Trayvon Martin

JonnyPistachio wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

if zimmerman pursued him, how can he be standing his ground? if he stood still and trayvon ran up and attacked him, that is one thing. but he was told to stay put and not follow trayvon. he put himself in that situation. it was his own doing that got him into a confrontation.

I totally agree Rod... There's also tape of him saying (before he hangs up with dispatcher) that he will wait for the police by the mailboxes, which were near the clubhouse i nthe opposite direction.

Also, there's a video of him talking about his injuries and he's saying that his head needed stitches but they decided not to give him stitches...yada yada yada... really? Why no stitches George? They figured it would heal better as a gaping wound? One thing that I also feel is misleading is Zimmerman's injury pictures. They are bloody, but his injuries are not substantial and they certainly arent life threatening. After the blood is wiped away, it looks like a nick.

vant0037 wrote:

Here's my take (humble though it may be) after reading the last few pages of the thread and following the first few days of the trial:

1. Every case I've ever tried or watched always looks really, really convincing when only one side is presenting it's case. If the State's case looks solid right now, wait until cross of key witnesses. Wait until the defense presents witnesses. If Zimmerman's attorneys are worth their salt, they'll make it close.

2. Someone raised the question of why jury selection allows (hell, encourages) attorneys to make distinctions among jurors that would otherwise be inappropriate in daily life. That's a valid question, and one that is routinely debated among bar associations and attorneys alike. In Minnesota, there are proposals to change the rules of criminal procedure to prohibit the use of sexual orientation during jury selection (proponents argue: if we want to outlaw discrimination, we need to do so everywhere; allowing attorneys to strike jurors because of their LGBT status is discrimination etc). You'd be surprised who is opposing these changes: many defense attorneys (and liberal ones at that). Their argument is that protecting potential jurors from discriminating strikes would create a "quasi-right to sit on a jury," one that does not exist, and one that, if it did exist, should take a back-seat to the rights of a defendant to a fair trial. The essence of the opponents' argument is: if an attorney has to be a bigot to ensure his client gets a fair trial or jury pool, then so be it.

I look at jury selection like this: use of strikes against prospective jurors, for reasons that otherwise might be inappropriate in daily life (keep in mind: race based strikes are NOT OK), is probably a necessary evil. We know juries can be biased, just like anyone else and in some cases, obviously biased. To prevent jurors from exercising those obvious biases against defendants and thereby tainting an otherwise fair process, attorneys need to make some assumptions (sometimes unwarranted) and remove those who they believe may have reason to be unfairly predisposed toward one side or the other.

3. Key facts/arguments that I expect each to hit on
The State: (a) the record of phone calls from Zimmerman in previous months. My gut tells me this is huge. It shows a guy predisposed toward a confrontation; (b) Zimmerman "following" Martin; (c) any witness recollection of Martin screaming or saying "stop following me." These facts, if unsuccessfully impeached, fit perfectly within the State's argument that Zimmerman was the provocateur, or at the very least, not standing his ground.

The Defense: (a) Zimmerman's injuries; injuries on a presumed aggressor are always critical when asserting self-defense. Personally, I find it extremely hard to believe that a skinny 17 year old was able to gain a physical advantage on Zimmerman, even with 4 inches difference in their heights, given than most reports put Zimmerman at anywhere from 35 to 50 pounds heavier than Martin. Expect the defense to hammer this point though; (b) argument or implication about where Martin lived, his recent disciplinary issues at school. I don't believe that those are relevant, unless George Zimmerman knew about those things (which he in all probability could not have known), but I expect the defense, as they should (for their client's sake), to raise them nonetheless; (c) reasonable doubt reasonable doubt reasonable doubt (yes, 3 times over). The toughest cases to prove are the supposed "he-said, she-said" ones. In this case, only two witnesses to the entire incident exist, and only one of them is alive. Without an additional eyewitness, the State has to rely on deductive arguments rather than direct eyewitness evidence, which in many cases, juries confuse for "reasonable doubt." This has to be the defense's strongest argument.

Why Zimmerman will be convicted: the State can likely paint a picture of a man spoiling for a fight, who followed a kid and provoked an argument with a kid and ended it with a bullet. Witness testimony saying Martin told Zimmerman to stop following him, police dispatcher telling Zimmerman to stop following Martin, Zimmerman's history of calling the police about young black males, combined with the sheer illogic of believing that despite all that, an unarmed Martin, alone, jumped Zimmerman could be enough to convict.

Why Zimmerman will be acquitted: Reasonable doubt. The defense will have a strong argument that with no other witnesses, who can say what really happened, other than George Zimmerman? That might not mean he is innocent, but it goes a long way toward convincing a jury that there's doubt, perhaps reasonable, as to whether the State has proven it's case. The best attorneys in the world don't convince juries that defendants are innocent, they convince them that reasonable doubt exists. That's a crucial threshold here.

otter wrote:

I disagree. Zimmerman will walk. And deserves to walk. Here's why:
He thought he was a good guy.
He was concerned Martin was a bad guy.
He called the cops; if he had any plan to start a fight he would have called buddies to get his back.
Martin kicked his ass fair and square.
He thought his gun would be used to kill him; if he was acting like a gangster he would have had his finger on the trigger before he got punched in the nose.
He was the one screaming for help; nobody yells for help as they are pummeling someone's head. Martin was not beat up, Zimmerman was.

otter wrote:

Hey Vant, Martin was a better fighter and tougher than Zimmerman. Size never ever matters in a street fight.

otter wrote:

vant0037 wrote:

Here's my take (humble though it may be) after reading the last few pages of the thread and following the first few days of the trial:

1. Every case I've ever tried or watched always looks really, really convincing when only one side is presenting it's case. If the State's case looks solid right now, wait until cross of key witnesses. Wait until the defense presents witnesses. If Zimmerman's attorneys are worth their salt, they'll make it close.

2. Someone raised the question of why jury selection allows (hell, encourages) attorneys to make distinctions among jurors that would otherwise be inappropriate in daily life. That's a valid question, and one that is routinely debated among bar associations and attorneys alike. In Minnesota, there are proposals to change the rules of criminal procedure to prohibit the use of sexual orientation during jury selection (proponents argue: if we want to outlaw discrimination, we need to do so everywhere; allowing attorneys to strike jurors because of their LGBT status is discrimination etc). You'd be surprised who is opposing these changes: many defense attorneys (and liberal ones at that). Their argument is that protecting potential jurors from discriminating strikes would create a "quasi-right to sit on a jury," one that does not exist, and one that, if it did exist, should take a back-seat to the rights of a defendant to a fair trial. The essence of the opponents' argument is: if an attorney has to be a bigot to ensure his client gets a fair trial or jury pool, then so be it.

I look at jury selection like this: use of strikes against prospective jurors, for reasons that otherwise might be inappropriate in daily life (keep in mind: race based strikes are NOT OK), is probably a necessary evil. We know juries can be biased, just like anyone else and in some cases, obviously biased. To prevent jurors from exercising those obvious biases against defendants and thereby tainting an otherwise fair process, attorneys need to make some assumptions (sometimes unwarranted) and remove those who they believe may have reason to be unfairly predisposed toward one side or the other.

3. Key facts/arguments that I expect each to hit on
The State: (a) the record of phone calls from Zimmerman in previous months. My gut tells me this is huge. It shows a guy predisposed toward a confrontation; (b) Zimmerman "following" Martin; (c) any witness recollection of Martin screaming or saying "stop following me." These facts, if unsuccessfully impeached, fit perfectly within the State's argument that Zimmerman was the provocateur, or at the very least, not standing his ground.

The Defense: (a) Zimmerman's injuries; injuries on a presumed aggressor are always critical when asserting self-defense. Personally, I find it extremely hard to believe that a skinny 17 year old was able to gain a physical advantage on Zimmerman, even with 4 inches difference in their heights, given than most reports put Zimmerman at anywhere from 35 to 50 pounds heavier than Martin. Expect the defense to hammer this point though; (b) argument or implication about where Martin lived, his recent disciplinary issues at school. I don't believe that those are relevant, unless George Zimmerman knew about those things (which he in all probability could not have known), but I expect the defense, as they should (for their client's sake), to raise them nonetheless; (c) reasonable doubt reasonable doubt reasonable doubt (yes, 3 times over). The toughest cases to prove are the supposed "he-said, she-said" ones. In this case, only two witnesses to the entire incident exist, and only one of them is alive. Without an additional eyewitness, the State has to rely on deductive arguments rather than direct eyewitness evidence, which in many cases, juries confuse for "reasonable doubt." This has to be the defense's strongest argument.

Why Zimmerman will be convicted: the State can likely paint a picture of a man spoiling for a fight, who followed a kid and provoked an argument with a kid and ended it with a bullet. Witness testimony saying Martin told Zimmerman to stop following him, police dispatcher telling Zimmerman to stop following Martin, Zimmerman's history of calling the police about young black males, combined with the sheer illogic of believing that despite all that, an unarmed Martin, alone, jumped Zimmerman could be enough to convict.

Why Zimmerman will be acquitted: Reasonable doubt. The defense will have a strong argument that with no other witnesses, who can say what really happened, other than George Zimmerman? That might not mean he is innocent, but it goes a long way toward convincing a jury that there's doubt, perhaps reasonable, as to whether the State has proven it's case. The best attorneys in the world don't convince juries that defendants are innocent, they convince them that reasonable doubt exists. That's a crucial threshold here.

I disagree. Zimmerman will walk. And deserves to walk. Here's why:
He thought he was a good guy.
He was concerned Martin was a bad guy.
He called the cops; if he had any plan to start a fight he would have called buddies to get his back.
Martin kicked his ass fair and square.
He thought his gun would be used to kill him; if he was acting like a gangster he would have had his finger on the trigger before he got punched in the nose.
He was the one screaming for help; nobody yells for help as they are pummeling someone's head. Martin was not beat up, Zimmerman was.

Hey Vant, Martin was a better fighter and tougher than Zimmerman. Size never ever matters in a street fight.

I find Zimmerman's story completely believable. Martin was pissed some dude was following him and when they were face to face he punched him then proceeded to beat the shit out of him. Zimmerman says Martin saw his gun and said "Ur gonna die tonight". Then Zimmerman held his hand got his gun and shot him. It's a fucking shame but he was protecting himself. The gun was legal and Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch cheif or something. He was trying to help his community not rolling around the streets looking for trouble.

It's too bad a young guy died but there are consequences with your actions; if Zimmerman died I would say the same thing. You risk your life anytime you choose to fight.

otter wrote:

I disagree. Zimmerman will walk. And deserves to walk. Here's why:
He thought he was a good guy.
He was concerned Martin was a bad guy.
He called the cops; if he had any plan to start a fight he would have called buddies to get his back.
Martin kicked his ass fair and square.
He thought his gun would be used to kill him; if he was acting like a gangster he would have had his finger on the trigger before he got punched in the nose.
He was the one screaming for help; nobody yells for help as they are pummeling someone's head. Martin was not beat up, Zimmerman was.

Hey Vant, Martin was a better fighter and tougher than Zimmerman. Size never ever matters in a street fight.

I find Zimmerman's story completely believable. Martin was pissed some dude was following him and when they were face to face he punched him then proceeded to beat the shit out of him. Zimmerman says Martin saw his gun and said "Ur gonna die tonight". Then Zimmerman held his hand got his gun and shot him. It's a fucking shame but he was protecting himself. The gun was legal and Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch cheif or something. He was trying to help his community not rolling around the streets looking for trouble.

It's too bad a young guy died but there are consequences with your actions; if Zimmerman died I would say the same thing. You risk your life anytime you choose to fight.