Closing arguments in the Zimmerman case
Demagoguery versus rationality.
Appeals to raw emotion versus appeals to reason and logic.
The prosecution versus the defense in the Zimmerman case.
I’ve watched a few excerpts of the arguments in the case, but have relied for the most part on summaries such as this one at Legal Insurrection.
So, which will approach will the six ladies of the jury buy? I have no idea, but I know which one I think should prevail, although that hardly means it will prevail. I continue to fear it will not, and that the power of demagoguery will outshout it.
[NOTE: As for why there are only six jury members in this case, it’s legal in Florida for non-capital cases, although I think it’s a terrible idea when such serious charges and possible penalties are involved. Six people can convict much more readily than twelve because it is easier for them to agree, and a jury of six therefore removes some of the protection for innocent defendants as compared to a jury of twelve.
What’s more, although I don’t know whether there are legal grounds to challenge it, it just seems wrong that this jury is composed of all women. Are women less likely to buy a claim of self-defense? It seems to me that’s possible.]
A truly masterful performance by O’Mara.
I predict there will be a not guilty due to self-defense which means not guilty for Murder 2 and the Manslaughter.
There will be attempts to riot which won’t amount to much. But they are already planned because the race hucksters have a win-win scenario and that is the reason why this case was prosecuted. Heads I win, Tails you lose.
The only possible good consequence is the number of people who this trials wakes up. It will be a “changer” for some people. How many? Probably not that many.
Thanks for that link re the 6 person jury. I agree that it’s a terrible policy.
People I know are really divided on this case and it doesn’t seem to be strictly along party/cultural lines. My hypothesis is that folks’ attitudes correlate to their primary new sources. The people I know who watch a lot of MSM news tend to be so anti-GZ that they think he should be convicted of at least “something” and they are NOT interested in hearing some lawyer explain to them that the State of FL has failed utterly to carry its burden of proof on both Murder 2 and voluntary manslaughter. Their minds are closed and they just don’t want to hear anything that doesn’t comport with the decision they reached days (if not weeks) ago. It’s almost like they “imprinted” like goslings to the MSM narrative.
Now I’m wondering what new sources those 6 ladies on the jury used before they got summoned….
See this cartoon at LI:
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/03/branco-cartoon-manufacturing-crisis/
I think the six jurors can be a positive or a negative, if it was 12 I would predict a hung jury, while I believe it should be a not guilty verdict based on self defense I fear it will be a manslaughter conviction on the mistaken idea that it isn’t that big of a charge. My other prediction is that is will be turned over on appeal when travonns MMA fighting texts and history of fighting are admitted as evidence. There are many appealable aspects of this judges behavior in my opinion as a layman from the great coverage at legal insurrection.
Arrrgh! Wrong cartoon, sorry. Here’s the one I was thinking of:
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/branco-cartoon-fanning-the-flames/
Carl, I agree, most of the people I have talked to that want a conviction say he killed a “little kid”, the constant playing of the years old pictures of a young trayvonn have had a huge effect on public opinion. They think that is what he looked like when he was killed.
The state tried the play to this with the child abuse allegation they attempted.
I’ve grown so savagely cynical that I fully expect a manslaughter conviction. I thought it was over for Zimmerman when the judge allowed it.
I heard on Fox that some journalist in the courtroom tweeted that he saw one juror wipe away a tear when the state was talking about Trayvon being a child who was “just trying to get home.”
Put the low general level of education together with the judge’s obvious bias and the jurors’ fears for their own safety and it looks like poor GZ will be put away for the next 12-15 years.
But I so hope you’re right, Sharpie.
Any sentence is a death sentence……
There’s just no way the jury can find there is NOT reasonable doubt. They have been instructed and must answer in the negative the questions “Is there any reasonable doubt the prosecution’s case is wrong?”
The prosecution’s case was reasonable doubt! Talk about an Obama-eusqe event, up being down and down being up. The prosecution put on a defense!
That leaves the only way the jury can return a guilty verdict is their intentional breach of duty. I don’t find that very possible, especially a unanimous breach of duty. It’s likely there will be one or two jurors whose rational capacity is overwhelmed by either fear of consequences or an emotional decision. But not all six.
sharpie:
Unfortunately, I do believe such a breach is possible by six people. Six isn’t so many, and people can react very emotionally and illogically. I hope I’m wrong about this one.
Feeling like Lurch today.
Make that either they must find in the affirmative there is reasonable doubt, or they must find in the negative there is no reasonable doubt.
Oooof.
I shouldn’t bet against you, Neo. Never have won yet.
You called the election right. I just wish you were one of the women on the jury.
But we’re talking a whole lot of emotional and illogical action.
But then, there’s a lot of around lately, isn’t there. Can it happen even in a process designed to limit it and promote the opposite?
If it does, is there any hope?
As Assistant Village Idiot pointed out on another blog, a seventeen year old who is on trial for murder will almost always be tried as an adult.
Guilty, but will be overturned on appeal.
As Assistant Village Idiot pointed out on another blog, a seventeen year old who has been arrested for killing someone will almost always be tried at trial as an adult.
Guilty, but will be overturned on appeal.
The judge’s behavior yesterday in questioning (interrogating?) Zimmerman about taking the stand and cutting off his counsel, would seem to to be a case for a mistrial. Any lawyers know?
Yet another totalitarian project by Obama was revealed by this case. Apparently the Department of Justice (?) has a group whose purpose is to foment race riots. So if we have riots they were primed by Obama, our Vladimir Putin.
If there was any justice in America all the prosecutors and the judge would be disbarred and jailed.
I can’t predict what will happen, but I do have a wish about the post-trial coverage: I would love to see an MSM reporter question Obama about the case. I would like him to say, Mr. President, I can see you empathizing with the youthful picure of Travon Martin. He was a sweet-looking teen. But, Mr. President, now that you’ve seen the older Trayvon’s Facebook pages, read his emails, and heard about his school suspensions, stolen jewelry, fights, and attempts to buy guns, wouldn’t the more appropriate question be, How did this innocent-looking young man turn into a wannabe thug? Is it possible that his broken family had something to do with it? What about the influence of rappers, some of whom you count as friends? Or perhaps the academics who defend such behaviour as authentic? And finally, Mr. President, how what would you do if one of your daughters brought the 17-year-old Trayvon to the WH and announced that he was her baby daddy? Thank you Mr. President.
sharpie:
Well, this trial was unusual in several respects (not all completely unrelated) that could foster more illogic than usual.
The first is the extraordinary amount of MSM involvement and distortion, race-hustler involvement, and even presidential involvement, to set the scene and the tone.
The second is the judge’s odd affect and seeming bias.
The third is the egregiously emotional and illogic-based behavior of the prosecution and their blatant appeals to gut feelings rather than reasoning. They had no case, so that’s what they went for.
And the fourth is the small size of the jury, highly unusual. That could cut either way, or course. But I am very worried about that aspect, as I wrote above. I’m not sure how the all-woman part plays out, but it might have an effect. Men can certainly be illogical and emotional too, but all women just seems very odd to me.
I AM from FL. and I dont have a degree, but why wasn’t the word VIGILANTE hammered into jury mind. On that point during the commission of a felony(out policing the neighborhood on his own) any results belong to you. I know the state blowed trial on purpose, they refused to prosecute initially
master Matthews:
Mainly because he was not committing a felony and was not a vigilante.
Neighborhood watch patrol is not a felony nor vigilante justice. “Following” a suspect (which it’s not even clear Zimmerman did, after his 911 call) or being armed are not felonies or crimes of any sort, which even the prosecution in this case had to concede. Self-defense would be a full defense to the shooting here.
If Zimmerman had simply walked up to Martin and shot him, the words “felony” and vigilante would be appropriate. But if that had happened, we’d be arguing a very different case, and I would not be advocating for Zimmerman’s acquittal.
Neo wonders if women are liable to be less sympathetic to the act of defending oneself physically violently.
A related question is whether women have a greater wish to reach consensus. If so, it is less likely there will he a holdout and a hung jury and more likely there will be a compromise on a lesser charge.
I know this is very non-PC and I’m probably a traitor to my gender, but women are sometimes not so great at exercising independent judgment, especially when they feel pressured by a group of other women to come to a consensus view.
Rush (on Legal Insurrection) makes your points, Neo, and states if things run true to course the way things are in America are today, the facts won’t matter.
http://legalinsurrection.com/
expat, 4:02 pm — Excellent.
On the judge’s action inquiring of Zimmerman if he wants to testify:
http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/07/12/mark-levin-blasts-%E2%80%98obnoxious-and-pathetic%E2%80%99-judge-debra-nelson-%E2%80%98you%E2%80%99re-way-out-line%E2%80%99
Jim Nicholas, mizpants:
I was wondering whether women or men are more likely to be holdouts on juries. I can’t find any good statistics on it, but this New Yorker piece indicates a troubling trend, which is that holdouts are more likely to be black women, especially in cases involving black defendants. They tend not to trust the police and do not want to convict (note also in the following summary of the 1997 article, the quote from Eric Holder shows him to be very reasonable and astute—whatever happened to the guy?):
See also this.
There is one black female juror in the Zimmerman case. I have no idea whether she fits this profile—just because she’s a black women certainly does not mean she fits the holdout model. But if she does end up going that route, and if the other jurors felt the opposite, it would result in a hung jury.
Actually, I stand corrected (actually, I correct myself). I had remembered reading that one of the jurors was black, but I just checked—she’s a “woman of color, that is, Hispanic. This article says she is black or Hispanic.
As opposed to “white Hispanic” Zimmerman? I can’t quite figure the whole thing out. But I still haven’t been able to find any good stats on whether females are more likely to reach consensus on juries than males.
We kid ourselves if we pretend, as so many do, that the rule of law survives. We are witnesses to its murder.
A finding of guilty for Zimmerman would raise serious questions about concealed carry and self defense. If you have a legal gun and are taking a beating as Zimmerman was, can you shoot your assailant? The law says you can, but a jury may not agree.
The jury members have good reasons to fear for their lives and their families if they return a not guilty verdict. I suspect that will strongly impact their decision. I’m with Gringo, GZ will walk later, not now.
As Andrew McCarthy explains, if a guilty verdict comes in, an appeal for reversible error is very likely because the judge failed to allow the cellphone evidence of Martin.
http://pjmedia.com/andrewmccarthy/2013/07/11/reversible-error-in-zimmerman-before-we-even-get-a-verdict/
But, I’m still sticking with NG.
sharpie:
Yes, I read that McCarthy article earlier, and I deeply respect his opinion. Also, it goes without saying that he knows more about law than I do.
But I’ve been impressed with how difficult it can be to reverse a lower court’s ruling. It really depends on the makeup of the higher court. As far as I know, for error to be a reversible error it has to be one that the appeals court feels would be likely to have changed the verdict.
I think that if this jury finds Zimmerman guilty, nothing would have changed the verdict, and certainly not those text messages.
That said, I think the judge was in reversible error when she excluded them. It was preposterous and should be material enough to have changed the verdict. But I don’t know that any appeals court would be brave enough to rule that way.
I actually think if an appeal is successful it would be more likely to be on grounds of prosecutorial misconduct, perhaps? I really don’t know the fine points of the law on that, so I could be quite wrong, but they withheld that cellphone evidence until very late, which might qualify.
I see, by the way, that Alan Dershowitz agrees that there was some prosecutorial misconduct in the case.
I listened to quite a bit, but not all, of the Defense summation. One thing I did not hear, and wish I had was to remind the jury that a manslaughter conviction carries exactly the same penalty as second degree murder. Thirty years under Florida law because a firearm was involved. If they think that they are somehow compromising by going that route, they should be disabused.
I expect the six member jury is simple expediency due to the difficulty of seating a jury of any size. One certainly has to question whether an all female jury rises to the definition of a “jury of his peers”. Beyond my pay grade.
It will be interesting in the event of a hung jury whether the State will opt to re-try. Doesn’t really matter. I have stated, and firmly believe, that Holder is working on a hate crime indictment as we speak.
One could say that Trayvon Martin’s death was a tragedy; then the state compounded the tragedy. I would say that I am ashamed of my native state, but I have not lived there for over 50 years and did not vote for a single politician who is responsible for this debacle.
Old:
I think they are not allowed to refer to the possible penalties during this phase. I believe that information is kept from the jury by law until the penalty phase, because it is not supposed to influence them in the earlier phase.
I am a bit rusty on this and can’t find it quickly right now by Googling, but I think that may be the way it works.
It’s quite also possible that Zimmerman prevented many tragedies by killing Martin. Who knows what mayhem and murder Trayvon may have gone on to cause? It is clear what path he was on; he loved to fight and when he saw Zimmerman he saw an opportunity to practice his craft and beat somebody. If George’s account is true, Martin attacked him. George didn’t confront him. Martin came at him from behind, initiated the beating, and once he saw the gun told George he was going to die. The most likely tragedy isn’t the death of Trayvon, who, like bullies and thugs everywhere, often meet up with a well deserved end. The tragedy is the loss Zimmerman has experienced and may experience and the further erosion of citizen involvement. The tragedy is the further widening of the racial divide. And as “old” indicates, this may well become a test case for the expansion of federal “hate” prosecutions.
When americans in the past said “kill all the lawyers first”, I really wonder what the heck they were talking about.
GZ’s account of that fateful night is credible and was reenforced by the original decisions made by the local police and DA. BHO stuck his narcissistic nose into the incident, the race hustlers rode into town, and we arrived at this sad intersection. Even if (which I think is likely) he is acquitted upon appeal his life has been turned inside out and the concept of the right to self defense has been damaged. Lawyers and politicians profit, the chattering MSM and the race hustlers profit, the irresponsible get free cellphones, and those who make the wheel turn round are the victims.
Three interesting paragraphs from the man who just might know it all: (See OneCosmos link)
Ideology of any kind collapses this space, which always leads to human catastrophe, because it forces immanent reality to conform to the eschatological fantasy, as we have most recently seen in Obama, e.g., the healthcare system isn’t perfect, therefore it must be destroyed.
The goal of history is beyond history, but the left is defined by the absurd attempt to place the goal within history. This naturally redounds to absolute meaninglessness, but the leftist “cures” this with the intellectual swindle of forcing his idiosyncratic meaning upon history.
This has always been the Marxist strategy, i.e., to destroy existing institutions because they do not adequately reflect paradise on earth. In Niemeyer’s succinct formulation, it is either nothingness or paradise.
Swindle begats swindle.
Are women less likely to buy a claim of self-defense? It seems to me that’s possible.
Neo, the self defense interviews with women clients and candidates basically showed that the inclination was for women to believe in society’s doctrine that using violence makes you the same as a criminal: a bad guy. Males were more inclined to resist societal indoctrination on this score.
Both had problems believing that violence was not X, but just a neutral tool.
A speculation:
Women are the primary consumers of tv cop shows & detective novels.
Somebody in them is always guilty. So there’s always closure.
Carrying that over into the jury room, the jury will think they haven’t done their job unless they find a bad guy and say Guilty as charged.
Manslaughter.
The George Zimmerman trial is, IMO the most important trial since the Scopes trial of the 1920’s and of far more importance than the O.J. Simpson trial, as it indicates both a reversal of discrimination and a declaration that the right to self-defense is now conditional and determinative, by race.
Up until the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the conditions entailed in the Emmett Till murder of 1955 prevailed through much of America. The bar to convict whites of the murder of blacks was quite high. That has, with the Zimmerman trial now been exactly reversed. The right to self-defense is no longer a given. It is now conditional upon the race of the involved and a mortal threat must now be provable by hard, incontrovertible evidence and independent confirmation.
As to which approach the six ladies of the jury buy, rests the judgement of the fitness of women to sit in judgement. Will reason or the appeal to emotional demagoguery prevail? If conviction, then reason has been rejected. If a hung jury, then equality with the vagaries of men are indicated. And if a verdict of not guilty is rendered, then as a gender, women have indicated that they possess the mental toughness to fully participate in society’s greatest tests.
I also agree with Jim Nicholas that if conviction is upheld then the urge to reach consensus and compromise will have been the overriding factor responsible for the verdict.
As to the Judge’s nonjudicial bias, it strains credulity to presuppose otherwise.
Sharpie opines, “the only way the jury can return a guilty verdict is their intentional breach of duty. I don’t find that very possible”
I would remind him that, “No one has ever gone broke underestimating the moral fiber of his fellow man”
Gringo opines, “Guilty, but will be overturned on appeal.”
That’s certainly possible and I wonder if that wasn’t the goal of both the Obama administration and the State of FL all along? it would neatly achieve all of their objectives.
And as physicsguy wonders, the Judge’s behavior certainly supports a mistrial. Again, is this accidental?
Expat @ 4:02, nice fantasy.
Neo, we are well past the point of the judge ‘seeming’ to be biased. It’s palpable and unapologetic, which may be entirely intentional, though her demeanor does not appear to support that level of nuance.
I agree with ‘master Matthews’, the prosecution’s failure to assign the label of VIGILANTE to Zimmerman indicates a seminal strategic failure and, given the prosecutions consistent appeal to demagoguery, makes neo’s factual rebuttal irrelevant.
Don Carlos is entirely correct that, we are all witnesses to the murder of rule by law. And, that is entirely in keeping with the left’s agenda.
There is zero possibility that either the prosecutors or the judge will be disbarred, much less jailed and yes, that is an indication of the degree of injustice in America today. Not that similar injustice did not prevail in the past, as it certainly did, look to the Emmet Till trial for confirmation. But today it is publicized for ALL to see and that is a critical difference in public acceptance of injustice.
Sharpie observes that, “If George’s account is true, Martin attacked him. “ That is key but ultimately only relevant if reasonable doubt is indicated. Which there is no doubt of and it matters not whether Zimmerman profiled Martin and unwisely followed him. As Martin had no valid rationale for attacking Zimmerman and there is no evidence to support any claim that Zimmerman attacked Martin. In addition, the only eyewitness unequivocally supports Zimmerman’s claim that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, while Zimmerman’s injuries certainly are commensurate with a reasonable fear that his life was at stake. To assume that Martin would stop short of fatal harm to Zimmerman is to presume omniscience by Zimmerman and to ask him to stake his life upon wishful thinking.
Darrell @ 32:16 is correct that, “Any sentence is a death sentence ” and that has much larger societal implications. We now live under a regime that has unapologetically subsumed the rule of law to political correctness and will unhesitatingly use that tactic to increase its power.
If the right to self-defense is not an ‘unalienable right’ then nothing can be said to be.
This is the worst legal atrocity I’ve even seen in my life. There should have never been any charges filed against Zimmerman. It was a clear-cut case of self-defense. The police on the scene could clearly see that, because of his injuries. That’s why they let him go on the night of the shooting without charging him with a crime.
And make no mistake about it, it is the right to self-defense itself that is on trial here. The right to self-defense implies self-ownership by the individual. The totalitarian state cannot tolerate that. In their view, the individual is the property of the state, and has no rights other than those granted by the state, which can revoke them at will.
If an individual has a right to defend himself against a lone assailant, he also has a right to defend himself from a tyrannical government, which is the plain intent of the Second Amendment. Again, a totalitarian state cannot tolerate that.
Within a couple of weeks after the incident, the Obama JustUs Department swung into action, and sought to make an example of Zimmerman. He had killed one of Eric Holder’s “people”, after all. The JustUs Department supported racial protests organized by the likes of the notorious race-baiter Al Sharpton. The lapdog media fell into line, and have been lying and distorting the facts about this case from the beginning.
So the Federal government and their media whores have used this case to deliberately increase racial tensions and outright hatred. Why? What’s in it for them? I can only assume that they are hoping for an outbreak of violence, in order to justify declaring a state of emergency and assuming even more dictatorial powers.
And I have a real problem with the all-female jury. I’ve never heard of such a thing. Whatever happened to “a jury of your peers”?
Geoffrey Britain Says:
July 12th, 2013 at 9:34 pm
Well said, and I agree completely.
I wrote my comment before I saw yours, by the way. I’m a slow writer.
Geoffrey Britain: “If the right to self-defense is not an ‘unalienable right’ then nothing can be said to be.”
Yes, we now have lawfare. Whites cannot defend themselves from attacks by blacks and the West cannot defend themselves from attacks by jihadis. This case is representative of the use of the law to put the WASPs and their economic/political systems in their place.
And then there is the background of threats against Zimmerman and the jurors. Is that a bunch of loud mouths making idle threats or does it amount to real threats of assassination, race riots, and more. These kinds of threats are not new. My brother was a witness in a case against a black many years ago. He was bombarded with telephone callers who threatened to burn his house, blow him away, kill his children, and more. Fortunately, he is a brave man who did his duty as he saw it. The threats turned out to be bombast, but they could have “turned” a less courageous man.
IMO, Zimmerman made a mistake in following Martin. However, we know his neighborhood had a record of break-ins. Zimmerman was peeved that the “punks” were getting away with it. He followed because he didn’t want another possible unsolved break-in.
Martin made a mistake when he decided to confront the “crazy ass cracka.” Not only did he confront him, but he sized him up (Zimmerman was much smaller than Martin) and decided to “whup his ass.” That was his second big and fatal mistake. The very fact that we allow legal concealed carry should make anyone cautious about getting in the face of another human. It’s too late for Martin to learn that lesson. Three mistakes. One by Zimmerman, two by Martin. It led to a terrible tragedy.
Now a man’s freedom rests with whether the jury believes that Zimmerman had a real reason to fear that he might be killed or severely injured unless he used his gun. Having heard the tape of his calls for help and the testimony of the man who saw Zimmerman being pounded by Martin, I believe it. But then I might not see things the way the jury does.
Zimmerman and Martin – they represent the state of racial politics in the USA. Maybe both sides could learn some lessons from this tragedy. I’m not holding my breath.
Sadly, no matter what the verdict is in this case George Zimmerman’s life has changed.
And not for the better; even if he is found not guilty he will spend the rest of his life looking over his shoulder, if not in hiding because of, yes, someone used the word, vigilante.
There will be those who feel it is their duty to “take justice into their own hands” if Zimmerman is found not guilty. George and his family will be in danger.
After all, the cries of “no justice, no peace” aren’t just an empty slogan to some.
J.J. formerly Jimmy J. Says:
July 12th, 2013 at 10:31 pm
Yes, you would think so, but this puts me in mind of a post at Ace’s yesterday:
Lois Lerner Embraces Theory That The Process Is The Punishment
Likewise, the prospect of being forced to spend the rest of your life trapped in the legal system (with the attendant bankruptcy) might cause people to think twice about exercising their right to self-defense.
“Now a man’s freedom rests with whether the jury believes that Zimmerman had a real reason to fear that he might be killed or severely injured unless he used his gun.”
When Thomas Jefferson observed that, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” he was not merely referring to the obvious; i.e. the willingness of patriots to die for liberty. He was, IMO also referring to the willingness of patriots to sacrifice their lives for liberty, i.e. to endure imprisonment for liberty.
We do not have to accept the left’s intimidation, that intimidation consisting of the fear of imprisonment. Zimmerman or anyone else so unjustly imprisoned, would be as surely a political prisoner as Solzhenitsyn. And, in enduring that unjust imprisonment, we transform that unjust punishment into a clarion call for true justice and turn that personal negative into a social positive.
Geoffrey Britain @ 1:03 said:
“We do not have to accept the left’s intimidation, that intimidation consisting of the fear of imprisonment.”
This is the key to everything. Somewhere there is a leader who can rally us and put an end to this leftist intimidation. The Lois Lerners and Eric Holders and Valerie Jarretts of the U.S. must start paying for their crimes. Impeachment? Monster lawsuits? Where there’s a will, there’s a way.
“Zimmerman or anyone else so unjustly imprisoned, would be as surely a political prisoner as Solzhenitsyn. And, in enduring that unjust imprisonment, we transform that unjust punishment into a clarion call for true justice and turn that personal negative into a social positive.”
What is positive about being a starving tattooed with a number prisoner of the gulag the left will gladly impose??? Do not let a fascist thug touch you. Die rather than submit. I will endure no unjust punishment. I often find wisdom in your posts GB, but what you are suggesting is suicidal and utter surrender.
NO WAY! Kill me, my children, and my grandchildren first. We will not submit to ‘enduring’.
Renaissance wrote a song about Solzhenitsyn:
“Mother Russia.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRNk72WJim0
Let’s consider for a moment that we don’t actually know what happened on the day Zimmerman killed Martin.
Regardless of whether we choose to believe the prosecution’s version of events or the defense’s, we still have an especially thorny and crucial dilemma here.
Presumed innocence is unfortunately not adequate in a self-defense case with no witnesses. If it were, any murderer could kill someone, confess to the killing and claim self defense. In the absence of eyewitnesses, there would be no reason — according to the fully presumed innocence dictum — to even arrest the killer.
It would then be entirely up to the state to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the shooter did NOT reasonably fear death or grave bodily harm.
Proving a negative is always either difficult or impossible, but in these cases, we could be called on to prove a negative that rests on determining an individual’s state of mind, something no one could credibly claim to know. In other words, it’s a case that’s virtually impossible to make.
Fortunately, common sense is much more likely to prevail on the Martin murder trial jurors. And common sense in this case means the defendant bears some burden of evidence. He must demonstrate to some extent that he killed in self-defense.
Doubts about whether Zimmerman did NOT reasonably fear for grave injury or death are indeed reasonable, as far as I can tell, so it seems like the man will be acquitted.
This is unfortunate, if inevitable, as it will lead only to more mayhem, more senseless murders, given the great difficulty the state will have in proving they are NOT self-defense cases…
Silencio Dogood:
Your comment demonstrates ignorance, both of the law and of the facts and evidence in the Zimmerman trial.
All the evidence—and there is a lot of it—points to self-defense. None points away from it. Zimmerman is not merely pulling self-defense out of thin air.
Self-defense has been a defense to manslaughter and murder charges for a very long time, and it’s not as though tons of people are getting away with murder because of it. There has to be evidence for self-defense in order for a jury to find it when someone is killed; it is not just a default assumption in a murder or manslaughter case. Our criminal justice system is predicated on the idea that the accused is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Neo: There are no witnesses to either the shooting or the beginning of the altercation. There is no physical evidence whatsoever that Zimmerman had a reasonable fear of grave injury or death. His injuries were slight enough that he required no immediate medical care.
We have Zimmerman’s father saying he believes his son was crying for help, but Martin’s father saying it was his son, and not a shred of corroborating evidence for either side, ie a wash in terms of evidence.
We have one witness, Mr. Good, saying he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman and flailing his arms. But he also said he wasn’t sure what he saw AND that he didn’t actually see Martin hitting Zimmerman.
Good’s testimony would at least “point toward” reasonable fear on Zimmerman’s part, except that the incontrovertible physical evidence points convincingly away from that. If Martin was giving Zimmerman and “MMA-style” beatdown, Zimmerman’s face would have been like that of a person who has received an MMA-style beatdown. But his face wasn’t like that at all. His nose was a little swollen, requiring no immediate care. No other swelling, cuts or abrasions were on his face and the contusions on the back of his head were minor, requiring no immediate medical attention.
Zimmerman’s own statement is easily impeached because his record of lying about bail money and whether he knew about self-defense law shows that he will change his story to suit his defensive needs.
Your assertion that there is “a lot” of evidence is without foundation. There is almost no evidence at all.
As for the law, I’m not sure which side you’re taking on the question I posed. On one hand, you acknowledge that “There has to be evidence for self-defense in order for a jury to find it when someone is killed.”
On the other, you note exactly as I did that suspects are innocent until proven guilty.
If Zimmerman is presumed innocent, it is not necessary for him to provide any evidence about anything. Rather, it is up to the state to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
As noted, common sense prevails among juries and Zimmerman’s defense counsel knows this and, therefore, has attempted to marshall evidence that Zimmerman had reasonable fear of death or grave injury.
And there is yet another wrinkle in this particular case: we have some evidence as well that Martin had reason to fear death or grave injury. In fact, we know beyond any doubt that Zimmerman was fully capable of killing Martin. We also know that Zimmerman had a motive for attacking Martin
What right to self-defense did Martin have? At what point was he permitted to stand his ground and, as Florida law permits, use lethal force?
Of course he had exactly the same right as Zimmerman, so unless we know exactly how the altercation began, we can’t say whether Zimmerman’s fear was reasonable. If Zimmerman initiated the altercation, even if he then began to lose the fight and did, in his own mind, begin to fear grave injury or death, such fear would be unreasonable.
As for the history of self-defense defense, it is indeed old, but you can search that history and find very, very few cases, if any, of where it is applied to a circumstance in which the killer pursues an unarmed, law-abiding person, then shoots him dead. In most cases, there are witnesses and/or other evidence of reasonable fear.
He’s going to get charged with manslaughter, without a doubt.
These six white women on the jury know full well they will be targeted for rape and death in the twitterverse with race hustlers like Spike Lee tweeting their addresses for the would-be mobs to come and get them and their families.
Also, it doesn’t help that they have a liberal judge in the tank for Martin. A non-biased judge would actually try to ensure what would need to be established in a murder 2 or manslaughter verdict. This judge will not, figuring the more low information the jurors are, the worse off for Zimmerman.
In an attempt to save their skins and the skins of their families, the jurors will find him guilty of the lesser charge. It still might not work, as the Left has deemed Zimmerman fully guilty and anything less than the death penalty (most low information voters out there think this is actually an option) a slap in the face.
lacune: he’s charged with murder. Do you mean you believe he’ll be convicted of manslaughter?
Any conviction is a death sentence for Zimmerman, so any appeal will be moot. If convicted, Zimmerman will be shanked within one week of being processed into the general pop. I don’t think even protective custody would save Zimmerman.
When one side follows the existing rules (i.e., the rule of law) and the opposing side does not, the outcome is certain.
Taqqiya is operationally not limited to Muslims.
RickZ: What’s the basis of your forecast?
My impression is that a prison murder includes a substantial payoff for the murderer as the risks are considerable.
I wouldn’t guess that there are very many principled murderers available who would take the time and risk to shank Zimmerman merely because they felt he deserved it.
Not saying I know this, as I don’t of course, but I just don’t see the logic for why we can expect Zimmerman to get shanked.
Now see this re Rule of Law:
http://gonzalolira.blogspot.com/2010/10/coming-middle-class-anarchy.html
if someone were bashing my head against the pavement while pounding me with his fists, and I had a gun…. you bet I would shoot. Martin was not unarmed. He had a weapon, his fists the concrete and the advantage of positioning, pinning his victim down with no escape. Zimmerman screamed for mercy. None came.
I am female and self defense is of paramount importance to me. Women are taught that they need to learn how to defend themselves in this dangerous world. I hope this female jury has reason, courage and respect for the right of defending against an enemy. America is no longer defended against the enemy, must we all individually roll over and die, too?
Kit: Did Martin have a right to use force to defend himself against Zimmerman? If not, why not?
And if you are assuming Martin attacked first, what is the basis of that assumption?
parker,
While I certainly understand your “Give me liberty or give me death” stand and even personally share it, I wasn’t speaking of those still free. I was speaking of Zimmerman and any other future political prisoners and, there will now be more political prisoners in America.
Once incarcerated, what can be positive about being a starving, tattooed with a number prisoner of the left’s gulag is our reaction. We always choose our reaction and it is our most basic liberty. As Victor Frankl, Auschwitz survivor, author and psychoanalyst realized while in hell, “even in the degradation and abject misery of a concentration camp, Frankl was able to exercise the most important freedom of all – the freedom to determine one’s own attitude and spiritual well-being. No sadistic Nazi SS guard was able to take that away from him or control the inner-life of Frankl’s soul.”
Despite their flaws, Ghandi, Martin Luther King and yes, Nelson Mandela served as societal focal points for the moral rejection of entrenched injustice in their societies.
That kind of moral stand, while imprisoned… has tremendous impact upon essentially fair-minded people. And the majority of liberals, regardless of the indoctrination they have unwittingly been subjected to, are basically well-meaning people.
A moral stand against the type of injustice that we know the left is capable of has more potential to awaken liberals than any amount of reason and logic because it is an emotional issue and liberal political support is the source of the left’s political power.
Finally, your children and grandchildren have the same right to self-determination as you demand for yourself. It is neither your nor anyone else’s place to decide for them.
“Did Martin have a right to use force to defend himself against Zimmerman? If not, why not?
And if you are assuming Martin attacked first, what is the basis of that assumption?” Silencio Dogood
By definition, the aggressor is not ‘defending’.
The basis to the assumption that Martin attacked first was his statement that Zimmerman had ‘found trouble’. Martin wasn’t a ‘talker’ he was a doer and his reaction of physical aggression to being followed is entirely in keeping with everything we have learned of Martin. That alone introduces reasonable doubt. Zimmerman’s claim to self-defense easily meets that standard.
Silencio: Did Mitsu send you here?
The answers to your questions about evidence can be found in the trial. Unfortunately for your view, most of us are familiar with it.
So we don’t have to waste time going over it. I know it, you know it, I know you know it, and so does everybody else.
Hey, maybe it’s John Dunne.
Anyway, just for grins, the severity of the wounds is not an issue. It is not necessary to be wounded at all to have a legitimate case of self-defense according to Florida law as explained in the trial–with which we are familiar.
But, to be prolix until my coffee wears off, fear is of the future. Thus, the severity or even the existence of the wounds is irrelevant. The question is whether Zimmerman had a well-founded fear of what was going to happen in the next moments.
Remember the Aubrey acronym: EKBA. “Everybody Knows Better Already”.
“we have some evidence as well that Martin had reason to fear death or grave injury. In fact, we know beyond any doubt that Zimmerman was fully capable of killing Martin.” Silencio Dogood
Nice attempt at obfuscation. At the time of the confrontation, Martin had no idea whatsoever what Zimmerman was capable of and Zimmerman’s older, shorter and pudgy body gave no reason for Martin to fear grave injury much less death.
It’s fairly certain that Martin saw this simply as a street fight that he could easily win.
What Zimmerman reasonably believed to be the case is the heart of the issue here and he found himself near helpless, in a potentially life threatening situation, being pummeled by an attacker whom he had every right to suppose might well be a criminal and who gave no indication that he would stop before Zimmerman was gravely injured or even killed.
In fact, Martin continued to hit Zimmerman even after Zimmerman started to yell for help, showing no mercy. Nor is the claim that it was Martin who was yelling for help credible. In a fight, the one winning doesn’t scream for help.
This situation is the essence of when lethal self-defense is justified.
Let’s allow Silencio to waste his time, not ours.
He knows better.
Responding to him does not actually mean anything to him,no matter how accurate one’s facts or logic.
EKBA. Including him.
Here are a couple of good posts by Francis W. Porretto:
Just In Case You’re Not Yet Thoroughly Sick Of It…
Protection Rackets, 2013 A.D.
The debate is clear: reason vs. emotion; freedom vs. “determinism” or “environmentalism.” You can see it everywhere. You can see it right here in this post-and-comments.
Ricki said that this trial was about the end of self-defense as a legal option.
Well, there is ample precedent for that. In the United Kingdom there is no longer any right to self-defense, even in your own home. If you defend yourself with any weapon, you are legally vulnerable; if you defend your home and yourself with a gun you are toast.
Many of our formerly cherished traditions were derived from British culture. Now, they are in the process of destroying most of their traditions and I expect we are following along.
I like Silencio’s posts. I don’t necessarily agree with him, but he is articulate and he makes some good points without resorting to insult. And it’s good to have a dissenting voice. It forces us to think harder about our own assumptions.
“Your assertion that there is “a lot” of evidence is without foundation. There is almost no evidence at all.” – Silencio Dogwood
No evidence IS defense evidence. In this case there is almost no evidence pointing to either one therefore the defense should prevail. There have been other cases with no physical eye witnesses, but the forensic and other evidence provided the clues as to whether a Self-Defense claim was valid or not. If there isn’t eye witness, physical or forensic evidence, the state has no leg to stand on.
Cold Case Files, Forensic Files, Mystery Detectives and several other TV programs have shown how self-defense claims may be destroyed without any eye witnesses through the other evidence. (My mother likes them.)
The state should ALWAYS prove what happened for a conviction to occur. A defendant should never have to prove their innocence to a charge. If the prosecution doesn’t have the evidence may mean a guilty person got away, but that our law prevailed.
Your posts basically state Zimmerman must prove his defense without the prosecution proving theirs.
“And if you are assuming Martin attacked first, what is the basis of that assumption?”
“Good’s testimony would at least “point toward” reasonable fear on Zimmerman’s part”
Your attitude about Zimmerman’s injuries is worrisome. “His nose was a little swollen, requiring no immediate care. No other swelling, cuts or abrasions were on his face and the contusions on the back of his head were minor, requiring no immediate medical attention.”
What is the exact amount of injury should happen and where in the law is this damage specified? It is the law that must specify this, not our feelings that he wasn’t injured enough for self-defense. Self-defense can also be true if someone has NO injuries to them whatsoever.
“What right to self-defense did Martin have? At what point was he permitted to stand his ground and, as Florida law permits, use lethal force?” Self-defense and Stand Your Ground are two differently defined areas of Florida law, they are not the same so don’t conflate them as equals.
Let’s say that Martin prevailed and Zimmerman were dead. Still the same set of other eye and ear witnesses. Martin could claim self-defense then since Zimmerman had a gun. The prosecution would still have to prove Martin went beyond this defense standard in order to convict him.
“In fact, we know beyond any doubt that Zimmerman was fully capable of killing Martin.” Now we do, after the incident.
“we have some evidence as well that Martin had reason to fear death or grave injury.” Martin had no way of knowing Zimmerman was armed. If he had, he wasn’t bright in getting into a confrontation with someone who was armed.
Rachel Jenteal may have provided the evidence you speak of. “In earlier statements—including a letter to Fulton and a recorded phone interview with family lawyer/advisor Crump—she had said that Martin had first asked Zimmerman, “Why you following me,” to which Zimmerman had responded, she said, “What are you talking about?”
On the stand Jeantel claimed that she had hear Zimmerman say not the defensive phrase, “What are you talking about?” but much more confrontational phrase, “What are you doing around here?”
Whether the jury will see these inconsistencies as being substantially different we’ll see, but both statements indicate Martin started the confrontation at least verbally. Zimmerman never spoke to Martin first whether he was following or not.
“He must demonstrate to some extent that he killed in self-defense.” Evidence other than his statements can show this if the prosecution has it.
You seem to want to play the “What if” game with the two reversed, but that is irrelevant to the trial and evidence. There are other cases where I believed the defendant was guilty and got off and others I thought innocent but were convicted. It isn’t up to any of us here to determine, just those six in Florida.
Zimmerman would be a great target for a prisoner to get his bones in prison to gain respect. It’s just the way prison is. Dahmer bit it, that pedophile priest in Massachusetts who was strangled also bought the farm in prison.
There is a hierarchy of crimes in prison. Normally, Zimmerman would have no problem with being a murderer. It’s just his ‘crime’ and kangaroo trial has been so public, so heavily infused with race, and prison is so racial. You’d have to be guilty by reason of insanity to think Zimmerman has a snowball’s chance in Miami of surviving a sentence at a maximum security prison (which is where he would end up “to send a message”).
Silencio Dogwood:
Not going to waste a lot of time dealing with you. But just as an example of an answer to your questions, I’ll take one, “if you are assuming Martin attacked first, what is the basis of that assumption?”
First of all, even if in fact there had not been any evidence for that assumption (although in fact there was evidence for that assumption); it would have been the prosecution who must prove that Zimmerman had attacked first. And even that proof of Zimmerman attacking first wouldn’t have been enough to prove that Zimmerman didn’t ultimately act in self-defense when he shot Martin.
However, I will go back to the facts and answer the question you posited, which is why do we assume Martin attacked first. Here’s a list of reasons that all point in that direction. None are determinative in and of themselves, but they all point in that direction and what’s more there is no credible evidence that points in the opposite direction:
Martin gained the upper hand in the fight; was on top of Zimmerman
Martin had no wounds or abrasions other than those he would have acquired in punching Zimmerman
Martin had grass stains on knees and none on other parts; Zimmerman had stains on back
Zimmerman’s injuries consistent with being punched in face, etc.
Martin had 4 minutes to get home between Zimmerman’s 911 call and the fight, plenty of time if he really was in any sort of fear of Zimmerman or anyone
Jeantel’s testimony was inconsistent, but her original testimony (more likely to represent some sort of truth) about the initial confrontation between Martin and Zimmerman was consistent with Zimmerman’s defense and the idea that Martin started it
Zimmerman consistently told the same story of the encounter, including the way he described it right after the fight, and it was consistent with Martin’s attacking him. He never had to frame or mold the story to fit in with the advice of counsel; his original story held up.
His martial arts instructor testified that he was a terrible fighter.
His 911 call that night indicates he is going to wait for the police to come. Zimmerman knows that the police are on their way, so why would he suddenly attack Martin?
The attack occurred not far from where the 911 call was made, indicating Zimmerman was not following Martin at that point and that it was Martin lying in wait to attack Zimmerman.
Also, although the jury didn’t hear this evidence (only because the judge excluded it incorrectly, IMHO), Martin had a huge history of fighting. Not only fighting, but fighting and bragging about it.
Those are just the highlights.
neo.
Silencio knows this. He hopes we don’t.
You can easily tell people who are wrong because of being misinformed or uninformed from people who know what’s going on but attempt to mislead.
Silencio has done his homework. He’s in the latter group.
A question which would not have occurred to anybody two years ago:
Might one or more jurors fear the feds? IRS, FBI, NSA? Medical records. I think the IRS released something like 100,000 SSANs recently. Just an accident. Easy enough to throw a deliberate outing into the next error batch.
After the TX law firm representing a State Dept whistleblower suffered a burglary on the weekend, State was being asked on Monday if it was their guys. Never have occurred to anybody two years ago.
Many excellent points…
I just want to highlight one notion that keeps popping up:”Jury of ones peers.”
Modern writers are plainly unaware of exactly the term meant — it’s a thousand years old, at least.
In that era, priests were judged solely by priests/bishops/ etc… the First Estate.
The nobility was judged solely by fellow peers … no commoner could sit in judgment over his class superiors. This is still true in England. A peer of the realm can ALWAYS have have their (substantial) cases heard by the House of Lords. For obvious reasons, this happens only rarely. (This, BTW, is the logical backdrop for American impeachment hearings in the Senate.) So much for the Second Estate.
The Third Estate, the common man, is not to be tried with the nobility sitting in judgment. Since American law strictly prohibits a noble class (sorry prince 0bama) — the phrase only has legacy meaning.
The Catholic Church is constantly getting in hot water because prelates are STILL acting as if they can solely judge the sins of the clergy, that the common man “just wouldn’t understand/ proffer God’s mercy.” And, on the record, they NEVER convict.
The “jury of ones peers” came up with King Charles — when he was tried by Parliament — thence executed by ax. He bitterly declaimed that — as monarch — he was not being tried by peers. (His position, being legally unique.) The counter argument was that he, as king, was being tried by an institution, the national legislature — Parliament — the ONLY institution that was peer to his royal status. For, under his construct, any king would be absolute.
Which is what we have with Obama with a Chicago’d Senate.
blert:
Right before seeing your comment I wrote this post, which deals with some of the issues connected with a jury of one’s “peers.”
S here can only profit from Zimmerman’s fate. After all, it is not like they suffer. They are not the ones that suffer. They are the enforcers of the New Order and their duty is to humanity, in changing people like Zimmerman into following the “Code”.
Neo, I’m happy to take the time to rebut your remarks one by one. That’s how I roll:
“It would have been the prosecution who must prove that Zimmerman had attacked first. And even that proof of Zimmerman attacking first wouldn’t have been enough to prove that Zimmerman didn’t ultimately act in self-defense when he shot Martin.”
But in a previous post, you wrote: “There has to be evidence for self-defense in order for a jury to find it when someone is killed.”
So you’ve already conceded that point. Or you misspoke. Which is it?
“Martin gained the upper hand in the fight; was on top of Zimmerman.”
This is supposition and contradicts your portrayal of Martin as a practiced fighter. Which is it? Was this an unfair match between a practiced fighter and a tubby martial-arts reject, or a fair fight in which gaining the upper hand would reasonably indicate aggression. You can’t have it both ways.
“Martin had no wounds or abrasions other than those he would have acquired in punching Zimmerman.”
This assumes Zimmerman would have to have attacked Martin with his fists. That’s not the scenario the prosecution presented, nor one that makes any sense. A far more plausible scenario would be that Zimmerman sought to perform a citizens arrest or something like it and either brandished his gun or verbally threatened to use it and/or grabbed Martin in an attempt to detain him.
“Martin had grass stains on knees and none on other parts; Zimmerman had stains on back”
Again, this only shows that, at some point, Martin was on his knees and Zimmerman was on his back. It says nothing about how or why the altercation began.
“Zimmerman’s injuries consistent with being punched in face, etc.”
Zimmerman had a nose contusion and no other visible facial injuries. Again, it is mere supposition to assert that because Martin at some point had the upper hand in the fight, he initiated the conflict. Zimmerman neither sought no required any immediate medical care. His injuries, therefore, are evidence that the fight never reached a point at which he should have had a reasonable fear of grave injury or death.
If you assert that reasonableness in this case depends entirely on Zimmerman’s state of mind — something only the defendant knows — then there is really no point in discussing the issue. I think the jury has more common sense than that. They will insist on evidence that Zimmerman’s fear was reasonable by some objective standard, rather than his own state of mind alone.
“Martin had 4 minutes to get home between Zimmerman’s 911 call and the fight, plenty of time if he really was in any sort of fear of Zimmerman or anyone.”
Logically, the same applies to Zimmerman. If he feared grave injury or death, he could have and would have fled. He had plenty of time to do so. He did the opposite.
Zimmerman’s phone call tapes establish that he was aggressively pursuing Martin and was in an aggravated state of mind. Jeantel’s testimony merely establishes that Martin DIDN’T KNOW why Zimmerman was following him. Under the circumstances, it is not plausible that Martin would necessarily fear Martin enough to flee. Four minutes is hardly enough time for Martin to determine whether Zimmerman was a killer with a gun, a drug dealer, a pervert or a friendly neighbor who only coincidentally appeared to be following him.
I have to say, the willingness to make huge presumptive leaps about what Martin and Zimmerman could have or should have done shows exactly which side is demagoguing here.
“Jeantel’s testimony was inconsistent, but her original testimony (more likely to represent some sort of truth) about the initial confrontation between Martin and Zimmerman was consistent with Zimmerman’s defense and the idea that Martin started it.”
I don’t see that at all. Her testimony never address the start of the altercation in any way. To nakedly assert that it does is demagoguery, not rationality.
“Zimmerman consistently told the same story of the encounter, including the way he described it right after the fight, and it was consistent with Martin’s attacking him.”
Zimmerman told his brother and one other person that there was a struggle for the gun. He did not tell the police there was a struggle for the gun. So he didn’t consistently tell the same story. But, yeah, Zimmerman does indeed give an account of events in which he acted in self-defense. The jury and any objective observer has plenty of reason to discount his version of events.
“He never had to frame or mold the story to fit in with the advice of counsel; his original story held up.”
Not true. He didn’t take the stand and he shifted on the struggle for the gun. He also lied about bail and about whether he understood self-defense laws.
“His martial arts instructor testified that he was a terrible fighter.”
Not sure why you think that’s relevant, but it does contradict your previous assertion that Martin’s getting the upper hand is evidence that he initiated the conflict.
His 911 call that night indicates he is going to wait for the police to come. Zimmerman knows that the police are on their way, so why would he suddenly attack Martin?
“The attack occurred not far from where the 911 call was made, indicating Zimmerman was not following Martin at that point and that it was Martin lying in wait to attack Zimmerman.”
Exactly the opposite. Zimmerman had no reason to exit his truck. He is on tape saying Martin was menacing him while he was in the truck. If he felt menaced and was waiting for police to arrive, he would have waited in the truck.
Why would Zimmerman attack Martin? It is extremely plausible that Zimmerman sought to detain Martin by force. He clearly indicated on the taped phone calls that he feared Martin would escape and that he perceived Martin’s actions as those of a criminal in the act of committing a crime. There is motive, opportunity and circumstantial evidence that Zimmerman left his truck, against police instructions, for the purpose of ensuring that Martin was detained.
“Also, although the jury didn’t hear this evidence (only because the judge excluded it incorrectly, IMHO), Martin had a huge history of fighting.”
I am not aware of a “huge history of fighting.” In fact, I have seen exactly zero evidence of fighting. There is only a very small amount of hearsay. Please present that evidence, if it exists.
On the other hand, Zimmerman had a restraining order — incontrovertible evidence of hot-headedness.
“Not only fighting, but fighting and bragging about it.”
Again, this is hearsay and considerably less substantial than the evidence that Zimmerman was violence prone.
Let Silencio waste his time.
EKBA. Aubrey’s acronym for “Everybody Knows Better Already”.
I sometimes wonder if I should have a comma after “better”. but do you put commas in acronyms?
Just for grins, silencio, the evidence of Martin and Fighting was not admissible. Apparently the judge thought it could not be authenticated.
We know this. You know this. We know you know this.
Give it up. St. Saul presumed you’d be talking to ignoramuses.
Richard: What is the evidence about Martin and fighting? A few tweets?
Martin had no school record of violence of any kind. That’s remarkable, actually, given the likelihood that even timid young men will get involved in violence in school.
Additionally, Martin had no police record of violence — none whatsoever.
If he was some sort of fighter, why is there only the third-hand hearsay of a twitter “pointing to” fighting?
By contrast, Zimmerman’s record is well-established.
Anyway, the jury acquitted Zimmerman. I tend to disagree with the verdict, but I didn’t see everything the jury saw, so I can’t give my disagreement much weight…
Silencio:
Not only was Trayvon in plenty of fights and bragged about it, but he was suspended from school for a number of very interesting reasons:
By the way, you might be a bit behind the times. Zimmerman was just found not guilty.
Silencio: “His injuries, therefore, are evidence that the fight never reached a point at which he should have had a reasonable fear of grave injury or death.”
At the point where Zimmerman shot Martin his injuries were: “…a number of injuries to his head and face when they scuffled, according to a medical report from the gunman’s family doctor.
His family physician said Zimmerman had a pair of lacerations to the back of his head, two black eyes, a minor back injury and a “closed fracture” of his nose”
Reference: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/george-zimmerman-suffered-injuries-alleged-scuffle-trayvon-martin-report-article-1.1078882
There was no indication that Martin was going to stop pounding on Zimmerman. The neighbor who witnessed the fight shouted for them to stop but the man on top, Martin, did not stop.
At what point does someone who was no fighter at all, (according to his martial arts instructor, “Zimmerman’s fighting skills registered at between a “1” and “1.5” on a ten point scale,”) begin to fear that he will be badly injured or killed by his assailant? Are you tough enough and clear-headed enough to get slammed around like Zimmerman was and blithely shake it off as no big deal?
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/08/just-physically-soft-zimmermans-mma-instructor-says-he-was-a-lousy-fighter/#ixzz2Yz0KOGIT
Yes, I wasn’t there, but neither were you. The screams for help and the injuries sustained by Zimmerman all point toward self defense. Did the prosecution make its case that it wasn’t self defense? That was their burden. You may be of the opinion they met that standard. I’m not.
neo.
Your efforts are laudable, but you’re telling silencio what he already knows.
He got you to waste time.
The idea that his view is subject to change upon new information is implied but it’s a lie.
He knows better. He just keeps on keeping on as his mentor St. Saul said, to wear us out.
EKBA, including silencio.
Neo: I’m still waiting for your evidence that Trayvon was involved in fighting. I’ll have to assume you have none.
Silencio
EKBA
And if such evidence is provided?
Nope. You’d move on to something else.
We get it.
EKBA
Siencio Dogood:
Like Truth, you have chosen a humorously ironic moniker.
As far as your question about Martin’s previous fighting behavior goes, I see that your m.o. is that if people don’t quickly hop to your demands you “assume” they have no answer to give. But no one here is required to hop to those demands. I’ve already made it quite clear I have no intention of wasting more time with trolls such as yourself. If you’re really interested in what I’ve written about the Zimmerman case, just do a search on this blog for all posts with the word “Zimmerman” in them and you’ll find plenty of commentary on the subject.
I also very strongly suspect you’re actually quite familiar with the evidence I’m talking about that indicates Trayvon was no stranger to fights and in fact bragged about them, and that you just like to get people racing around to respond to your demands. You would like to waste their time, and then make a new demand.
Ordinarily I don’t play that game. But every now and then I decide to do so, at least a tiny bit, and at least for a little while. The reason I do that is quite simple: someone else, someone actually curious about the information involved, might come here and read these comments and wonder about the answer. So this is for those people primarily:
Watch the video here.
neo.
Procedural issue here:
When we enter a discussion about a contentious issue, even one not particularly important, there is an implicit–which is to say we don’t even notice it–presumption or even contract involved.
That is, each party is saying that, given better facts or a different way of looking at the issue, they may modify their view or admit error.
SD is being disingenuous. That is, he does not intend to hold up his end of the implicit bargain. He already knows the facts. He does not intend to change his mind. His object is to make the rest of us run around trying to provide whatever is necessary to have the other party accede to the contract. But he’s not going to, he never will, and our striving is his goal.
John Dunne was like this, as was Mitsu.
Their claims of one or a dozen false facts are deliberate and they know better. They nope we don’t, and if we don’t “prove” it to them by rounding up cites–which they already know and will ignore–then we are liars.
So we hustle even harder.
Hence my acronym: EKBA. Everybody knows better already. Including you, SD. Which we also know.
Richard Aubrey:
Yes, EKBA makes sense.
As I wrote in a recent comment, though, sometimes I answer and give links and information anyway because someone who doesn’t know the facts behind the opinions might come to the blog and want to get those facts. I answer not so much for the sake of Silencio Dogood, et.at., but for those other people who are acting in good faith.