freeman3 wrote:I got into a lot of fights in elementary school, certainly had tried marijuana around Trayvon's age, and a couple of my back teeth have gold caps...guess I am a thug

Silly. Let me refute you with your own words.

I don't think that because a 17 year old gets into fights he is therefore violent.

If he was 17 and in "elementary school," we've got another issue.

Caps are not the same as wearing a grill.

Did you take photos of yourself with a gun as a teen? Fancy picking up some weaponry? Did you refer to people of other races with epithets?

How far do you want to take your farce?

By the way, Brad marijuana use in California is only an infraction (of course with a medical prescription it is legal) I think you could use "troubled" maybe, if you must use a term. Better just to describe what he had done rather than use a single overarching term. Why is it necessary to use such a term when it is likely just to appeal to a person's emotions? None of the terms that you listed seem accurate to me, Brad. Yes, I understand he was not an angel; he had problems. But thug is too strong.

Getting into fights is one thing; when someone is getting into bar fights as as an adult and people are getting hurt then I will start calling them violent. Fact that someone gets into fights in school, even high school, does not mean I am going to call them violent.

freeman3 wrote:By the way, Brad marijuana use in California is only an infraction (of course with a medical prescription it is legal) I think you could use "troubled" maybe, if you must use a term. Better just to describe what he had done rather than use a single overarching term. Why is it necessary to use such a term when it is likely just to appeal to a person's emotions? None of the terms that you listed seem accurate to me, Brad. Yes, I understand he was not an angel; he had problems. But thug is too strong.

Getting into fights is one thing; when someone is getting into bar fights as as an adult and people are getting hurt then I will start calling them violent. Fact that someone gets into fights in school, even high school, does not mean I am going to call them violent.

You are a lawyer, I get that. However the statute in FL is different that CA.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String&URL=0800-0899/0893/Sections/0893.13.html

I am ok with any of these: hooligan, punk, ruffian, troublemaker

By the way, I am not convinced by Abram's analysis. Clearly, murder cannot be proven so that's out. But manslaughter is still very much in. Zimmerman shot an unarmed man. Far as I am concerned, the only justification for Zimmerman is his uncorroborated claim that Trayvon was hitting his head against the cement. No witness saw this. The injuries to Zimmerman's head, which were very minor, almost certainly happened when he fell to the ground. Zimmerman's clothes were wet, indicating that the struggle took place on the grass. Also noteworthy is that there was no DNA under Trayvon's fingernails. How could Trayvon have been slamming his head into the pavement without getting his DNA under his fingermails (particularly when Zimmerman's head was shaved). Zimmerman lied about not following Trayvon and I don't believe his story that he did not confront Trayvon (that makes no sense given his background, his wannabe cop persona, and his comments to the 911 operator). Zimmerman also lied about not knowing about the Stand Your Ground Law. There is no DNA from the cuffs on Travyon's hoodie (which you would expect if Travyon were smacking him repeatedly) and there was DNA on his hoodie and underneath sweatshirt (which I guess was from Zimmerman using his hands to push Travyon off). There is no DNA from Trayvon on the gun
If I were on that jury I would to hear from Zimmerman to explain these inconsistencies. He shot an unarmed man; a broken nose is not great bodliy injury nor is some scapes on his head.The only way Zimmerman gets off is is Trayvon was bouncing his head off of the pavement. And I don't think is a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence so far. If Zimmerman gets off, you are basically that if you are losing a fistfight you can shoot someone.
Also Abrams fails to point out that Zimmerman must subjectively and objectively (that is what by reasonably) have a fear of death or great bodily injury. Even if he felt that fear, if it is not reasonable given his injuries and what has happening at the time, then he is still guilty

freeman3 wrote:By the way, I am not convinced by Abram's analysis.

Well, so far, the only guy I've seen who agrees with you is Michael Savage (seriously).

Clearly, murder cannot be proven so that's out. But manslaughter is still very much in. Zimmerman shot an unarmed man. Far as I am concerned, the only justification for Zimmerman is his uncorroborated claim that Trayvon was hitting his head against the cement.

Well, the State proved he hit his head once. The key is the prosecution MUST disprove self-defense. That's the standard in FL.

No witness saw this. The injuries to Zimmerman's head, which were very minor, almost certainly happened when he fell to the ground.

Speculation. Furthermore, the "expert" witness was horrible. And, she didn't treat Zimmerman. She was working from pictures and a nurse's report.

Why did his head hit the ground? Maybe because he was hit with great force (see broken nose)?

Zimmerman's clothes were wet, indicating that the struggle took place on the grass. Also noteworthy is that there was no DNA under Trayvon's fingernails. How could Trayvon have been slamming his head into the pavement without getting his DNA under his fingermails (particularly when Zimmerman's head was shaved).

First, you're using the standard of "guilty until proven innocent." Everything you've put there is not "evidence," but speculation.

Zimmerman lied about not following Trayvon and I don't believe his story that he did not confront Trayvon (that makes no sense given his background, his wannabe cop persona, and his comments to the 911 operator).

I'm sure the jury loved the "nasty a** cracker" line. I'm sure they look at Zimmerman and think, "There's no way a young man could run away from Zimmerman. He's so athletic!"

Zimmerman also lied about not knowing about the Stand Your Ground Law.

That's an inference you've drawn. We have no direct evidence of that. The prof can say whatever he wants, was Zimmerman there? Was Zimmerman listening?

Besides that, SYG is not a factor in the defense.

There is no DNA from the cuffs on Travyon's hoodie (which you would expect if Travyon were smacking him repeatedly) and there was DNA on his hoodie and underneath sweatshirt (which I guess was from Zimmerman using his hands to push Travyon off). There is no DNA from Trayvon on the gun

What is the actual EVIDENCE that you will use to convict? Not absence of evidence, but presence?

If I were on that jury I would to hear from Zimmerman to explain these inconsistencies.

I'm sure you're right. And, I'm equally sure you would not permit him to testify if you were his attorney. It's the only way he might get convicted. It's not worth the risk.

He shot an unarmed man; a broken nose is not great bodliy injury nor is some scapes on his head.

This is your worst argument. During a fight, with his blood rushing out of his nose, pain emanating from the back of his head, and injuries that he does not know the extent of, with Martin on top of him, having pinned his arms with his legs and hitting him repeatedly (per Mr. Good), you have to prove he had no fear of Martin causing great injury.

Good luck.

The only way Zimmerman gets off is is Trayvon was bouncing his head off of the pavement. And I don't think is a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence so far. If Zimmerman gets off, you are basically that if you are losing a fistfight you can shoot someone.

What's the evidence it was a "fistfight?" Seems like a pretty straightforward assault based on the evidence. What were Trayvon's injuries? If he had none, then that suggests he was the aggressor, dropped Zimmerman like a bad habit, jumped on him, etc.

Zimmerman walks because of the standard for defeating a self-defense defense in Florida. There is no way the prosecution has met that threshold.

gold fillings is one thing, temporary gold caps to look like a "gangsta" is yet another.
A few tussles with your friends is one thing, getting into many fights, refereeing others, punching a school bus driver, those are a different animal.

many many suggestions Martin also was a minor dealer in marijuana as well (though that will not be admitted to court), did you deal marijuana as well?

Put it all together and thug fits quite well, your attempts to paint him in any other light seem to fail.

also, in what world do you consider a broken nose from a punch no big deal? Getting your head slammed repeatedly into the pavement no big deal? These are facts we know to be true. Your no big deal injury is speculative at best, the facts indicate self defense.

Tell you what, let me put a gun in your hand then allow someone to break your nose and pummel your head against the pavement and see what you decide to do. Will you simply take the beating because, heck, "it's no big deal" or will you try to defend yourself, the jury will be asked that exact same question no doubt. ...Zimmerman walks!

Your basis for saying that it it was not a fistfiight is, what, according to what Zimmerman says? Similarly, the idea that Zimmerman's arms were pinned came from Zimmeran. Clearly, they were not when he shot Trayvon. Good testified to the following:

(1) He did not see Zimmerman being hit, only the person on top moving his arm back and forth
(2) More importantly, he did not see Trayvon banging Zimmerman's head.
(3) he also said Trayvon was straddling Zimmerman in a ground and pound position where the person on the bottom would be able to strike back and get out of the position

I had a case where defendant was alleged to have head-butted the victim and broke her nose. The prosecution alleged assault with intent to cause great bodily injury. Jury said it was overcharged and acquittal on that and other felony counts (deadlocked on the misdemeanor counts and case was dismissed by the judge). So a broken nose is not likely to be considered great bodily injury by a jury.

(1) He did not see Zimmerman being hit, only the person on top moving his arm back and forth
(2) More importantly, he did not see Trayvon banging Zimmerman's head.
(3) he also said Trayvon was straddling Zimmerman in a ground and pound position where the person on the bottom would be able to strike back and get out of the position

I see we agree!
1) since only one had marks from being hit, it has to be Martin doing the beating, no way can it be the other way around.
2) didn't see it but the cuts and road debris in his skull can only lead to Martin being on top ...and beating him!
3) uhhh, #1 says he did not see Zimmerman being hit, now it's a ground and pound? But now that we accept it was "ground and pound" then Zimmerman acted in self defense AND we can see how he was able to get his gun free to defend himself.
The facts all point to self defense, can't see any other possibility, please describe how it could POSSIBLY be the other way around, it's simply not even remotely possible.

So a broken nose is not likely to be considered great bodily injury by a jury.

not likely or not unheard of?
Did your case have a person straddling the other in a ground and pound position? Did your case also have wounds to the back of the head? one head but that was over and done vs a continued merciless beating is not the same thing by a long shot is it?

Uh, Tom did he have a skull fracture? A concussion?Other than a broke nose did he have multiple broken facial bones. Was he being choked? Did he need sutures or stitches? Did he get emergency medical treatment? The medical examiner said his injuries were consistent with one punch to his face and one hit to the concrete. She said if he was getting severely beaten there would be much more severe injuries. Got anything to refute that?

So why again did Zimmerman call 9-11?

Freeman3, I think your political bias is getting in the way of your legal training. Honestly, I could not care less what happens in this trial. My life won't change either way,. I only want justice, whatever it is in this case.

freeman3 wrote:Your basis for saying that it it was not a fistfiight is, what, according to what Zimmerman says? Similarly, the idea that Zimmerman's arms were pinned came from Zimmeran. Clearly, they were not when he shot Trayvon. Good testified to the following:

(1) He did not see Zimmerman being hit, only the person on top moving his arm back and forth

You neatly left out that he believed it was Martin on top. You also left out that HuffPo:

"GROUND AND POUND." Even though he was called Friday by the prosecution, John Good, a former neighbor of Zimmerman, gave testimony that seemed to bolster the defense contention that Martin was on top of Zimmerman in the fight. Good said he saw Martin straddling Zimmerman in manner similar to a mixed-martial art maneuver known as "ground and pound."

(2) More importantly, he did not see Trayvon banging Zimmerman's head.

He also didn't see the whole fight. So, your conclusion is hardly justified.

(3) he also said Trayvon was straddling Zimmerman in a ground and pound position where the person on the bottom would be able to strike back and get out of the position

That's just false. Period. Good id'd Trayvon as being on top. He also said that blows were being thrown "downward." Trayvon had zero injuries until the bullet wound.

I saw Zimmerman's coach testify today that he couldn't really fight. That's not going to help the prosecution.

What evidence is there that Zimmerman hit Martin?

I had a case where defendant was alleged to have head-butted the victim and broke her nose. The prosecution alleged assault with intent to cause great bodily injury. Jury said it was overcharged and acquittal on that and other felony counts (deadlocked on the misdemeanor counts and case was dismissed by the judge). So a broken nose is not likely to be considered great bodily injury by a jury.

Wow, that is horrible logic.

You are ignoring that Zimmerman is on trial for murder. His defense is self-defense, which, under Florida law, must be disproved by the prosecution. So, it is not relevant if his broken nose and his injuries constitute "great bodily injury" as a forensic matter. The key is whether "a reasonable person" who had suffered a broken nose, and lacerations of unknown (to him at the time) seriousness might have reasonably concluded that he was likely to suffer great bodily injury if he didn't do something. That is the essence of self-defense.

The medical examiner said his injuries were consistent with one punch to his face and one hit to the concrete. She said if he was getting severely beaten there would be much more severe injuries. Got anything to refute that?

Did you watch her? She was horrible. And, "being consistent with" does not mean that's how it happened. On cross, she was forced to admit it could have been multiple contacts with concrete--she could not say. And, she did not examine him.

And again, the defense doesn't have to refute your theory. The burden is on the prosecution. Almost no one thinks they've met that burden.

You don't seem to be moved by facts. So, I'll make it easy. You think he committed manslaughter. If you're right, I'll donate $40 to Redscape. If you're wrong, you donate $80 to Redscape.

Deal?

I see you negotiate like House Republicans. Why should I bet on something I have no control over (at 1:2 odds)? I thought it was clear that I was indicating that Good said Trayvon was on top. The point, which you glossed over (and go back and read the transcript) is that Zimmerman was in a position that he could get out of or could fight back from. He was not pinned. Good did not see his head being hit against the sidewalk and given that Travyon's legs were straddled over Zimmerman's i don't see how that is even possible.
Any reason why Zimmerman could not draw his gun and say get away or I shoot? As far as I am concerned, he could do that without being in fear of his life. But this idea that you can shoot someone just because you're losing a fistfight, I don't think it is reasonable. If he had space to draw a gun, he had enough space to get away. I cannot fathom the idea of it being justifiable to shoot someone because you're losing a fight. We are not talking about fighting a trained fighter who could do a lot of damage. If a MMA fighter starts hitting you that might be different. (there is a great movie called Bruge where two hitmen are talking and one of them he felt guilty over shooting this 50 year old thin guy, and the other hitmen said but he had a bottle and that is a dangerous weapon, and the other hitmen says well if he knew karate then that might be a considered a dangerous weapon...)
And another neighbor Selma Mora said she saw Zimmerman straddling Travyon when she came out outside. Good looked out from his screen door for a brief period of time; Mora came out side and looked immediately after the gun shot.
Under the conservative logic here, I don't see in why fistfight that occurs anywhere where someone is getting beat up the loser can't just draw his weapon and shoot the other guy. It's ridiculous.

Doctor Fate wrote:Actually, Zimmerman waived an SYG hearing, meaning that is not the basis of his defense. His defense is based on self-defense. In Florida, the prosecution has to prove it was not self-defense. Few think they have done that.

I was talking about the early period. That is what provoked the original outcry - that SYG was considered to be part of the reason for the prosecutors deciding not to proceed.

You are talking about the period after the investigation was re-opened and charges laid (leading to the question of hearings).

No, there is no case for manslaughter--not according to Abrams and any number of non-conservative analyses I've read. The prosecution is hoping emotion carries the day, not the rule of law. That should not be.

So how did it get to trial if there's no case? The case may be weak, but it didn't get thrown out at arraignment.