when he protects himself? I say no.

Unless someone can show me some evidence why Zimmerman thought he had a right to stop and interfere with Treyvon Martin’s peaceful journey through the neighborhood, other than it was a black kid he didn’t recognize; he should have stayed in that truck and waited on the cops.

Treyvon Martin was in a place he had a lawful right to be. He was doing nothing wrong and was accosted by a stranger. He had no duty to run or retreat. He defended himself…. That is what stand your ground is all about. Unfortunately all he had to defend himself with was his hands, and his attacker pulled a gun a shot him to death.