Zimmerman trial

[PseudoSABR]

Dude got fat. Wow

[diehardtwinsfan]

Not sure what to say. Prosecutor charged him with murder as opposed to manslaughter. I'd have thought manslaughter would have been a pretty easy conviction given that Zimmerman went against what he knew and was told to do... Murder is a tougher standard, and I don't think Zimmerman was planning on killing the victim...

[TheLeviathan]

Dude got fat. Wow

 

Yeah, it's like they are putting three of him on trial now.

 

That's a whole lot of stress weight for sure.

[TheLeviathan]

Not sure what to say. Prosecutor charged him with murder as opposed to manslaughter. I'd have thought manslaughter would have been a pretty easy conviction given that Zimmerman went against what he knew and was told to do... Murder is a tougher standard, and I don't think Zimmerman was planning on killing the victim...

 

I heard on one of the channels that in Florida manslaughter can carry a 30 year sentence when a minor is involved. So it's possible they overcharged with that in mind.

 

That said, I can't believe the prosecution put a cop on the stand that they didn't vet enough to find out he thought Zimmerman's version was credible. I don't know how a jury can convict a man when the lead investigator thinks his story checks out. Pretty incredible.

[PseudoSABR]

I think the prosecution is trying to demonstrate how calculated Zimmerman was in his version of his story and how well (or oddly) it fit within self-defense guidelines. Since Zimmerman won't take the stand, so they need to establish his point of view even through favorable accounts--in order to demonstrate how much a calculated liar he might be.

 

They showed his interview with Hannity in court yesterday, and I thought it was pretty damning for Zimmerman, but Zimmerman himself watched the video like he just done so very well. There was question at the end where Hannity asked him if he had any remorse or wished he could change anything, Zimmerman coldly answered, it was all part of gods plan and who I am to question that.

[TheLeviathan]

I agree Psuedo...but can you really make that case when the lead police investigator says, on the stand, that he seemed honest and his story was credible with the evidence collected? I guess having watched that cross examination.....I thought the case ended right there for second degree murder.

[PseudoSABR]

I agree Psuedo...but can you really make that case when the lead police investigator says, on the stand, that he seemed honest and his story was credible with the evidence collected? I guess having watched that cross examination.....I thought the case ended right there for second degree murder.

If I remember correctly, Zimmerman wasn't charged immediately--not until the prosecutor's office took notice of national/local outcry--it really shouldn't be a surprise that the lead investigator would initially believe Zimmerman. The Prosecution's case is that Zimmerman knew how to manipulate the investigation by telling the police precisely what they wanted to hear.

 

 

This is arm chair psychology/legalese, so forgive it's sloppiness: I'm not sure that this will come out in trial, but there's an undercurrent behind the notion of Zimmerman's presumed innocence--an ugly one. That, while Martin wasn't a criminal that day, it seems at least in Zimmerman's mind, Travon was going to become one, and that Zimmerman was really doing everyone a favor (the investigators could have been instinctual persuaded by this, what with their initial assessment that Zimmerman may have been the victim). If I'm prosecution, I try to use Zimmerman's assumption of Martin's guilt against him--Zimmerman wanted to go out and kill a criminal, that it turned out to be some seventeen year old relatively harmless punk, doesn't really change Zimmerman's desire to do justice by blood if in his mind it came to that.

[TheLeviathan]

The Prosecution's case is that Zimmerman knew how to manipulate the investigation by telling the police precisely what they wanted to hear.

 

Which, frankly, I think is ridiculously stupid. Does one need to have intimate knowledge of the law to suggest self-defense? There is no trick to that. The trick, if that was true, would be to create a scenario that worked out this well. Find a person bigger than you, who will attack you for following them, let them pin you to the ground and bust your nose and slam your head on the cement, and then find a way to get your gun out and shoot them while no one comes out to help or video it. I just find that implausible.

 

I'm pretty convinced that this fat dumbass made multiple manslaughter-level mistakes to create a situation in which he started getting his butt kicked enough to justify legit self defense. (Of particular import to me in this case is the idea that the police have concrete evidence to put Zimmerman on the bottom and Martin on top. I highly doubt, while on top putting a beating on Zimmerman, that it was Martin screaming frantically for help)

 

 

This is arm chair psychology/legalese, so forgive it's sloppiness: .

 

There is no doubt there was some profiling going on here. But there is a big jump from profiling (a long-engrained heuristic that has been beneficial for survival) to wanting to kill people. That connection to me, is people working way too hard to find motivation rather just looking at the simplest solution: this moron got in over his head trying to be a big man and a poor kid paid the price.

[kydoty]

George Zimmerman Trial Interrupted By Trolls Who Use Skype

 

Love it.

[diehardtwinsfan]

Which, frankly, I think is ridiculously stupid. Does one need to have intimate knowledge of the law to suggest self-defense? There is no trick to that. The trick, if that was true, would be to create a scenario that worked out this well. Find a person bigger than you, who will attack you for following them, let them pin you to the ground and bust your nose and slam your head on the cement, and then find a way to get your gun out and shoot them while no one comes out to help or video it. I just find that implausible.

 

I'm pretty convinced that this fat dumbass made multiple manslaughter-level mistakes to create a situation in which he started getting his butt kicked enough to justify legit self defense. (Of particular import to me in this case is the idea that the police have concrete evidence to put Zimmerman on the bottom and Martin on top. I highly doubt, while on top putting a beating on Zimmerman, that it was Martin screaming frantically for help)

 

 

 

 

There is no doubt there was some profiling going on here. But there is a big jump from profiling (a long-engrained heuristic that has been beneficial for survival) to wanting to kill people. That connection to me, is people working way too hard to find motivation rather just looking at the simplest solution: this moron got in over his head trying to be a big man and a poor kid paid the price.

 

This... And this is very clearly manslaughter too. Problem with charging him with murder is that I'm not sure a jury will convict him of it.. Murder implies intent, and that is going to be very difficult to prove in this case. There's no motive.

[PseudoSABR]

If you've been following the trial, Zimmerman's wounds (doctor called them insignificant) don't seem to justify 'legit' self-defense. Zimmerman's own exaggeration about how many times his head was slammed (he said 20 to 30 times, doctor said once) demonstrate the tall-tale-ness of the self-defense angle. It won't look good for Zimmerman, if the prosecution can prove that it was Martin's voice yelling for help, and that it might have been Zimmerman who instigated the physical altercation.

 

Zimmerman's attempt to manipulate how the police handle the case is just another piece in the second degree murder charge. I don't know whether the jury will agree, but the prosecution is going to try to show that Zimmerman had motive to deal out justice by death. It's the notion of vigilante "justice" that can demonstrate a will to kill. From the state's perspective, you can't let things like this go, you can't have dudes walking around armed thinking that they can police their neighborhood with deadly force. I know it prickles some of our libertarian sensibilities, but I think it's an important case symbolically, especially in a place like Florida where there's laws that empower vigilante "justice."

 

Again, I don't know if the prosecution can prove the case, but there's plenty of Zimmerman's lack of remorse, preparation to deal out justice (ignoring recommendations to discontinue pursuit, knowing what to say to cops, wanting to be a cop, being armed, neighborhood watch, etc.), and the actual forensic evidence of the case (witnesses, no blood on Martin's hands, 'insignificant' injuries, 911 calls, recorded pleas for help)--the case is provable. It looks like murder to me, and Zimmerman's own paranoia and lunacy (believing his life was in danger, that Martin was a criminal at all) don't at all mitigate his crime.

[TheLeviathan]

If you've been following the trial, Zimmerman's wounds (doctor called them insignificant) don't seem to justify 'legit' self-defense.

 

Have you been following it? You're coming at this with a HEAVY bias, and it's very clear. Let me be clear - Zimmerman is the idiot that provoked this. Had he not been so gung-ho to prove himself the defender of the neighborhood against young, probably black, males - this would never have happened. I'm not defending him, I'm just looking at this rationally, which I'm just going to suggest to you that you are not.

 

The standard for self-defense is reasonable fear of being in danger. Having your head slammed around by someone bigger than you is good reason to be in fear for your health. It's very common for people to exaggerate their injuries, especially when there is blood present. If you are expecting someone being beaten up to have some kind of precise, analytic take on their injuries in a fight.....we have to go to square one here about how human beings react under stress. You can read into whatever you want about his indifference, all I know is that the facts of the case don't support your version.

 

Especially if the prosecution can prove that it was Martin's voice yelling for help, and that it might have been Zimmerman who instigated the physical altercation.

 

It's hard for me to believe that while Martin was on top of Zimmerman (proven by forensics) and delivering a more significant beating than he was getting (none vs. some) that he would be screaming for help. In what scenario does that happen? Are you telling me Zimmerman played possum until he was sufficiently beat up and then shot the kid? Because that's what it sounds like, that's the only way I can make sense of your posts. And the odds off him planning that, orchestrating a scenario to play that out, and have it work out this well....are basically impossible. (And don't forget - have a bunch of cops shrugs their shoulders and say "ok, if you say so even though arm-chair trial watchers will say they know more about this than I do" while at the same time having prosecutors dumb enough to put those same moron cops on the stand)

 

I just can't see how any rational human being could come to the conclusion that this was the grand orchestration of a master of Florida self-defense crime laws so he could kill a teenager. And for what? Clearly this same criminal mastermind would know it'd forever ruin his career as a cop or even a common vigilante....or is he just some kind of self-defense savant who is completely incompetent at all other things?

 

Cmon Psuedo....you're smarter than this, separate the politics of it.

 

I get the desire to crack down on vigilantism...but you can do that without fabricating an insanely unlikely scenario like the one you have laid out and the prosecution is doing as well. Manslaughter of a child carries a SERIOUS sentence in florida. (minimum 9 years with the judge being allowed to impose another 15 years, something common in cases involving children). Nail this moron with that rather than creating something to make us all sleep better at night about what happened.

[TheLeviathan]

Let me clear again about what I think the simple truth here is (Occam's Razor and whatnot):

 

The forensics collected by the police department supported Zimmerman's version of events. They also knew this guy made dozens of mistakes along the way (as evidenced by them grilling him about how he could've defused the situation multiple times), but ultimately the situation his stupidity created was not pre-thought, but reactionary. Making it a clear case of manslaughter. The cops know, on that charge and given the facts in the case, they can charge him and get a conviction with a sizable penalty.

 

In come politic pressure and the feds, they trump the charge, bring in a whole lot of specious arguments to try and turn him into a cold blooded killer and try to bring that case to justice. Except the reality wins out. The forensics, the investigations by trained law enforcement, the inconsistencies in their own witnesses, and the enormous leap to take "*****ing punks" and turn it into a premeditated act of murder....and you get the utter mess that has been their case.

 

If they had just charged him with manslaughter, they'd have looked less inept, made Zimmerman look more the jerk he is for making this happen, and got virtually the same sentence.

[PseudoSABR]

We're both biased and we're both being rational. I'm not at all suggesting that Zimmerman orchestrated his injuries, but I do think the order of events, when the screams of help happened, when Zimmerman's head struck whatever (no signs of that on the concrete by the way), when Martin was punching Zimmerman, who started the physical engagement are all open for interpretation. There was some kind of struggle but I'm not at all convinced that Zimmerman was ever in danger enough to warrant deadly force--if I'm on the jury, i'd have to look at the letter of the law to see what kind of 'danger' actually legitimizes self defense. But as a citizen, living among other armed citizens, I'm not going to have a pretty threshold for what I consider legitimate self-defense warranting deadly force.

 

Part of why I'm stickler on this notion of self defense, is that it empowers those with delusional paranoia--which is what led to Martin's death in teh first place. It's was delusional paranoia that led Zimmerman to follow Martin around, and it was delusional paranoia that caused Zimmerman to shoot Martin instead choosing a myriad of other options.

 

The prosecution right now is making some these arguments better than I can, right now.

[PseudoSABR]

Levi, I don't really take dispute with your version of what may have happened, for me though, Zimmerman was eager to kill someone whom he thought was a criminal, and he was seeking to put himself in a situation where such actions would be justified, knowing that we have to be cynical about the notion of 'self defense' and have a much higher threshold for it. Maybe that's not he letter of the law, but it provides context for me that make it murder and not an accidental death.

 

Zimmerman didn't simply get in over his head, he was seeking danger and he himself was dangerous aprori to his encounter with Martin.

[TheLeviathan]

Pseudy...you gotta separate some of your good notions from this case. Your larger points I agree with, but they're leading you astray methinks.

 

We're both biased and we're both being rational. I'm not at all suggesting that Zimmerman orchestrated his injuries

 

Then why note that there was no evidence on the sidewalk? You're saying things out of both sides of your mouth. The re-enactment with the cops was backed by forensic evidence. The lead investigator said so, at that point speculation should end. Beyond that becomes conspiracy theory IMO.

 

Now what you choose to believe about self-defense is irrelevant here. If you're asking me if self-defense laws have become too lenient, I'd agree. But they are lenient. The threshold to meet them is incredibly easy, regardless of who started what. (I think it's clear Zimmerman started the situation, the confrontation is anyone's guess)

 

The prosecution right now is making some these arguments better than I can, right now.

 

The problem is, delusional paranoia wouldn't even qualify as second degree murder. And to go back to your earlier point - you were spot on that this case SHOULD be about hold people accountable that go too far as vigilantes. Which makes the political pressure cave-in by the feds all the worse. Think about this: What has most of this case been about?

 

Answer: What happened AFTER the confrontation. Whereas it should be about what happened before it. That's the second most tragic part of this. This was never second degree murder, a proper charge would've had a proper focus.

[PseudoSABR]

Then why note that there was no evidence on the sidewalk? You're saying things out of both sides of your mouth. The re-enactment with the cops was backed by forensic evidence. The lead investigator said so, at that point speculation should end. Beyond that becomes conspiracy theory IMO.

I dispute the notion that Zimmerman was getting his ass kicked; I think there was scuffle and confrontation where Martin ended up on top. Zimmerman had time and self-awareness to aim at Martin and shoot him in the heart; instead of, say, pistol whipping him. Where I'm seeing intent is that Zimmerman had the thinnest of thresholds to use deadly force.

 

And I think your distinction between manslaughter and second degree murder isn't quite correct. This is copied from wikipedia.

 

• Second degree murder is a murder that is not premeditated or planned in advance.^[6]
  

 

• Voluntary manslaughter (often referred to as third degree murder) sometimes called a "Heat of Passion" murder, is any intentional killing that involved no prior intent to kill, and which was committed under such circumstances that would "cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed." Both this and second degree murder are committed on the spot, but the two differ in the magnitude of the circumstances surrounding the crime. For example, a bar fight that results in death would ordinarily constitute second degree murder. If that same bar fight stemmed from a discovery of infidelity, however, it may be mitigated to voluntary manslaughter.^[7]
  

[TheLeviathan]

Pseudo...did you really just quote wikipedia rather than looking at the specific state law? Yeesh, here:

 

Second degree murder

Manslaughter

 

You're right that premeditated isn't necessary, but "delusional paranoia" wouldn't even come close to cutting it. Nor does one throw away statement account for that. It's an ENORMOUS stretch. By forensic accounts, Zimmerman reached across his body, pulled, and fired. I don't see how that requires aiming. This was a fight, not a gentleman's debate. That isn't excusing him, just the reality of how the human body works.

 

I don't deny that the Florida law, and the law in many states, has developed a threshold too low. But even before "stand your ground" the threshold was low. In court cases the term is "reasonable", which I think the general public thinks is a higher standard than it really is. It's a very low threshold and I don't see how you can argue away a busted nose and a bunch of cuts on the back of your head by a larger person. That more than meets the threshold.

 

And again, here we talking about self-defense. If you want to pick that bone, here are more than your fair share of cases to pick apart. This one should have been about this overzealous vigilante. Instead this case is about self-defense which, again, quite easily clears that bar.

[PseudoSABR]

Pseudo...did you really just quote wikipedia rather than looking at the specific state law?

My bad, quick and dirty. The actual statutes are here, if anyone wants to wade through them.

 

Instead this case is about self-defense which, again, quite easily clears that bar.

I don't think that's clear at all. We'll see what the jury thinks.

[diehardtwinsfan]

Levi, I don't really take dispute with your version of what may have happened, for me though, Zimmerman was eager to kill someone whom he thought was a criminal, and he was seeking to put himself in a situation where such actions would be justified, knowing that we have to be cynical about the notion of 'self defense' and have a much higher threshold for it. Maybe that's not he letter of the law, but it provides context for me that make it murder and not an accidental death.

 

Zimmerman didn't simply get in over his head, he was seeking danger and he himself was dangerous aprori to his encounter with Martin.

 

And in doing so, he gives Martin rights to defend himself under Florida's stand your ground laws. I have to agree with Levi on this one. Manslaughter would have been a slam dunk conviction. Murder is not, and based on what I've seen thus far, I think Zimmerman goes free, and then we get to deal with riots afterwards. This was a stupid decision motivated more by politics than by evidence, and it's going to bite them bad.

[diehardtwinsfan]

I'm a bit surprised this didn't get dredged back up. Prosecutors asked this week to allow the jury to reduce the charges to manslaughter... 3rd degree murder with child abuse was kind of dumb.

 

Not quite sure what the legal precedent is for that type of thing, I would have thought that manslaughter should have been on the table the whole time. I don't think Zimmerman had any plans to murder Martin... I'm not sure what Zimmerman planned truthfully. But to say that Zimmerman's negligence resulted in the death of Martin is hardly a stretch.

[TheLeviathan]

I doubt most confident prosecution teams do that at that late stage. The lawyers for the Martin team also backed some of their rhetoric down from wanting to see this murder "punished" to wanting to see "justice".

 

i was amazed to see people publicly suggesting the theory Psuedo did earlier that this was some grand mastermind scheme. It really shocks me anyone could buy into that nonsense.

 

Too many variables the prosecution didnt prove or even attempt to explain, my guess is manslaughter.

[PseudoSABR]

Second degree murder is strange, honestly, in its distinction from manslaughter. Basically, for this trial, state, whatever, the distinction is that second degree murderer has malice and ill-will toward the victim, manslaughter does not. While I do think there is evidence to support the second degree murder charge, I'm not sure how convincing the prosecutions case was.

 

And seriously, I didn't suggest it was a mastermind scheme, I just see Zimmerman lying his way out of shooting someone in a non-life-threatening scuffle. The question is did Zimmerman have a reasonable, justifiable belief that his life was in danger (I don't believe that he did).

 

The final rebuttal from the prosecution lays out pretty my take pretty convincingly.

[PseudoSABR]

Not guilty. Oi.

[PseudoSABR]

I bet the civil suit will turn out very different results. It's really a strange kind of justice that will take place here, with the books, appearances etc. the Zimmerman clan will make some money, and I bet the Martin clan gets their take. So modernly tragic.

[TheLeviathan]

And seriously, I didn't suggest it was a mastermind scheme, I just see Zimmerman lying his way out of shooting someone in a non-life-threatening scuffle. The question is did Zimmerman have a reasonable, justifiable belief that his life was in danger (I don't believe that he did).

 

The final rebuttal from the prosecution lays out pretty my take pretty convincingly.

 

I think the prosecution highlighted precisely the problem in their case. They highlighted the fear or unease Trayvon likely felt that night. The problem is, in the face of fear we sometimes opt to fight/confront. When you couple that with the prosecution admitting Trayvon was on top when he was shot - it builds a strong reasonable doubt. Zimmerman may well have lied, but there was never any solid evidence that he had. Only inconsistencies the investigators and other criminal justice experts testified was normal in investigations.

 

The defense said it right - don't fill in the gaps. The burden of proof was on the prosecution and there was far, far too many holes to build a murder case. Now for manslaughter they had a helluva case and if they had focused on that element - they'd have gotten a guilty verdict.

 

Now, unfortunately, the jury members are basically being called out on the basis of race. As if their race made them incapable of deciding this case fairly. I have a huge problem with that subtle allegation.

[buckninetyone]

prosecution failed to mention gerald zimmerman's career .204 avg.

[mikecgrimes]

Not sure what to say. Prosecutor charged him with murder as opposed to manslaughter. I'd have thought manslaughter would have been a pretty easy conviction given that Zimmerman went against what he knew and was told to do...

 

The exact quote was "you don't have to do that" also although it is unclear Zimmerman claims he did not follow him. This is a pretty simple case that blew up on twitter and then in the media mostly on really bad information and in the case of NBC doctoring the 911 tape pathetic reporting. Zimmerman didn't get arrested that night for a reason. You couldn't get a conviction with an all black jury. A year and a half of Zimmerman's life has been wasted behind bars, there's going to be hell to pay for a lot of people involved in this case.

 

Moral of the story if you get in an altercation GUNS ARE ALLOWED so don't get in an altercation you don't need.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Moral of the story if you get in an altercation GUNS ARE ALLOWED so don't get in an altercation you don't need.

 

No, the moral of the story is whether we should allow average schmucks to carry around guns in public for no particular reason. Far too often, they lead to accidental shootings or incredibly nebulous shootings such as this.

 

And I'm generally pro-gun. Letting poorly trained people with no law enforcement or security experience carry around firearms because they feel afraid is not going to lead to desirable outcomes.

[mikecgrimes]

No, the moral of the story is whether we should allow average schmucks to carry around guns in public for no particular reason. Far too often, they lead to accidental shootings or incredibly nebulous shootings such as this.

 

 

Thats just silly. More people are killed by tripping on the sidewalk. I would never carry a gun but the idea that criminals can know with nearly 100% confidence I am no threat to them is pretty scary. Zimmerman defended himself and in doing so it was a tragic result. Most people killed by guns do something pretty stupid leading up to it. Oh well.