I think an acquittal is possible, if not probable The injuries to the back of his head seem consistent with someone's head being banged on the sidewalk. The injuries are minor but I am just not sure how someone can be expected to make a calm evaluation as to whether their head is being slammed hard enough against the pavement to justify using a gun.
Of course this troubles me as George Zimmerman was at least partially responsible for the confrontation and created the risk of escalation by having a gun on him. Perhaps I would find him guilty of manslaughter (perhaps by finding that he had a subjective but unreasonable fear that his life was in jeopardy) by looking at all of the factors. In any case, I think it a bad idea to be allowing people to bring firearms into the public arena without a showing of individualized need.
The tragedy is that if George Zinmerman did not have a gun, it is highly likely that no one would have been seriously injured. The reality is that fistfights happen but they are rarely fatal. However, getting beat up is not pleasant and generally people will whatever means are available to stop getting beaten, including at least drawing a gun if one is available.

Everything I have heard and seen so far leads to an acquittal. But it goes beyond that, I have spoken to several people who simply feel it was Zimmermans fault regardless of the facts. He was told not to follow yet he ignored that and confronted the kid. To them, it now simply does not matter that he was simply protecting himself. Kinda like if a cop told me not to cross the road and I ignored him, then he shot me. Yes, I should have listened but it doesn't allow him to shoot me!? Zimmerman was told not to follow, ignored that and was then forced to protect himself, the kid does not get a free pass to beat the crap out of Zimmerman!

In talking to many people, this is not just based on racial lines but EVERY black person (5 or 6) I have spoken to thinks it's this is based on nothing but race and Zimmerman is guilty despite the facts! When (not if) Zimmerman is set free, things are going to explode!

freeman3 wrote:The tragedy is that if George Zinmerman did not have a gun, it is highly likely that no one would have been seriously injured. The reality is that fistfights happen but they are rarely fatal. However, getting beat up is not pleasant and generally people will whatever means are available to stop getting beaten, including at least drawing a gun if one is available.

True dat!

geojanes wrote:

freeman3 wrote:The tragedy is that if George Zinmerman did not have a gun, it is highly likely that no one would have been seriously injured. The reality is that fistfights happen but they are rarely fatal. However, getting beat up is not pleasant and generally people will whatever means are available to stop getting beaten, including at least drawing a gun if one is available.

True dat!

We don't know that. It's just as likely that Zimmerman would have been beaten to death or suffered great bodily injury.

And, if you liberals don't like the Constitution, change it.

tom

the kid does not get a free pass to beat the crap out of Zimmerman!

Not sure. In Florida the "Stand Your Ground" law might actually have protected Trayvon from prosecution since he was the one being stalked... and since he simply turned to confront his stalker... The fact his stalker was armed and Martin felt threatened might have further justified his use of force.

If the judge allows the jury to choose lesser offences then the charge (2nd degree murder) Zimmerman is likely to be convicted of manslaughter. The ups and downs of the daily trial lead to a lot of reactions along the way , but sometimes the Jury doesn't follow that trail.... In their case they'll have all the conflicting statement ZImmerman made and the voice records...

freeman3 wrote:I think an acquittal is possible, if not probable

Typically, the defense makes a motion to dismiss charges at the end of the State's case, yes?

If so, my guess is the judge will dismiss the (overcharged) 2nd degree murder charge right then.

The injuries to the back of his head seem consistent with someone's head being banged on the sidewalk. The injuries are minor but I am just not sure how someone can be expected to make a calm evaluation as to whether their head is being slammed hard enough against the pavement to justify using a gun.

Agreed. With an all female jury, I don't think the idea of having your nose broken and your head slammed on concrete is going to have them thinking, "We must get justice for Trayvon!" That's what some want, and I understand that impulse, but the facts suggest self-defense. The threshold for disproving self-defense in Florida appears substantial.

Of course this troubles me as George Zimmerman was at least partially responsible for the confrontation and created the risk of escalation by having a gun on him.

How much is "partially?"

Seriously, what if he followed the kid? So what? You mean to tell me Trayvon could not have run home and done so without a confrontation? Zimmerman's claim is that Trayvon ambushed him, punching him in the face. There is nothing that even suggests this is false.

As for your second assertion, what if Trayvon said what Zimmerman claims when he saw the gun? Something along the lines of, "I'm going to kill you with that?"

We will never know, but the claims of Trayvon as an innocent victim (made by some) are a bit too much.

Perhaps I would find him guilty of manslaughter (perhaps by finding that he had a subjective but unreasonable fear that his life was in jeopardy) by looking at all of the factors.

I don't agree with this suggestion. However, the bigger problem is that by overcharging and overpromisiing, the prosecution has, I think, poisoned the well. They tried to make Zimmerman look like a bloodthirsty Klansman. I think that was a huge mistake. They might have gotten some kind of manslaughter conviction, IF that was all they went after. The prosecutors caved to political pressure and this is the result.

In any case, I think it a bad idea to be allowing people to bring firearms into the public arena without a showing of individualized need.

So, like "in case of emergency, break glass?"

In other words, when your life is threatened, there should be a judge ready to approve you carrying a weapon? Maybe that could be "911911."

Your side is already doing all it can to erase the Second Amendment without putting it to a vote. Taxing ammo. Taxing gun ownership. Trying to force gun owners to take out separate insurance policies. Restricting sales of guns because the manufacturer doesn't want to jump through the hoops a State requires.

The tragedy is that if George Zinmerman did not have a gun, it is highly likely that no one would have been seriously injured.

You have no basis for that. Presuming the only eyewitness is correct and Trayvon was on top, how does that fight end? With a simple, "Sorry mate. Let me dust you off and send you on your way?"

The reality is that fistfights happen but they are rarely fatal.

There is no evidence this was a "fistfight."That would be two guys at a bar or you and I arguing over a foul on a basketball court and things getting out of hand. The only account we have of the beginning of this struggle is Zimmerman's. He says he got ambushed. That's not a "fistfight."

There is no evidence that Zimmerman was anything but the victim--until he fired a shot. He had the freedom to follow Trayvon. Trayvon could have called the cops. He could have run home. He could have yelled for "help" and run.

So, how did the "cracker" catch the 17 year-old kid?

Maybe, just maybe, he didn't. Maybe it happened just like he said. He got bushwhacked.

rickyp wrote:In their case they'll have all the conflicting statement ZImmerman made and the voice records...

But, the "star witness" was interviewed by the police at the victim's mother's house. They transported her over there. That is not SOP.

Her statement changed.

The prosecution witnesses have done as much (or more) for the defense as they have for the prosecution.

I'm putting the odds at 99:1 of a conviction on 2nd degree murder (you can never tell with a jury, but my guess is "not guilty"). On manslaughter, I think it's (so far) about 10:1. In other words, I think he walks.

Martin was the one being "stalked" ...fair enough. But "stalked" from across the road is one thing, it simply does not allow him to beat the crap out of Zimmerman. Are you trying to tell us if while in Florida and someone is following you, you now have the right to beat the tar out of that person? It was Martin who turned the confrontation into a physical one, it was martin who beat up Zimmerman, the injuries all point to this simple fact. Martin had no marks on him (aside from the gun shot of course) while Zimmerman had his face and back of his head all beat up, facts and common sense are on Zimmermans side.

The whole argument if he had no gun, this would be a non-issue is possibly true, but it simply doesn't matter. Zimmerman had the right to carry the gun and he defended himself with that gun, "what if's" play no part in the case at hand do they?

fate

Seriously, what if he followed the kid? So what?

I wonder how an all female jury would feel about this? Think they might appreciate how vulnerable one feels being followed at night, alone?

fate

You mean to tell me Trayvon could not have run home and done so without a confrontation

He could have. But why should he have to? Didn't he have a right to walk the streets without feeling threatened by a stalker?
Didn't he have a right to stand his ground and confront the man following him?

The all female jury will more than likely have some sympathy for Martins predicament... Whether they get to apply a lesser charge will depend on the judge no?

tom

Zimmerman had the right to carry the gun and he defended himself with that gun, "what if's" play no part in the case at hand do they?

Its a jury case.... So you don't know what, including what ifs, will ultimately sway them.
I'm sure the women are thinking that without the gun Zimmerman wouldn't have had the guts to be following people. And that Martin reacted to a provocation. (more appropriately "over reacted").
They'll understand more than men about feeling vulnerable in the circumstance Martin was in....

It will be hard for them to let Zimmerman entirely off the hook, if they are given alternatives.. And we don't yet know the whole case..

rickyp wrote:fate

Seriously, what if he followed the kid? So what?

I wonder how an all female jury would feel about this? Think they might appreciate how vulnerable one feels being followed at night, alone?

I don't think the jury is going to like the fact that Trayvon called him a "nasty a** cracker" and that the evidence suggests he ambushed Zimmerman.

fate

You mean to tell me Trayvon could not have run home and done so without a confrontation

He could have. But why should he have to? Didn't he have a right to walk the streets without feeling threatened by a stalker?

Gated community, not streets.

"Stalker" is a legal term and I don't think it applies. Feel free to look up FL stalking laws and prove that it does. It's more likely that Trayvon was a nominal trespasser.

Didn't he have a right to stand his ground and confront the man following him?

Verbally? Sure. Physically? I don't see how.

In either case, Martin escalated the situation. It wasn't his gated community. He could have easily left and would still be alive.

The all female jury will more than likely have some sympathy for Martins predicament... Whether they get to apply a lesser charge will depend on the judge no?

Yes to your question.

However, I don't think the jury is going to find him too sympathetic. What were among his last words? The "cracker" bit--five white jurors. It sure makes it sound like Trayvon was willing to have a go at Zimmerman.

So far, I've seen and heard nothing that makes Zimmerman out to be guilty of anything other than being a "wannabe cop."

I also have questions as to why Zimmerman, who appears to be a big guy, was not able to struggle free from Martin, at least to get away from the sidewalk. Why was he so helpless? Why couldn't he roll away from the sidewalk so at least his head did not hit the sidewalk? If he could draw his gun how come he could not throw a punch? I am a little unclear as to how if Martin was on his chest, Zimmerman was able to reach down get his gun and then shoot Martin in the chest? The autopsy said that Martin died from a gunshot from intermediate range (whatever that means, but presumably not point blank) Maybe DF can explain how Zimmeran, with Martin on his chest, was able to reach down to his waist, and then bring the gun back far enough to shoot Martin in the chest. It does not make sense to me. Seems to me that there was some separation at that point. And if there was separation then Zimmerman should not have shot him.

freeman3 wrote:I also have questions as to why Zimmerman, who appears to be a big guy, was not able to struggle free from Martin, at least to get away from the sidewalk. Why was he so helpless?

Again, consider the evidence (so far). It appears that Zimmerman was punched in the face, knocked on his backside, and may have struck his head on the way down. He never looked like a fighter, although he appears to have put on 50 lbs. or so since this started. When you are shocked, it takes some time to get your wits together.

Why couldn't he roll away from the sidewalk so at least his head did not hit the sidewalk?

Again, this is consistent with getting ambushed--no time to react. After he was down, apparently, Trayvon jumped on him (again indicative of wanting to escalate--he could have left).

If he could draw his gun how come he could not throw a punch?

This is the easiest to explain. Based on Mr. Good's testimony (that Trayvon was using "MMA tactics"), Zimmerman's arms were under Trayvon's body. It's impossible to throw a punch from that position, which is why MMA fighters use it. Of course, their opponents are not armed.

Maybe DF can explain how Zimmeran, with Martin on his chest, was able to reach down to his waist, and then bring the gun back far enough to shoot Martin in the chest. It does not make sense to me. Seems to me that there was some separation at that point. And if there was separation then Zimmerman should not have shot him.

If there was significant separation, this is an issue. If the coroner is not specific about distance, Zimmerman may not even testify. We may never know.

fate

Zimmerman's arms were under Trayvon's body. It's impossible to throw a punch from that position

And yet it was possible to draw a weapon and fire?

rickyp wrote:fate

Zimmerman's arms were under Trayvon's body. It's impossible to throw a punch from that position

And yet it was possible to draw a weapon and fire?

Yes.

Get the mental picture.

Trayvon is straddling Zimmerman's chest, pinning his upper arms down with his knees and throwing blows with his hands. Zimmerman may be wriggling, but unless he's trained, he probably can't break free.

However, his lower arms can move--and are located very near the pistol.

Btw, I just saw that the autopsy said he was shot from a distance of 18 inches. That's close range.