Zimmerman

[Hobbes]

If I'm a juror I hear one side claim that GZ was on top and I hear the other side claim that TM was on top, what am I to believe?
I have to go with the evidence.

The truth is that at one point GZ was probably on top and at another point TM was probably on top.
That's consistent with the testimony of two different witnesses.

The question is, who was on top at the time of the gunshot.

 

[Glocktogo]

If I'm a juror I hear one side claim that GZ was on top and I hear the other side claim that TM was on top, what am I to believe?
I have to go with the evidence.

The truth is that at one point GZ was probably on top and at another point TM was probably on top.
That's consistent with the testimony of two different witnesses.

The question is, who was on top at the time of the gunshot.

And yet you have no evidence to dispute the defense. It doesn't matter what the prosecution says, their efforts didn't remove all reasonable doubt. When in doubt, the defendant is acquitted.

Are you saying here and now that if you were on the jury, you'd vote to convict?

 

[Hobbes]

And yet you have no evidence to dispute the defense. It doesn't matter what the prosecution says, their efforts didn't remove all reasonable doubt. When in doubt, the defendant is acquitted.

Are you saying here and now that if you were on the jury, you'd vote to convict?

There is abundant evidence to dispute the defense.
The blood flow is only one item. The tape is another and there are more.

Convict on what charge is the question.

The event would clearly not have happened if GZ hadn't decided that TM didn't belong there and "they always get away" which required him to detain TM until the police arrived.

Which specific charge is appropriate, I don't know because I'm not familiar with FL laws.
Here, I would vote manslaughter.

 

[Glocktogo]

There is abundant evidence to dispute the defense.
The blood flow is only one item.

Convict on what charge is the question.

The event would clearly not have happened if GZ hadn't decided that TM didn't belong there and "they always get away" which required him to detain TM until the police arrived.

Which specific charge is appropriate, I don't know because I'm not familiar with FL laws.
Here, I would vote manslaughter.

You haven't been paying careful attention if this is what you believe. You also admittedly don't understand FL law. If you did, you'd see the fallacy in your judgement. If that's your standard for sending a man to prison, I hope like hell you never wind up on a jury.

I'm done here. No sense debating someone with their mind made up, that won't listen to reason.

 

[Hobbes]

Are going to believe the defense lawyers or you own lying eyes?
That is the question.

 

[ignerntbend]

I have ccl an I reserve the right to kill a mother ****er

 

[SMS]

The question is, who was on top at the time of the gunshot.

Maybe for some. But in the court of law...that's not the question. My gut tells me GZ is the wanna-be cop that some are trying to make him out to be...but that doesn't mean I think he should go to jail for murder.

The question is: Can the state prove that GZ was the aggressor in the physical confrontation and that GZ was not in fear for his life/health when he shot TM? (The known fact that GZ followed TM through the 'hood doesn't count as far as initiating a physical confrontation.)

I don't see how they can prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. That being said, there are human beings on the jury and I don't have much faith they will follow any standard of reasonable doubt.

Either way this goes, it's going to be ugly.

 

[B Gordon]

It I were on the jury (happily for me I am not), my focus during the deliberations would be on the final 1 minute before the gun shot to decide if self defense by Zimmerman is a legitimate and correct verdict or if he chased down and attacked and shot Martin.
The rest is smoke and mirrors.

If the evidence indicates to me as a juror (jurist?) passing judgement on the case that in that final minute Martin did attack Zimmerman, punch him, put him on the ground, and continue to punch him while he was down, then a vote of self defense appears to be the correct answer because I would personally be pulling my weapon and shooting my attacker under that same scenerio.

If, on the other hand, the evidence indicates that Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation, punched Martin, knocked him down, and then pulled his gun and shot Martin, the self defense possibility goes out of the picture and I would be looking deeper to decide between manslaughter and 2nd degree murder.

My focus would be on which person has physical indicators that would show me which version matches.
The screams are completely useless as indicators because of conflicting stories as to whom is doing the screaming.
Eyewitness accounts of the final minute would be crucial.
Which individual testimony do I believe is accurately depicting what is transpiring, one person standing 20-30 feet away or another person further away. If I can't definitely believe one over the other then as a juror weighing the testimony I would scratch off both.
The forensic evidence is also very important because it could possibly rule out one version of the story over the other. Things such as the angle of the bullet wound, the distance between the gun barrel and Martin's chest, the distance between Martin's clothing and his skin at the time of the shot.

Not saying what my vote would be because I am not sitting in the courtroom, just saying what I would focus upon as a juror if I were sitting in that seat.

 

[BIG_MIKE2005]

Are going to believe the defense lawyers or you own lying eyes?
That is the question.

How about the evidence then. You have already made up your mind about the verdict for whatever reason. while ignoring the basic principle that Martin was responsible himself for instigating the fight that resulted in his death. nothing Zimmerman had done up to that point was grounds for Martin to attack him, plain & simple. Once Martin made the decision to attack him Zimmerman has EVERY right to defend himself with deadly force if need be, period.

I'll agree **** decisions were made on both sides but the decisions of Martin is what ultimately resulted in his death.

 

[Hobbes]

How about the evidence then. You have already made up your mind about the verdict for whatever reason. while ignoring the basic principle that Martin was responsible himself for instigating the fight that resulted in his death. nothing Zimmerman had done up to that point was grounds for Martin to attack him, plain & simple. Once Martin made the decision to attack him Zimmerman has EVERY right to defend himself with deadly force if need be, period.

I'll agree **** decisions were made on both sides but the decisions of Martin is what ultimately resulted in his death.

There's no evidence that has been presented at trial to indicate that.
You don't know what precipitated the fight.
And you say my mind is made up.