Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Great line by prosecution: "This case is not about standing your ground, it's about staying in your car."

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Is Joe now leaning towards a guilty verdict?

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1015221]Great line by prosecution: "This case is not about standing your ground, it's about staying in your car."[/quote]

Please remember that the person [U]requesting[/U] that Zimmerman stay in his car had [U]no authority[/U] to do so.

If you've repeatedly been let down by LE why would you not do the job you've volunteered to do?

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Good redux on CNN right now.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Joe is very much on the fence. B/c I am on the fence, personally, I have to say not guilty.

Strong closing by the prosecution, not the defense's best work. Still, the trial was 12 days. Closing impressions will last for the first hour or so of deliberations maybe the first two if the prosecution is lucky - then the jurors will get back to their preconceptions.

Staying with the not guilty - but will not be surprised by anything except having a verdict before tomorrow late afternoon/early evening at the earliest.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=RedskinRat;1015223]Please remember that the person [U]requesting[/U] that Zimmerman stay in his car had [U]no authority[/U] to do so.

If you've repeatedly been let down by LE why would you not do the job you've volunteered to do?[/quote]

Yup. What you say is true and I agree. Still, a very good and concise tagline that will likely resonate with some of the jurors.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Prosecution - "This is not about race"....but Trayvon and his friend sure as **** don't like creepy-assed crackers.

**** sake!

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1015226]Yup. What you say is true and I agree. Still, a very good and concise tagline that will likely resonate with some of the jurors.[/quote]Yeah, and what gets me is like you and RR say: No, legally it's not about staying in your car at all. Where did we get to the point where getting out of your car means you deserve to be beaten up? I'm not saying Martin attacked Zimmerman for that, but that's exactly what some people here have said they would do, and that's totally wrong and they should go to jail themselves if they actually do attack someone under those circumstances.

To hear a prosecutor talk along those lines was unbelievable to me. "Is that all they have at that point?", I was thinking.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1015226]Yup. What you say is true and I agree. Still, a very good and concise tagline that will likely resonate with some of the jurors.[/quote]

Not sure if you caught the TV coverage last night but (I think) CNN had their quasi-jury and they were clearly split along racial lines. Some of the personal comments were utterly ridiculous.

My concern is that the jurors are mouth-breathers, I hope not.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=RedskinRat;1015229]Prosecution - "This is not about race"....but Trayvon and his friend sure as **** don't like creepy-assed crackers.

**** sake![/quote]

*sigh*

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1015226]Yup. What you say is true and I agree. Still, a very good and concise tagline that will likely resonate with some of the jurors.[/quote]

They may not but it shows Zimmerman getting reasonableness in real-time. Not to mention the community's neighborhood watch protocol.

[QUOTE=Chico23231;1015232]*sigh*[/QUOTE]

Asthma? You should get an inhaler.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

To me, as always, it depends on how seriously the jury takes the presumption of innocence charge. If every fact for which there is not direct or immediate circumstantial evidence is presumed to be in GZ's favor or presumed unproven, I just don't see how a jury could convict.

On the other hand, they don't do so, and allow certain prosecutorial assumptions to stand (key being that (1) TM was either in imminent fear of physical harm before attacking GZ or (2) that TZ initiated the fight plus a host of assumptions relating to the self-defense issue). Then they may very well let it stand.


** When I say "immediate circumstantial evidence", I mean:
(1) "In a forest filled with deer, I saw deer tracks on a path. At the end of the tracks, I saw a deer. Although I didn't see it make the tracks, I assume the deer standing at the end of the tracks is the deer who made the tracks leading up to them"; or,
(2) "In an area filled with deer, a field is fully enclosed on the first of the month. At the time of the enclosure, an inspection was done and there is direct evidence that there were no deer in the field when it was enclosed. People have been allowed to place deer in the enclosure but, since its enclosure, a video camera at the sole entrance verifies that only one deer has ever been placed in the field. The enclosure was inspected immediately after I visited it, and it is intact and has never been repaired, [I]Therefore[/I] even though I didn't see the tracks being made, I assume that the tracks I saw when I visited the field on the 15th were made by the only deer placed in the field".

As compared to:
(1) "I saw deer tracks leading down a path in the woods then they disappearred but a twenty yards down the path, I saw a deer. I assumed that deer is the one that made the tracks I saw"; or
(2) "A field is fully enclosed on the 1st, no inspection was done, but the owner believes no deer were in the enclosure because he saw none as constructed the enclosure. Although others have access to the field and are permitted to place their deer in the field, he states is the only person to do so and he has placed only one deer in the field since its enclosure. He inspected the enclosure after I visited the field on the 15th and it was intact and had never been repaired. On the day of my visit I saw only one deer. [I]Therefore[/I] even though I didn't see the tracks being made, I assume that the tracks I saw when I visited the field on the 15th were made by the deer the owner placed in the field.


The more little holes you fill with assumption and inference, the more and more you risk ignoring the presumption.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=saden1;1015236]They may not but it shows Zimmerman getting reasonableness in real-time. Not to mention the community's neighborhood watch protocol.[/quote]

Reasonableness IS NOT the standard for manslaughter. Here is the instruction given:

[quote]To prove the crime of Manslaughter, the State must prove the following two elements [I]beyond a reasonable doubt[/I]:

1. Trayvon Martin is dead.

2. George Zimmerman [I]intentionally committed [/I]an act or acts that caused the death of Trayvon Martin.

[B]George Zimmerman [I]cannot be guilty [/I]of manslaughter by committing a merely negligent act[/B] or if the killing was either justifiable or excusable homicide:

[B]Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, [I]without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence[/I].[/B][/quote] Emphasis mine.

The assertion that (1) getting out of his car against the instructions of a dispatcher; and (2) in violation of protocols -- [I]is unreasonable[/I] is not enough to convict for the [I]crime[/I] of manslaughter [although it may be enough in a civil wrongful death tort claim].

Rather, for a conviction you must assume - b/c there is no evidence one way or the other on this - that he had a conscience intent to cause harm. The closest thing to direct evidence on this point is GZ's comment "these **** always get away". For guilt, you must presume from that statement that GZ intended to cause harm. While I agree that is a reasonable assumption, there are three or four [I]other[/I] reasonable assumptions which I ran through several pages ago when Chico and discussed this specific point. If you take the presumption of innoncence seriously, you cannot presume the necessary state of mind unless the State proves that it is the [I]only[/I] reasonable assumption. ([I]i.e.[/i]- the State's evidence eliminates all other reasonable assumptions).

I just don't see that. To me, it takes a lot of assumptions contrary to the presumption of innocence to read what was in GZ's mind that night and to get from a level general frustration to an [I]intention[/I] to cause harm. [I mean really, if he had the "conscious intention to harm", why not approach with the gun drawn? If there was evidence of that, whole 'nother story.]

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

whether a dispatcher's instruction is an official order or martin's past history or zimmerman's past dispatch calls, etc are all immaterial imo and you all are getting lost in the sauce to the central issue:

Was zimmerman in actual and reasonable fear for his life?

EMT said zimmerman's injuries werent life threatening.

having injuries that would make you "concerned for your medical safety" doesnt rise to the level of life threatening injuries imo.

you cant shoot someone because you are losing a fist fight.

the prosecutions apparent inability to draw a clear picture and the defense attorney's ability to color outside the lines has made for an unclear picture ....

so i havent seen anything to change my mind that its going to be man 1. but i have been paying attention to this thread about the trial and not the actual trial so my opinion is gut instinct.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

It's death or great bodily harm.

EMT said that a person on their back with GZ's injuries would "probably" be in "fear for their medical safety".

Direct evidence that he was on the ground with Martin on top with "flailing arms", had a blood running down his throat, evidence of his head striking the concrete more than once (certainly no conclusive evidence it ONLY struck once - assumptions go to GZ favor), no visible injuries to TM evidencing even a single blow landed by GZ and GZ screaming for help.

Again, a perfectly reasonable inference - to me - is that he wasn't "losing a fight", he was being given a beat down with reckless abandon with no help in sight. To me, if true, sounds like reasonable fear of great bodily harm.

And to be fair, both sides colored outside the lines.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Again, I am not saying your interpretation of the key moment is unreasonable OMT. It is certainly one take. Given the evidence and the need for more than one or two, less than airtight inferences (deer standing with tracks leading to it example), however, I think the presumption of innocence is a burden the prosecution just can't overcome beyond a reasonable doubt in this case.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Also, I absolutely agree with you OMT - at the moment he fired the gun, it is manslaughter if he is not reasonably in fear of his life or great bodily harm.

It is the State (and saden1 and chico and others) saying the initial act of following is what evidences the necessary intent for manslaughter.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Well I guess we can stop crying over Sean Taylor's death using your twisted (legal) logic. Clearly Sean was killed by the intruders who feared their own lives.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=RGIII;1015267]Well I guess we can stop crying over Sean Taylor's death using your twisted (legal) logic. Clearly Sean was killed by the intruders who feared their own lives.[/quote]

killing someone in the commission of a felony (B&E, home invasion, robbery) is a way different situation. not comparable

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

If Sean would have killed them, than Stand your ground would have applied. Threshold of law is usually the doorway, window...once someone comes in your household without permission and intent to harm, they are fair game to be killed.

[QUOTE=Chico23231;1015269]If Sean would have killed them, than Stand your ground would have applied. Threshold of law is usually the doorway, window...once someone comes in your household without permission and intent to harm, they are fair game to be killed.[/QUOTE]

Pretty much. Except "and intent to harm" isn't needed. It is presumed someone breaking into your home has an "intent to harm".

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=Chico23231;1015268]killing someone in the commission of a felony (B&E, home invasion, robbery) is a way different situation. not comparable[/quote]

Impersonating an officer is a crime. Now what?

[QUOTE=RGIII;1015267]Well I guess we can stop crying over Sean Taylor's death [b]using your twisted (legal) logic.[/b] Clearly Sean was killed by the intruders who feared their own lives.[/QUOTE]

Yes. Clearly to some here, the presumption of innocence we are ALL entitled to when accused of a crime is pretty "twisted (legal) logic".

Pitchforks and torches are so much easier and require much less thought.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1015270]Pretty much. Except "and intent to harm" isn't needed. It is presumed someone breaking into your home has an "intent to harm".[/quote]
Not true.

[QUOTE=RGIII;1015271]Impersonating an officer is a crime. Now what?[/QUOTE]

Really? You realize he wasn't even charged with that? That even the prosecution didn't once allege that's what he was doing?

Got your lynching rope all ready to go I take it.

[QUOTE=RGIII;1015273]Not true.[/QUOTE]
That is powerful legal persuasiveness right there.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1015275]That is powerful legal persuasiveness right there.[/quote]LOL, I know, right?

"RGIII" had me totally convinced at the bit about [[U]breaking into someone's home and trying to bust down the bedroom door where that someone's girlfriend and baby daughter are[/U]] is the same as [[U]following someone outdoors in a public area, then that someone is on top of you beating you up[/U]].

I can hardly wait to hear what "RGIII" thinks "impersonating a police officer" means.

:laughing-

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1015274]Really? You realize he wasn't even charged with that? That even the prosecution didn't once allege that's what he was doing?

Got your lynching rope all ready to go I take it.[/quote]
Well since you guys are so smart, play nigg-- I mean devil's advocate and defend Martin's case. You guys got OJ off the first time right? Or were you guys mad at that because he was black. The truth is, if Zimmerman was a gung-ho black wannabe cop who killed a white kid in the same scenario he would have be, tried, found guilty of murder, and executed the same day. Dead giveaway, dead giveaway...

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Not cool man. Not cool

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1015270]Pretty much. Except "and intent to harm" isn't needed. It is presumed someone breaking into your home has an "intent to harm".[/quote]

Yeah...i added on at the end. I thought about after and intent is understood.

I tell you what interesting is confusion around someone in your yard and taking property. In Va you cant shoot and kill someone in breaking into/stealing your car or stealing property out the yard. But I want to say thats different around the country. In some states i think you can. Not sure I could be the one confused...

One of the more idiotic posts on WP, ever, RGIII, AND I include all of mine in that calculation.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=RGIII;1015287]Well since you guys are so smart, play nigg-- I mean devil's advocate and defend Martin's case. You guys got OJ off the first time right? Or were you guys mad at that because he was black. The truth is, if Zimmerman was a gung-ho black wannabe cop who killed a white kid in the same scenario he would have be, tried, found guilty of murder, and executed the same day. Dead giveaway, dead giveaway...[/quote]

*sigh*

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Zimmermqn said that Martin circled his car and despite his "fear" of him he still managed to get out of his car. That is not reasonable and it certainly diminishes his claim of fearing for his life. If the question is if there is a reason to doubt the evidence against him I can find non.

Even though I recognize you believe it did not happen to that way, explain how the factual scenario I set forth in post 1016 [i]could not[/I] be true by using only direct evidence or inferences consistent with those in the post.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1015305]Even though I recognize you believe it did not happen to that way, explain how the factual scenario I set forth in post 1016 [i]could not[/I] be true by using only direct evidence or inferences consistent with those in the post.[/quote]
^flashlight lawyer *sigh*

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

607 and.......counting......down

I admit it ... I simply do not understand either of the two previous posts.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1015305]Even though I recognize you believe it did not happen to that way, explain how the factual scenario I set forth in post 1016 [i]could not[/I] be true by using only direct evidence or inferences consistent with those in the post.[/quote]

We can speculate about different scenarios including the possibility that Zimmerman had his weapon drawn from the get go and the struggled for the gun ensued while he was attempting to pistol-whip Martin. That fact of the case are pretty simple and it's a matter of using your common sense.
[LIST][*]Profiled Martin as one of those "****ing punks. Those assholes, they always get away"[*]Pursued Martin[*]Violate community protocol[*]Get out of car after Martin allegedly circled his car[*]Inconstant statements about what happened[*]Inconsistent statements about why got out of his car[*]He didn't identify himself as neighborhood watchman[*]Shoots and kills Martin during a struggle that was avoidable[*]Goes on national TV and says "This is all god's plan and I wouldn't do anything differently (blatant disregard for human life).[/LIST]

Anything is possible in this world but we have to rely on the facts of the case and the fact of the case are sufficient enough to convict Zimmerman of manslaughter (at a minimum), The burden of proof has been met by the state and nothing in the defense persuasive enough to arrive at an alternative verdict. It is that simple.

My inferences are no more speculative than yours. I cited to and relied on testimony and physical evidence.

Prove, by direct evidence, that any inference I have drawn could not have occurred.