Trayvon Martin's murderer George Zimmerman is still a free man

[PhilsFan]

I know the left has convicted him and waived their objections to the death penalty.

I know you're employing hyperbole, but has anyone actually changed their mind on the death penalty because of this case? I have never wanted the death penalty employed ever.

I personally couldn't care less about the result of this specific trial. It's the Stand Your Ground and gun control laws that concern me and many others.

 

[Irvine511]

Also, all the liberals in here think he's going to be acquitted.

 

[deep]

Zimmerman may be acquitted,
but there is no reasonable doubt that he is a killer
O J Simpson's acquittal is more legitimate than any Zimmerman acquittal will be.

 

[U2DMfan]

To me, this is where the whole case resides...the unbelievable nature of what GZ claims as the struggle was taking place.

So let me get this straight...he wasn't strong enough to even punch back against a skinny seventeen year old kid...but he was suddenly strong enough to wrestle the gun away from that same kid after TM noticed the gun?

Not to mention the idea that GZ said TM didn't reach for the gun until TM saw it and said something ("You're gonna die tonight"...or something a 17 year old kid would SURELY say) and yet GZ said himself that he had it in his BACK waistband. In the dark. And with witnesses saying TM was ON TOP of GZ, beating him.

The idea that TM was going for the gun is paramount to his self-defense case. And correct me if I am wrong, no prints or DNA from TM were found on the gun? And the only real alternative to this is that GZ discreetly acquired the gun. Not to mention the fact that he would be lying about all of that.

Why would TM suddenly want to shoot a man just for following him around anyway?
That's the single thing that has bugged me the most. That TM is suddenly so angry (and if he's high on THC, why is he mad anyway?) that he wants to kill GZ...

I don't know. What a mess.

 

[maycocksean]

To me it's pretty simple. George Zimmerman acted foolishly, disregarded instructions given him by the police and ended up shooting an unarmed person. I am not bothered by the fact that Trayvon Martin may have attacked him, may have his hit his head on the sidewalk whatever. Trayvon clearly felt threatened, and was reacting to that. I find it puzzling that some people expect him to be some sort of MLK. . .he's a kid. The bottom line is if Zimmerman had left it alone, none of this would have happened.

And I feel that he should be held accountable for that. Unfortunately, it looks unlikely that he will be.

 

[U2DMfan]

Well, manslaughter of a minor (if it can be added in) in the state of FL is up to 25 years, I believe. That is no slap on the wrist. But the prosecution, according to people such as Alan Dershowitz, really fucked up by over-charging.

I just fundamentally don't believe that Zimmerman was in fear of his life. Period. I don't know why he would have been. I think he just chose to end a fight with a gun because he knew he could, if only subconsciously.

The idea that I'm supposed to believe that GZ was fearful of that kid...and that I am supposed to believe that TM was willing to kill someone (go after the gun) for simply following him. I just don't buy it. And the evidence doesn't conflict with my thinking...I've allowed it to speak to me. I've remained impartial until most recently. Part of me thinks GZ was so shamed by the event (getting beat down) he just over-reacted. And being Mr. Johnny Wannabe Law, he knew what he could plausibly say to the cops afterwards.

Whatever. I just hope there aren't riots after this.

 

[AEON]

Whatever. I just hope there aren't riots after this.

Of course there will be - and the networks will rake it in from the coverage. Both "sides" are fools - nothing more than blinded consumers.

 

[deep]

I am hearing part of Zimmerman's defense will be that he is non-aggressive because he is vegan.

 

[AEON]

I am hearing part of Zimmerman's defense will be that he is non-aggressive because he is vegan.

As a recently converted vegan - I will admit - I'm a bit more patient on the freeway. But I don't think tracking a hooded kid down while packing some heat qualifies one as "non-aggressive".

Judging by the weight gain - I'm guessing he slipped a few baby back ribs into the diet...

 

[BVS]

Which explains why Martin was on top of Zimmerman?

In today's testimony, a gym owner where Zimmerman trained described Zimmerman's athletic ability, on a scale of 1 to 10, as a "point five".

This is exactly why I'm so perplexed by the right media's portrayal of this case. That makes absolutely no sense. Just because some ends up on top(in a fight) doesn't mean they weren't provoked or the aggressor. If it's me against an armed man, damn right I would try everything, and the likelihood that I get out alive may be higher than most since I've been trained, but still the likelihood isn't high. BUT one of the defenses against such an attack is to try and pin their arms, one of the only ways to do so is get on top.

If anyone has been in a fight, or hell even seen a fight knows that the one in advantage may shift throughout the fight. Placing him on top before he was killed, does NOT tell the entire story, and I think we need to stop pretending like it does.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

To me, this is where the whole case resides...the unbelievable nature of what GZ claims as the struggle was taking place.

So let me get this straight...he wasn't strong enough to even punch back against a skinny seventeen year old kid...but he was suddenly strong enough to wrestle the gun away from that same kid after TM noticed the gun?

Not to mention the idea that GZ said TM didn't reach for the gun until TM saw it and said something ("You're gonna die tonight"...or something a 17 year old kid would SURELY say) and yet GZ said himself that he had it in his BACK waistband. In the dark. And with witnesses saying TM was ON TOP of GZ, beating him.

The idea that TM was going for the gun is paramount to his self-defense case. And correct me if I am wrong, no prints or DNA from TM were found on the gun? And the only real alternative to this is that GZ discreetly acquired the gun. Not to mention the fact that he would be lying about all of that.

Why would TM suddenly want to shoot a man just for following him around anyway?
That's the single thing that has bugged me the most. That TM is suddenly so angry (and if he's high on THC, why is he mad anyway?) that he wants to kill GZ...

I don't know. What a mess.

Don't believe you're wrong about the prints and DNA. Of course the defense has only begun the attack on the evidence collection. A la OJ.
We'll see if the jury buys it.

Zimmerman was allegedly on sleeping meds and painkillers, will the judge admit that if that's true? That could probably affect behavior more than trace thc that could be in your system from way back.

Don't forget-Trayvon allegedly said you're going to die tonight mother fucker. Accdg to GZ's completely literal non embellished acct. High on pot angry young black man.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Perhaps we are failing to address the real problem. A US city with the most stringent levels of gun control still has an enormous gun violence problem.

If we shifted attention from the "gun" to the "violence", maybe we would see some of the positive change we are after.

As was stated by IWB, the guns flood in from elsewhere in the state and surrounding states that have more lax rules.

But I do agree with you that its a far more complex issue than just guns.

There's the huge mental health issue that this country should be utterly ashamed of.

There's the poverty issue.

But just because an issue has roots in many places doesn't meant we should just not address any of them.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

But what if Martin feared for his life?

He very well could have... just because one party in a confrontation feared for their lives doesn't preclude the other from fearing for theirs.

Which again comes back to the real issue... guns.

I'd love to send Zimmerman away for being reckless, idiotic, ignoring the dispatcher's requests, etc. etc. But given the facts that have been presented I just don't know how he gets convicted of murder.

Maybe if he was up on a charge of negligent homicide there would be a better shot at a conviction.

 

[U2DMfan]

The judge can charge the jury to consider manslaughter, but apparently there is a big issue if the judge decides to do that - that might prevent it from happening. Maybe someone else can recall what that issue is.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

To me, this is where the whole case resides...the unbelievable nature of what GZ claims as the struggle was taking place.

So let me get this straight...he wasn't strong enough to even punch back against a skinny seventeen year old kid...but he was suddenly strong enough to wrestle the gun away from that same kid after TM noticed the gun?

Not to mention the idea that GZ said TM didn't reach for the gun until TM saw it and said something ("You're gonna die tonight"...or something a 17 year old kid would SURELY say) and yet GZ said himself that he had it in his BACK waistband. In the dark. And with witnesses saying TM was ON TOP of GZ, beating him.

The idea that TM was going for the gun is paramount to his self-defense case. And correct me if I am wrong, no prints or DNA from TM were found on the gun? And the only real alternative to this is that GZ discreetly acquired the gun. Not to mention the fact that he would be lying about all of that.

Why would TM suddenly want to shoot a man just for following him around anyway?
That's the single thing that has bugged me the most. That TM is suddenly so angry (and if he's high on THC, why is he mad anyway?) that he wants to kill GZ...

I don't know. What a mess.

On the flip side... why would George Zimmerman want to get into a fight with a random kid with the intent of shooting him?

For their to be murder, there needs to be some sort of intent involved. The state NEVER should have gone after a murder charge in this case. They should have gone after a lesser, easier to prove charge. They bent to public pressure, and now they'll likely end up letting Zimmerman walk... although I do believe that he will eventually be found civilly liable.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

The judge can charge the jury to consider manslaughter, but apparently there is a big issue if the judge decides to do that - that might prevent it from happening. Maybe someone else can recall what that issue is.

I think it was posted earlier in the thread that it's an automatic lesser included charge in FL. Don't know what that issue is, haven't heard about that.

They made a big mistake charging him with second degree.

 

[U2DMfan]

On the flip side... why would George Zimmerman want to get into a fight with a random kid with the intent of shooting him?

For their to be murder, there needs to be some sort of intent involved. The state NEVER should have gone after a murder charge in this case. They should have gone after a lesser, easier to prove charge. They bent to public pressure, and now they'll likely end up letting Zimmerman walk... although I do believe that he will eventually be found civilly liable.

Perhaps I need to elaborate more on my view and be more clear. I'm not suggesting there is any murder involved. I'm simply suggesting GZ is not telling the whole truth about the fight itself that led to the shooting. Of that, I am 100% confident.

Wanting or not wanting to get into a fight has nothing to do with the point I was trying to get at. It was about the fight as it happened. And the credibility of GZ's account, which doesn't seem to make sense to me.

After second guessing his account...from there I can basically speculate...

I think he killed him to stop the fight, regardless of why the fight happened. And he acquired the gun, on his own, to stop the beating he was receiving.

I don't believe TM reached for the gun, I don't believe GZ was truly in fear of his life, and I think GZ overreacted. He might also have known precisely what his rights were and figured, even subconsciously, that what he was doing was right. And lastly...he knew that justification and could simply tell it to police.

I think it is also possible, in addition to that, that he was shamed by being beaten up and (if so, probably subconsciously) took the easiest way out. I don't think he intended on killing (or set out to kill) TM at all. Just want to make that clear. I also don't believe he could amazingly shoot him straight through the heart while being so...scared and wrestling with the gun.

Anyway, I think manslaughter would be sufficient. Any jail time would be sufficient at this point. I'll let others argue that. I don't know the specifics.

Evidently the ME for the Defense said GZ had 6 wounds on his head.
Two cuts on the back of his head - one abt an inch long - another smaller.
Two 'bruises' on his temples, one on his forehead and his nose.

In other words, you could easily say 4 of those 6 wounds came from punches, likely when TM was on top of him. While the other two cuts on the back of his head came from the cement. And STILL I am supposed to believe TM saw that gun in his back waistband - and went after it. At what point? In the dark? I'm sorry, I am trying to be fair to GZ here, honestly.

I stayed quiet for as long as I could. I waited for the trial. I dodged all the race card BS and the politics. And I've tried to absorb the trial evidence as it has come out. And I ALWAYS presume innocence if I possibly can, through the empathy that people would (hopefully) assume that about me should I have the misfortune of being accused of something. But my goodness...

As I am simultaneously realizing GZ is going to walk free (some FL prosecutors seem to like to over-charge and see the defendants walk), I am also coming to my own realization that there is (likely) little reason he should.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I'm also 100 confident that GZ isn't being completely truthful. My gut, and reason and logic, tells me so. And the fact that he's the only one of the two left living, without any real living witness to back him up visually and audibly-his entire account (s). He can embellish to his heart's content and put words(and actions) in the mouth of a dead man in order to bolster his defense.

I think he followed Trayvon when he was told not to, and in my mind that makes him the first aggressor. If he had just let the police do their job instead of trying to do it for them..well barring a police incident, Trayvon is alive today.

 

[BVS]

I'd love to send Zimmerman away for being reckless, idiotic, ignoring the dispatcher's requests, etc. etc. But given the facts that have been presented I just don't know how he gets convicted of murder.

Maybe if he was up on a charge of negligent homicide there would be a better shot at a conviction.

I agree, the charge of murder was an overreach, and for those that fall for the "this is a right/ left issue", the result will be a dangerous precedent.

 

[Diemen]

On the flip side... why would George Zimmerman want to get into a fight with a random kid with the intent of shooting him?

Maybe because the kid was a "fucking punk" that "always get away" and he was determined not to let this one get away?

That said, I agree with the rest of your post.

 

[Jive Turkey]

I'm also 100 confident that GZ isn't being completely truthful. My gut...

Well there's a good way to immediately discredit your preceding sentence

 

[Caleb8844]

Is Zimmerman's story somewhat far-fetched in some aspects? Sure. But it's not impossible, and there has been no actual evidence to discredit it.

The prosecution is charged with proving guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt. The defense needs merely to introduce a shadow of a doubt, not prove innocence.

 

[BVS]

Is Zimmerman's story somewhat far-fetched in some aspects? Sure. But it's not impossible, and there has been no actual evidence to discredit it.

The prosecution is charged with proving guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt. The defense needs merely to introduce a shadow of a doubt, not prove innocence.

And this is why it was stupid to go after a murder charge.

 

[deep]

Is Zimmerman's story somewhat far-fetched in some aspects? Sure. But it's not impossible, and there has been no actual evidence to discredit it.

The prosecution is charged with proving guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt. The defense needs merely to introduce a shadow of a doubt, not prove innocence.

in your universe someone could come over and kill Caleb8844 and then say "he said "tonight you die" so I was afraid for my life. I acted in self defense"

 

[LuckyNumber7]

I wish this thread didn't exist and these stupid celebrity murder trials would stop happening down the road from me haha.

But seriously, so much of it is hearsay. The only thing that I'm convinced of is the fact that Zimmerman acted as a vigilante and facilitated what may or may not have been a murder.

Unless more evidence appears I think you've just got to look at it like that. Smells like some form of manslaughter would be the only convictable charge -- but I'm no lawyer.

 

[U2DMfan]

The prosecution is charged with proving guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt. The defense needs merely to introduce a shadow of a doubt, not prove innocence.

It might sound like semantics but it's not. It's beyond REASONABLE doubt.
Not beyond any shadow of a doubt.

And yeah, there are plenty of doubts but how reasonable are they?
That's up to each person looking at the evidence.

Furthermore on that note...

there has been no actual evidence to discredit it.

That's just your opinion. It's pretty much all circumstantial evidence.
We can all make up our own minds on the credulity of that evidence.

Today, I found out that the gun was actually holstered on GZ's right side rather than in his back waistband which, if true, does cause me to readdress the story over the struggle for the gun. I have always tried to be fair to all parties involved...as if my random opinion amounts for anything. Just stating this as a principle, though.

But even so, I still think GZ's account is hard to believe. And whether I believe him or not, is my own view. You can't tell me that this particular evidence hasn't been discredited any more than you can automatically say a rape victim hasn't been raped because there is no physical evidence of it. In these cases, it all depends on how much we individually believe the witnesses. Right?

 

[nbcrusader]

I wish this thread didn't exist and these stupid celebrity murder trials would stop happening down the road from me haha.

But seriously, so much of it is hearsay. The only thing that I'm convinced of is the fact that Zimmerman acted as a vigilante and facilitated what may or may not have been a murder.

Unless more evidence appears I think you've just got to look at it like that. Smells like some form of manslaughter would be the only convictable charge -- but I'm no lawyer.

I think we can all agree that the commentary generated by this case far exceeded the available facts. We are only half-way through the trial, yet here we continue to comment in a thread that declared a legal conclusion in its title over a year ago. The blogosphere is active and as new facts emerged, the ongoing commentary employs an intellectual game of Twister™ to maintain original conclusions.

We'll see if the verdict (assuming it comes back not guilty) is a result of (1) the prosecution failing to prove the murder charge, or (2) the successful use of the self-defense argument by the defendant.

The prosecutor may have cleared the lower bar of manslaughter (Voluntary manslaughter is intentionally killing another person in the heat of passion and in response to adequate provocation. Involuntary manslaughter is negligently causing the death of another person.), but that would not negate the defendant's ability to raise self-defense as a defense to the crime.

 

[U2DMfan]

I wish this thread didn't exist and these stupid celebrity murder trials would stop happening down the road from me haha.

This one is a little beyond the 'pretty girl might have killed someone' variety.

There are some serious and important issues within this trial.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

This one is a little beyond the 'pretty girl might have killed someone' variety.

There are some serious and important issues within this trial.

Yeah and so was Casey Anthony. But not really. This one only gets the attention because it went viral and someone drew a race card. This shit happens all the time in Orlando. Perhaps it doesn't have some movie-like plot to it, but this isn't the one and only case of 'stand your ground' gone awry.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

But it isn't a stand your ground case.