Witness: Martin attacked Zimmerman

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by David

Defense attorneys for other high-profile clients who awaited trial on bail had advice for how to protect the man whose shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin sparked nationwide protests: Get him out of Florida, keep him from going out in public and never leave him alone.

It's too late to protect George Zimmerman. But if the Justice Department arrested and convicted the New Black Panthers and others who threatened anybody in such cases, the racial unrest might not materialize the next time.

[schaabdl]

Just like the media watch what you right
a) It is NOT wrong to follow someone even if directed by the 911 dispatcher - zero authority. In fact, unless you interfere with the actual police work on site, there is no authority from a phone call. Zimmerman, just as Martin, has every right to be where he was at the time.
b) Very loose standard stated above: If there is enough evidence to pose a question? the standard has been if there is enough evidence that a crime was committed. Seems many want to dismiss the initial five hours of questioning and evidence gathering for what has truly become a political circus.
c) Zimmerman could be making things up but it is the state that has to prove the case. It is the state that used the terms profiling, followed, confronting. Zimmerman was told not to follow and many conclude he was still following because of the 911 statement that essentially says he doesn't see him anymore. One could question that comment a bit further - what do you mean? ANSWER: Where I was at the moment I didn't see him. The state will have to prove active following as it is part of their affidavit.
d) I would think I would want neighborhood watches to be as observant / vigilant as Zimmerman - certainly not worthy of condemnation.

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by schaabdl

Just like the media watch what you right
a) It is NOT wrong to follow someone even if directed by the 911 dispatcher - zero authority.

Typical distraction. This is not about whether the 911 officer had authority, it is about whether Zimmerman's decision to pursue Martin set up the circumstances of Martin's death.

Originally Posted by schaabdl

Zimmerman, just as Martin, has every right to be where he was at the time.

There is a difference between being there and stalking.

Originally Posted by schaabdl

b) Very loose standard stated above: If there is enough evidence to pose a question? the standard has been if there is enough evidence that a crime was committed.

There was a dead body. The person with the gun was undeniably the person who killed him. There were no witnesses to the killing or what led to it. There was evidence of a crime.

Originally Posted by schaabdl

Seems many want to dismiss the initial five hours of questioning and evidence gathering for what has truly become a political circus.

The site that GeronL linked to earlier claimed the the investigation ended after 2 weeks. I don't dispute that an investigation was conducted, I question the thoroughness of the investigation.

Many years ago someone I knew was suing a hospital for malpractice. Their child was brain-damaged after birth. What experts determined is that the brain damage occurred when the doctors unsuccessfully tried to kill the child. The child was carried over 10 months. The attending physician was on vacation and the hospital didn't want to performs a Cesarean without his approval. So they waited until natural birth occurred. The complications from the birth required intensive care. But the child choked on vomit and wasn't discovered by the nurse until it was blue. In the investigation for the suit, the expert pouring over documents discovered a couple of falsified documents and found the the oxygen the child was receiving was low enough to cause death. He told the parents that if the child died and an autopsy had been performed the information would have been discovered. But in such cases where a death occurs in the hospital, they are not required autopsy as "the child was expected to die anyway."

My point here is if you conclude at the outset that a crime was not committed, you are not likely to look for minute details that you would look for if you suspected foul play.

Originally Posted by schaabdl

c) Zimmerman could be making things up but it is the state that has to prove the case.

So let them do their job.

Originally Posted by schaabdl

It is the state that used the terms profiling, followed, confronting. Zimmerman was told not to follow and many conclude he was still following because of the 911 statement that essentially says he doesn't see him anymore. One could question that comment a bit further - what do you mean? ANSWER: Where I was at the moment I didn't see him. The state will have to prove active following as it is part of their affidavit.

And what I have read shows an inconsistency in Zimmerman's story. As I pointed out the 911 operator mentioned the Mailboxes. At that point both knew where he was. There was no reason for him to continue to "look for an address". But his father said he continued to the next street. Is that consistent with Zimmerman's statement to the police? Questions!

Originally Posted by schaabdl

d) I would think I would want neighborhood watches to be as observant / vigilant as Zimmerman - certainly not worthy of condemnation.

In some neighborhoods they have "armed watchmen". Zimmerman was not acting in such capacity officially. As some said early in this thread, if Zimmerman was "official" the community is open for lawsuit.

[schaabdl]

DUH - actions led to the death but still doesn't make him guilty of crime or wrong doing. The burden of proof is on the state to prove the crime and you keep reciting things about Zimmerman - he doesn't have to prove a thing and the state so far has shown nothing.

[David]

Originally Posted by schaabdl

DUH - actions led to the death but still doesn't make him guilty of crime or wrong doing. The burden of proof is on the state to prove the crime and you keep reciting things about Zimmerman - he doesn't have to prove a thing and the state so far has shown nothing.

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by schaabdl

DUH - actions led to the death but still doesn't make him guilty of crime or wrong doing.

Granted they charged second degree murder, which would imply some intent. But manslaughter does not require intent, just essentially carelessness resulting in death. That is still a crime.

Originally Posted by schaabdl

The burden of proof is on the state to prove the crime and you keep reciting things about Zimmerman - he doesn't have to prove a thing and the state so far has shown nothing.

So you think he can rest his case without putting on a defense? The story he related to police will likely not be introduced in court. The state needs only put up the fact that a man is dead, at the hands of another, then in court leave it up to him to explain. When he takes the stand, they will then bring in previous statements by him to impeach his testimony. Since he is the only witness, he will have to tell his side of the story.

The time line can be established pretty much by phone records. There is one, maybe two witnesses to one short period in that time line. But unless they have obtained surveillance video that no one has mentioned, there is no other way that I can see.

You are "technically" right that the burden of proof is on the state. But that is like the "technical" claim of "innocence until proven guilty". When the cops take you into custody, there is no presumption of innocence. When the court sets bail, there is no presumption of innocence. Only the jury or trail judge is bound to start from the presumption of innocence.

As for the state having shown nothing, they have a dead man who was killed with Zimmerman's gun, admittedly by Zimmerman. "Death at the hands of another." The burden is going to be on the defense to explain that. The witnesses saw two men fighting. And that is about all.

Unfortunately for all, they say this will not get to trial for about a year. I guess the only upshot is that the distortions will not be fresh in the minds of jurors by time it get to trial.

[FoundingFather]

Originally Posted by jtdc

Granted they charged second degree murder, which would imply some intent. But manslaughter does not require intent, just essentially carelessness resulting in death. That is still a crime.

So you think he can rest his case without putting on a defense? The story he related to police will likely not be introduced in court. The state needs only put up the fact that a man is dead, at the hands of another, then in court leave it up to him to explain. When he takes the stand, they will then bring in previous statements by him to impeach his testimony. Since he is the only witness, he will have to tell his side of the story.

The time line can be established pretty much by phone records. There is one, maybe two witnesses to one short period in that time line. But unless they have obtained surveillance video that no one has mentioned, there is no other way that I can see.

You are "technically" right that the burden of proof is on the state. But that is like the "technical" claim of "innocence until proven guilty". When the cops take you into custody, there is no presumption of innocence. When the court sets bail, there is no presumption of innocence. Only the jury or trail judge is bound to start from the presumption of innocence.

As for the state having shown nothing, they have a dead man who was killed with Zimmerman's gun, admittedly by Zimmerman. "Death at the hands of another." The burden is going to be on the defense to explain that. The witnesses saw two men fighting. And that is about all.

Unfortunately for all, they say this will not get to trial for about a year. I guess the only upshot is that the distortions will not be fresh in the minds of jurors by time it get to trial.

Was it self defense, or was it not? That's what all physical evidence and testimony boils down to. The fact that Martin had no gun is irrelevant if the defense can prove that Zimmerman had no other choice.

[GeronL]

The defense doesn't actually have to "prove" even that.

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by FoundingFather

The fact that Martin had no gun is irrelevant if the defense can prove that Zimmerman had no other choice.

But that "burden of proof" is on the defense, not the prosecution.

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by GeronL

The defense doesn't actually have to "prove" even that.

How do you figure that? There is nothing to tell what happened except Zimmerman. If he does not take the stand you have the fact that Martin was killed by Zimmerman, with Zimmerman's gun, the 911 recording indicating that Zimmerman went after Martin, and virtually nothing else. If he does not put on a defense, then what else can you conclude?

[David]

George Zimmerman Is Destined for a Hung Jury

by Mansfield Frazier Apr 21, 2012 5:09 PM EDT
Not only will it be impossible to find a jury without preconceived opinions in the Trayvon Martin case—it will be impossible to find one that will convict, says Mansfield Frazier.

SOURCE

[BFDwarf]

Until this goes to trial, all we know is this was a unneccessary death. whether Zimmerman "stalked" Trayvon, or Trayvon went "ghetto" on Zimmerman. Escalation can be a bitch!

I just want to see what the facts and evidence come out.

I do believe that Zimmermans apology to Trayvons family was sincere, he had no idea who or how old a that 6 foot tall kid was.

Personally, as I aint but 5'2". I will shoot yer 13 year old grandkid if he acts up.

[GeronL]

If someone jumps on someone else and is pounding their face, self defense is not unnecessary

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by GeronL

If someone jumps on someone else and is pounding their face, self defense is not unnecessary

If you start the fight and the other person gets the upper hand, are you totally not responsible for killing that person?

[schaabdl]

Originally Posted by jtdc

But that "burden of proof" is on the defense, not the prosecution.

Absolutely false - the defense has exactly zero burden

[schaabdl]

Originally Posted by jtdc

Granted they charged second degree murder, which would imply some intent. But manslaughter does not require intent, just essentially carelessness resulting in death. That is still a crime.

Have not seen that the state would go for a lesser charge. Not all charges go to court allowing the jury to consider a lesser charge. Won't know that until the arraignment next month. Not certain if FL law allows consideration of a lesser charge.

[David]

Zimmerman released on bond

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by schaabdl

Absolutely false - the defense has exactly zero burden

You're living in fantasy-land. But we will see if that works, eventually. You don't have to plead. If you don't the judge will enter a "not guilty". This is the real world.

When I was being prepped for my federal case the attorney said the after the opposition presented its case I could ask the judge to dismiss the case. He said it was just going through the motions because if they had so little we wouldn't be in court.

Originally Posted by schaabdl

Not certain if FL law allows consideration of a lesser charge.

At any time the prosecutor can withdraw the charge. I would guess the Judge has the authority to allow a reduction. I hate to see Zimmerman plead to manslaughter if he is telling the truth. But I hear the trial won't begin for another year and he will lose so much of his life going through the process. I think I hear he could get 30 years if the Murder 2 is upheld. So the filing may be a bargaining chip. Manslaughter would probably be a easy charge to prosecute. While Murder 2 is possible, unless the prosecutor knows something we don't, they just about guaranteed a mistrial or an acquittal.

[Rifleman]

Let jtdc alone, and exist in his fantasy land. If Zimmerman wasn;t acting in self defense, the prosecution has to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt, and the phony witnesses that say the screaming for help "sounds like Martin" aren't that. At any time Martin could've stopped, but he refused, and kept on trying to kill Zimmerman. That's how it works, even woth th police. Once someone realizes they are armed, they stop and avoid getting shot by the police. Zimmerman had no duty to "warn" Trayvon, especially if he spotted the gun and went for it.

As for the "?Prosecution?", I happen to believe they are going to try and create scenarios withuot supporting evidence, and inflame the jury creating the impression, that "someone must pay" because a young black man was killed. That's the only way to get a conviction without supporting evidence. Obviously, most people supporting "Trayvon" and a few that support Zimmerman don't realize the peril involved in defending your life with a gun. If they lose, Zimmerman will still be unable to walk the streets freely, and future citizends who are attacked by a black man will hesitate to defedn themselves. That my friends, is political blackmail! The Governor is reviewing the State Law on Gun defense, and perhaps they can reenslave the citizens of Florida once again, this time at the hands of Republicans.

[David]

How about this guy. Better lynch Zimmerman to avoid riots.

SOURCE