Trayvon Martin

DocZaius · Post by **DocZaius** » Thu Jun 27, 2013 4:59 am

Yeah I haven't watched any of it but thete is great coverage at Legal Insurrection.

The latest: http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/zi ... witnesses/

IHateUGAlyDawgs · Post by **IHateUGAlyDawgs** » Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:07 am

That was a pretty solid analysis.

IHateUGAlyDawgs · Post by **IHateUGAlyDawgs** » Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:10 am

My biggest concern with this case is that I don't think there is anyway for EITHER side to get a fair trial in Seminole County. They needed a change of venue.

The other part that scares me, is that no matter the verdict, the question will still remain "was Justice served?"

If he is acquitted, it appears for a large number in the AA community it will be just another example of the injustices they have to endure. If he is found guilty, based on the evidence/testimony so far, I will wonder if it was politically driven.

DocZaius · Post by **DocZaius** » Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:28 am

[quote=IHateUGAlyDawgs]My biggest concern with this case is that I don't think there is anyway for EITHER side to get a fair trial in Seminole County. They needed a change of venue.

The other part that scares me, is that no matter the verdict, the question will still remain "was Justice served?"

If he is acquitted, it appears for a large number in the AA community it will be just another example of the injustices they have to endure. If he is found guilty, based on the evidence/testimony so far, I will wonder if it was politically driven.[/QUOTE]

Yup. This is a no-win situation. I'm just glad I don't live in Seminole County anymore.

IHateUGAlyDawgs · Post by **IHateUGAlyDawgs** » Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:52 am

The Defense on the cross of this "star" witness has done a remarkable job of making it appear that words were put into her mouth by the family and Ben Crump (notorious pot stirrer). To me it is unfathomable that the State would interview this person for the first time in the victim's mother's home, with the victim's mother by her side, and the victim's mother's civil attorneys in the room. That is absolutely awful.

IHateUGAlyDawgs · Post by **IHateUGAlyDawgs** » Thu Jun 27, 2013 9:39 am

on top of making her story to law enforcement appear coerced, now the defense is drilling her about her phone calls and the timeline. Doing a pretty good job, too. Got her to admit the phone cutting off could have been from a bad signal (like many other disconnects they had during that conversation) - and not because of the fight she initially stated. Also got her to admit that the defense's timeline is correct because of the phone lines.

DocZaius · Post by **DocZaius** » Thu Jun 27, 2013 11:58 am

I hope Angela Corey paid Bernie De La Rionda and John Guy a fat bonus for taking this stinker of a case.

The main prosecution witnesses have all pretty much collapsed under cross. I think the only thing that can save the State's case now is to attack Zimmerman's credibility - probably by using little discrepancies in his multiple statements to the police.

I wonder if Zimmerman's going to take the stand. I mean, you'd think he'd have to if he's relying on self-defense, but if the entirety of his statements to the police come into evidence then maybe he doesn't.

IHateUGAlyDawgs · Post by **IHateUGAlyDawgs** » Thu Jun 27, 2013 12:04 pm

[quote=DocZaius]I hope Angela Corey paid Bernie De La Rionda and John Guy a fat bonus for taking this stinker of a case.

The main prosecution witnesses have all pretty much collapsed under cross. I think the only thing that can save the State's case now is to attack Zimmerman's credibility - probably by using little discrepancies in his multiple statements to the police.

I wonder if Zimmerman's going to take the stand. I mean, you'd think he'd have to if he's relying on self-defense, but if the entirety of his statements to the police come into evidence then maybe he doesn't.[/QUOTE]

Doc,

As you know the statements Zimmerman made come in as statements by a party opponent...if the State so chooses to put them on. However, I am not sure why the State would do that, in effect, preventing Zimmerman from having to take the stand to say he was defending himself. Doing so would therefore prevent them from crossing him on his statements. Therefore, I suspect the State will gamble that Zimmerman will take the stand.

The defense will then have to determine if it is worth putting him on the stand. Usually, it's pretty clear they won't because of criminal records then coming in, however, Zimmerman has no felonies (nor do I believe he has any convictions for "crimes of dishonesty"), so that risk is gone. What Zimmerman will have to be careful of, IF he takes the stand, is to not give any statements that are MATERIALLY DIFFERENT from what was said to law enforcement. If they're not different, then you can't impeach him with own prior consistent statements. Even if you could, why would you want to show that jury that his story has stayed the same all the way through? So, as long as he keeps the same story, other than hoping to trip him up on cross, there's not much the State can do.

IHateUGAlyDawgs · Post by **IHateUGAlyDawgs** » Thu Jun 27, 2013 12:28 pm

My biggest factual question with this whole case revolves around the following scenario...

IF Zimmerman was the primary aggressor (grabbed Martin, shoved him, or in any other way assailed him other than being a concerned watchful citizen), then Martin would be completely justified in standing HIS ground...

However, could the tables turn? Could Martin stand his ground TOO MUCH? Thus could that cause Zimmerman to be able to stand his ground despite being the cause of the fight?

So, I read through the jury instructions again on Justifiable Use of Deadly Force...

A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent:
1. imminent death or great bodily harm to himself, herself, or another, or
2. the imminent commission of (forcible felony) against himself, herself, or another

However, the use of deadly force is NOT JUSTIFIABLE if you find:
1. Defendant was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of (forcible felony); OR
2. Defendant INITIALLY PROVOKED the use of force against himself, UNLESS:
a. The force asserted toward the defendant was so great that he reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm AND had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger, other than using deadly force on (assailant).
b. In good faith, the defendant withdrew from physical contact with (assailant) and clearly indicated to (assailant that he wanted to withdraw and stop the use of deadly force, but (assailant) continued or resumed the use of force.

In deciding whether defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing the need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautions and prudent person under the circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, the defendant must have actually believed that the danger was real.

If the Defendant was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or to prevent the commission of a forcibly felony.

In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the relative physical abilities and capacities of the defendant and (victim).

If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty.
However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly fore, you should find him guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.

IHateUGAlyDawgs · Post by **IHateUGAlyDawgs** » Thu Jun 27, 2013 12:29 pm

any emphasis was added by me.

DocZaius · Post by **DocZaius** » Thu Jun 27, 2013 1:03 pm

[quote=IHateUGAlyDawgs]My biggest factual question with this whole case revolves around the following scenario...

IF Zimmerman was the primary aggressor (grabbed Martin, shoved him, or in any other way assailed him other than being a concerned watchful citizen), then Martin would be completely justified in standing HIS ground...

However, could the tables turn? Could Martin stand his ground TOO MUCH? Thus could that cause Zimmerman to be able to stand his ground despite being the cause of the fight?

So, I read through the jury instructions again on Justifiable Use of Deadly Force...[/QUOTE]

Well, I don't see where there's any evidence that Zimmerman did anything other than talk to Martin before Martin attacked him. That's really where the State's evidence falls short.

IHateUGAlyDawgs · Post by **IHateUGAlyDawgs** » Thu Jun 27, 2013 4:03 pm

[quote=DocZaius]Well, I don't see where there's any evidence that Zimmerman did anything other than talk to Martin before Martin attacked him. That's really where the State's evidence falls short.[/QUOTE]

I agree with you. My post there was more for hypothetical purposes. I'm assuming the State has some evidence of Martin being attacked other than the inference they are asking the jury to make based on the horrendous testimony of Rachel Jenteal.

IHateUGAlyDawgs · Post by **IHateUGAlyDawgs** » Fri Jun 28, 2013 10:01 am

Today starts with yet ANOTHER state witness that helps the defense (John Good)

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF300T using Tapatalk 2

DocZaius · Post by **DocZaius** » Fri Jun 28, 2013 11:50 am

Yeah I don't understand calling Good at all. From my memory his story has always supported the self-defense theory.

Maybe the prosecution is trying to put on the crappiest case possible. That way Zimmerman walks but they can tell the victim's family that they threw everything at it.

rock8591 · Post by **rock8591** » Fri Jun 28, 2013 10:52 pm

The prosecution and media is a joke.

Case in point: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162- ... l-gunshot/

CBS has to use that particular photo of the witness, as if implying he is doing a Nazi salute.

IHateUGAlyDawgs · Post by **IHateUGAlyDawgs** » Sat Jun 29, 2013 1:24 am

[quote=DocZaius]Yeah I don't understand calling Good at all. From my memory his story has always supported the self-defense theory.

Maybe the prosecution is trying to put on the crappiest case possible. That way Zimmerman walks but they can tell the victim's family that they threw everything at it.[/QUOTE]

Then why charge the case at all? Sometimes telling a victims family bad news is part of the job.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF300T using Tapatalk 2

DocZaius · Post by **DocZaius** » Sat Jun 29, 2013 5:20 am

Exactly.

IHateUGAlyDawgs · Post by **IHateUGAlyDawgs** » Sat Jun 29, 2013 11:24 am

Sure is interesting to reread this thread from the beginning.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF300T using Tapatalk 2

DocZaius · Post by **DocZaius** » Sat Jun 29, 2013 1:58 pm

Yeah. Remember when more than 3 people used to post?

Toothy · Post by **Toothy** » Sat Jun 29, 2013 9:24 pm

Fourth!

DocZaius · Post by **DocZaius** » Mon Jul 01, 2013 7:44 am

Leaving aside the issue of where all our posters have gone, you're right, IHate. I went back and read through my first posts on the matter and it's pretty clear that the narrative that was first put out to the public was orchestrated by Martin's family and their attorneys.

I don't think the trial has shown anything but Zimmerman getting railroaded by a politically-motivated prosecution.

Toothy · Post by **Toothy** » Mon Jul 01, 2013 11:32 am

Here's one thing: George Zimmerman shot an unarmed teenager dead. Regardless of statute, that's irreducibly fucked up, sorry.

DocZaius · Post by **DocZaius** » Mon Jul 01, 2013 11:48 am

^ Said teenager was beating the shit out of him at the time, which is also pretty fucked up.

IHateUGAlyDawgs · Post by **IHateUGAlyDawgs** » Mon Jul 01, 2013 2:15 pm

It seems to me that one's feelings about this case fall more in line with your feelings on guns/gun control than anything else. Based on the evidence produced so far, whatever you think of Zimmerman personally, he can not be convicted of murder (or anything else, for that matter).

Unless there's some damaging evidence still to come that the press is unaware of, the decision to prosecute this case by Angela Corey was clearly politically motivated. I'll bet the Sanford Police Department and the SAO for Seminole County feel vindicated so far.

G8rMom7 · Post by **G8rMom7** » Mon Jul 01, 2013 2:55 pm

Just joining but it's quite telling reading the first page of this thread and then jumping to the last. I've been following this case off and on from a conservative website I read. For some reason there were a few people who just got really into researching all the facts of this case that the media wouldn't or couldn't. There is a major narrative here...and I don't see it changing. Even if Zimmerman is acquitted, there are still going to be people who only listen what our media tells them. And the race baiters will of course be fanning the flames more and more. Justice has not and will not be served. It hasn't from the get go.