• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Continuation Part 2: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

Cavemonster said:
That's not how innocent until proven guilty works or what it means. He DID kill Trayvon, the prosecution doesn't have to prove that, everyone admits it. It isn't the burden of the state to prove it wasn't self defense. Self defense is an affirmative defense. The burden of proof is on GZ to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was acting in self defense, not on the prosecution to prove he wasn't. If there is reasonable doubt that he was acting in self defense, then his affirmative defense fails.
Click to expand...

The standard of "reasonable doubt" is much higher than what will apply to Zimmerman's claims. The judge will give very specific instructions to the jury when they go to deliberate about how to consider the self-defense claim.
 
I just wanted to finish up some old business. I was involved in the thread back when the so called expert claimed to be able to demonstrate that the recorded screams were Martin and not Zimmerman. I had preliminary accepted that claim. AIU that evidence was not allowed in. If so then let me say I was wrong.

That's all.
 
RandFan said:
I just wanted to finish up some old business. I was involved in the thread back when the so called expert claimed to be able to demonstrate that the recorded screams were Martin and not Zimmerman. I had preliminary accepted that claim. AIU that evidence was not allowed in. If so then let me say I was wrong.

That's all.
Click to expand...

You are correct, that testimony was not allowed in.
 
First week of this trial is done, which side do you all feel seems to be on the winning side?

The knock-knock joke during opening statements for the defense was horrible...nowhere to go but up from there. To the defense's credit, the prosecution's witnesses seem to be corroborating most of Zimmerman's story.

TM's phone friend certainly didn't help much, and wasn't she the 'star witness' we had been hearing about? The female neighbor that saw GZ get up after the shooting (she spoke through an interpreter) noted that he was on top of TM, perhaps it would lend credence to the prosecution's case.

Seems like the prosecution has its work cut out for them to prove GZ's a cold blooded killer.
I watched a video earlier on the Fox website with Geraldo Rivera, he mentioned the solid perception gap of the testimony of TM's friend: African-americans tended to view her as a little girl (she is over 18, correct me if I'm wrong) and sympathized with her, and on the other side White Americans tended to view her as semi-literate (can't read cursive?) and regarded her testimony as untrustworthy.

I wish I could find the video, because he barely touched on something I've been thinking about for a long time: Will a "not guilty" verdict trigger riots? Rivera didn't specifically say 'riots' but mentioned that African-americans could be dissatisfied and angry with a "not guilty" verdict.
 
Mister Earl said:
Zimmerman couldn't have beaten him to the other end with his vehicle?
Click to expand...
Martin didn't have to go on the road at all. And he knew he had a big head start, he ran down the path while Zimmerman was still in his truck.
 
Cavemonster said:
That's not how innocent until proven guilty works or what it means. He DID kill Trayvon, the prosecution doesn't have to prove that, everyone admits it. It isn't the burden of the state to prove it wasn't self defense. Self defense is an affirmative defense. The burden of proof is on GZ to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was acting in self defense, not on the prosecution to prove he wasn't. If there is reasonable doubt that he was acting in self defense, then his affirmative defense fails.
Click to expand...

That's fine but we weren't exactly talking about a trial, he was saying he didn't think it right the cops would just take your word for it and move on. They won't, they'll investigate and if the investigation turns up that it's not a case of self defense then they will press charges.
 
Skeletor said:
First week of this trial is done, which side do you all feel seems to be on the winning side?
Click to expand...

To be clear, I won't discuss the trial in general, as I'm not watching it. I have been following the news, and I di watch the second day of Rachel's deposition.

The knock-knock joke during opening statements for the defense was horrible...nowhere to go but up from there. To the defense's credit, the prosecution's witnesses seem to be corroborating most of Zimmerman's story.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree on this. Actually, I think that Zimmerman's own police call demolishes his story, or at least the story he told on Hannity and in his walkthrough. There's no real need for witnesses here, his story is laughable nonsense. And I did hear West pointedly disagree with Zimmerman's story, by claiming that Zimmerman did, in fact, follow Martin.

TM's phone friend certainly didn't help much, and wasn't she the 'star witness' we had been hearing about? The female neighbor that saw GZ get up after the shooting (she spoke through an interpreter) noted that he was on top of TM, perhaps it would lend credence to the prosecution's case.
Click to expand...

Rachel, I thought, held out well against an obviously hostile lawyer on her second day (I will not vouch for the first). She did nothing to throw her central claims in doubt, and pointedly ridiculed the defense lawyer (West) when he pointed out various absurd scenarios, such as Martin running and hiding in order to plan an attack against a guy trailing him in a car. It's clear that she had contempt for West, but it's also clear that West was throwing out nonsense, such as Martin profiling Zimmerman first, or Martin planning an attack. It sounds much more like Zimmerman profiled Martin, and began creeping after him in his car. Martin noticed this, and ran away, and Zimmerman pursued him.

(One note - I don't blame West for being hostile. Zimmerman is his client, he's *supposed* to go after any witness who helps the case against him.)

Seems like the prosecution has its work cut out for them to prove GZ's a cold blooded killer.
I watched a video earlier on the Fox website with Geraldo Rivera, he mentioned the solid perception gap of the testimony of TM's friend: African-americans tended to view her as a little girl (she is over 18, correct me if I'm wrong) and sympathized with her, and on the other side White Americans tended to view her as semi-literate (can't read cursive?) and regarded her testimony as untrustworthy.
Click to expand...

Cursive has been on the way out for a while now - frankly, I'm 35, and I can barely read it. I thought West was right when he questioned what "wet grass" sounded like, but for most of what little I saw, he was just badgering her.

I wish I could find the video, because he barely touched on something I've been thinking about for a long time: Will a "not guilty" verdict trigger riots? Rivera didn't specifically say 'riots' but mentioned that African-americans could be dissatisfied and angry with a "not guilty" verdict.
Click to expand...

As a black American, I wouldn't be "satisfied" with a not guilty verdict at this point (and I note that the defense has not been given a chance to present their side yet), but I wouldn't riot over it. And frankly, as I've probably said before here, the entire notion that this will spark "race riots", or that there were going to be "race riots" because he wasn't charged, has always been ahistorical race-baiting nonsense.
 
bynmdsue said:
That's fine but we weren't exactly talking about a trial, he was saying he didn't think it right the cops would just take your word for it and move on. They won't, they'll investigate and if the investigation turns up that it's not a case of self defense then they will press charges.
Click to expand...
If they don't think they can prove their case they damn well should not bring charges.
 
WildCat said:
Martin didn't have to go on the road at all. And he knew he had a big head start, he ran down the path while Zimmerman was still in his truck.
Click to expand...

Somebody should have explained the rules of The Nost Dangerous Game to Martin.
 
Mumbles said:
No.
Click to expand...

Yes, she testified that Trayvon called Zimmerman a creepy- --- white cracker and a n-word! How is that not putting it in evidence? TM used racial slurs against Zimmerman...weren't people attributing the racial slurs to Zimmerman to justify TM's punching him in the face? Looks like those suppositions were quite wrong. It's in evidence that TM should be called a racist and HE RACIALLY PROFILED GEORGE ZIMMERMAN.
 
Dancing David said:
As will become apparent during deliberations, this will be the crux of the case, however as was pointed out in the older old thread by a at least one self professed lawyer, there is much more to self defense that just 'I had a reasonable fear of loss of life or serious physical injury', and that is where the deliberations are possibly going to be very complex. The actual setting of the events and the reasons for the confrontation do matter.

So if the jury decides that GZ was attacked without provocation, and that the acts of TM would lead a reasonable person to respond the way GZ did, then the self defense case will be easy. But as was pointed out in the old old thread, there is much more to a self defense claim than that.

So while the prosecution may seem to be failing right now, there is a long way to go, they are likely to try to establish that GZ did influence the attack by TM, that the choices made by GZ were not reasonable, that he contributed to the escalation of the confrontation and that the injuries being received by GZ were not life threatening or likely to cause serious physical harm.

Then it really comes down to the jury's impression of what happened and how they weigh all the facts, if they just focus on GZ being beat and feeling threatened then they will rule for self defense, but if they feel the other factors are there (which will be solely up to them) then the deliberations will get very long and drawn out with lots and lots of instructions.

And that is where the two narratives will matter.
Click to expand...


A story on an upcoming re-enactment (by 10,000 people) of the Battle of Gettysburg on July 1-3, 1863, led me to think of the possibility of future re-enactment by hobbyists of the events of February 26, 2012.

Narrative lines will matter to hard-core Shooting of Trayvon Martin enthusiasts who will have followed the trial carefully in order that the events be portrayed realistically. They will be trying to behave as similarly as possible to all the characters involved such as family attorneys, state attorneys, prosecution and defense witnesses, investigating officers, members of the press, etc.

This might include eating seasonally appropriate food, period appropriate undergarmets, and staying in character throughout the course of the event. With the reenactors portraying George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin themselves doubling, perhaps, as narrators of the respective points of view.
 
Mumbles said:
To be clear, I won't discuss the trial in general, as I'm not watching it. I have been following the news, and I di watch the second day of Rachel's deposition.
Click to expand...

Well, this could be a problem for you because the news is NOT reporting what is actually happening in the trial.
 
Frank Newgent said:
Had Trayvon Martin carried a gun they might had a shootout. Whoever survived could claim self defense under stand your ground.
Click to expand...
Do you have a plausible scenario, based on the testimony we've heard so far, as to how Zimmerman initated a fight that began at the T - the same place he was standing when he was on the phone with the NEN?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom