Not guilty

[TJ Hawg]

Originally posted by Paul Loyd:
But that's my point. You can't convict someone when you have no direct evidence, and unfortunately the death of Martin keeps his testimony about what happened out of the trial.

I have no idea what Zimmerman's motives were that night, but IMO, there just wasn't any evidence presented during the trial that would have allowed me to vote guilty of second degree murder or manslaughter.

The prosecution must prove guilt and that simply did not happen.

Prosecution had to prove Zimmerman killed Martin. But that was not in dispute. Zimmerman and his attorneys all admitted he killed Martin. They raised self defense as his justification. Defendants have the burden of proof to prove self defense. So, Zimmerman had to prove Martin became the aggressor at some point, and he had to prove that he had a reasonable belief that his life was in jeopardy and that the lethal force he used was commensurate with the threat he was facing.


This post was edited on 7/13 10:38 PM by TJ Hawg

 

[WooPig71657]

MR_, Just so we're both on the same page... You are aware you didn't answer my question, right? Calling wounds "insignificant" and "non-life threatening" is a description of their severity, not their source. Try again.

This post was edited on 7/13 10:40 PM by WooPig71657

 

[Insowniac]

Originally posted by txstob:

I did not know that. I thought that would be the way to pay for his stupidity.

1) Section 776.032 (2): Dissuades and discourages police from arresting a person who claims: "self-defense" under the "Stand Your Ground Law" where there are no direct eye-witnesses, and
2) Section 776.032 (3): Prohibits family of victim from suing the killer in Civil Court for "Wrongful Death."


Florida "Stand Your Ground Law" Statute 776.012
"A person who is not engaged in an UNLawful activity[/B] and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force[/B] if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm[/B] to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."


[/B]

 

[WooPig71657]

Actually, Trayvon had a cut on one of his knuckles.

 

[Ole Hambone]

Originally posted by ermackey:

Originally posted by original hambone:

Originally posted by ermackey:

Originally posted by original hambone:

Originally posted by MR_:

Originally posted by Paul Loyd:
With the evidence that was provided, I don't see how any other verdict could have been reached. Zimmerman was stupid for getting out of his car and following Martin, but Martin was stupid to confront Zimmerman as well. There was no definitive evidence (IMO) given that would allow for any other verdict (again, IMO).

There is also no proof that Martin is the one who confronted Zimmerman either. Only his word on that. When one party is dead you don't get the whole picture.

So, what is your theory on how Zimmerman got the broken nose and the cuts on the back of his head?

There was a confrontation. Now what evidence do you have that TM started it, other than the testimony of the shooter and your speculation?

What wounds did Trayvon have that indicated to you that he was involved in a physical altercation... other than the gunshot? NONE!

They physical evidence. Zimmerman had a broken nose and lacerations to the back of his head.
Eye witness testimony. Neighbor testified that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman throwing punches.

Case closed.

And that does not bother you that TM had no evidence of a physical altercation, other than a gunshot?

Not at all... It just means that Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman...

What other LOGICAL conclusion can you reach?

 

[jrohawg35]

I thought Zimmerman wasn't using the Stand your ground law, that was just the original reason he wasn't arrested?

 

[chicks1244]

If he jumped him how would you expect him to have signs of physical altercations? If he jumped him and ended up on top of him bouncing his head off concrete what was Zimmerman supposed to do? He had to shoot and when you shoot you shoot to kill. Jury made the right call but this shouldn't have ever went to court shouldn't have been any charges period...

Originally posted by ermackey:

Originally posted by original hambone:

Originally posted by ermackey:

Originally posted by original hambone:

Originally posted by MR_:

Originally posted by Paul Loyd:
With the evidence that was provided, I don't see how any other verdict could have been reached. Zimmerman was stupid for getting out of his car and following Martin, but Martin was stupid to confront Zimmerman as well. There was no definitive evidence (IMO) given that would allow for any other verdict (again, IMO).

There is also no proof that Martin is the one who confronted Zimmerman either. Only his word on that. When one party is dead you don't get the whole picture.

So, what is your theory on how Zimmerman got the broken nose and the cuts on the back of his head?

There was a confrontation. Now what evidence do you have that TM started it, other than the testimony of the shooter and your speculation?

What wounds did Trayvon have that indicated to you that he was involved in a physical altercation... other than the gunshot? NONE!

They physical evidence. Zimmerman had a broken nose and lacerations to the back of his head.
Eye witness testimony. Neighbor testified that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman throwing punches.

Case closed.

And that does not bother you that TM had no evidence of a physical altercation, other than a gunshot?

 

[txstob]

I never thought that the facts in the case would sustain a guilty verdict on either charge. However I was troubled with the thought that if Zimmerman had not followed Martin and had stayed in his truck, the young man would be alive today. It is a shame but I never thought he was guilty under criminal law.

 

[Insowniac]

Originally posted by txstob:

I never thought that the facts in the case would sustain a guilty verdict on either charge. However I was troubled with the thought that if Zimmerman had not followed Martin and had stayed in his truck, the young man would be alive today. It is a shame but I never thought he was guilty under criminal law.

Exactly. He should have let the police handle it, but he was within the the in Florida. I have a concealed carry permit and travel to many states for work. I have learned many different states laws and am surprised by some of them.

 

[Eldawghawg]

You don't already lock you doors?

 

[JeanLucPiggard]

Hell yeah. Hate for the kid that died, but sick of media bias.

 

[MR_ARKANSAS]

Originally posted by WooPig71657:
MR_, Just so we're both on the same page... You are aware you didn't answer my question, right? Calling wounds "insignificant" and "non-life threatening" is a description of their severity, not their source. Try again.

This post was edited on 7/13 10:40 PM by WooPig71657

Those wounds were said to have come from abrasions and not slams to the concrete. So maybe you should try again or actually should have followeed the trial.

 

[WooPig71657]

Look up the definition of abrasion, and then try again. This isn't going too well for you. Admitting you were wrong is an admirable trait.

 

[Jon Jackson]

Originally posted by MR_:

Originally posted by WooPig71657:
MR_, Just so we're both on the same page... You are aware you didn't answer my question, right? Calling wounds "insignificant" and "non-life threatening" is a description of their severity, not their source. Try again.

This post was edited on 7/13 10:40 PM by WooPig71657

Those wounds were said to have come from abrasions and not slams to the concrete. So maybe you should try again or actually should have followeed the trial.

Dr. Vincent Di Maio, world renowned forensic pathologist and expert witness disagrees with you. But shit man, don't let facts from testimony get in the way of your emotional verdict.

 

[Paul Loyd]

I'm not really defending Zimmerman. I don't mean to sound as though I am. My point is only that I don't feel there was enough to prove guilt or innocence, and that is why I couldn't have convicted him.

It was an extremely tragic incident, and I wish both young men would have chosen different actions; and I hope the Martin family can find some peace.

 

[Ole Hambone]

Originally posted by txstob:

I never thought that the facts in the case would sustain a guilty verdict on either charge. However I was troubled with the thought that if Zimmerman had not followed Martin and had stayed in his truck, the young man would be alive today. It is a shame but I never thought he was guilty under criminal law.

Trayvon Martin told his girl friend on the phone that he was either home or close to home...

Instead of going on in that door. He went back to confront that "creepy Ass Cracker" and ended up assaulting Zimmerman..

Trayvon takes his skittles and ice tea and goes on in the house...

 

[Jon Jackson]

Originally posted by Paul Loyd:
I'm not really defending Zimmerman. I don't mean to sound as though I am. My point is only that I don't feel there was enough to prove guilt or innocence, and that is why I couldn't have convicted him.

It was an extremely tragic incident, and I wish both young men would have chosen different actions; and I hope the Martin family can find some peace.

Agreed. Though the burden of proof is squarely on the prosecution. There wasn't enough evidence and there's a reason why they had to appoint a special prosecutor. Charges shouldn't have been filed in the first place.

 

[MR_ARKANSAS]

Originally posted by Jon Jackson:

Originally posted by MR_:

Originally posted by WooPig71657:
MR_, Just so we're both on the same page... You are aware you didn't answer my question, right? Calling wounds "insignificant" and "non-life threatening" is a description of their severity, not their source. Try again.

This post was edited on 7/13 10:40 PM by WooPig71657

Those wounds were said to have come from abrasions and not slams to the concrete. So maybe you should try again or actually should have followeed the trial.

Dr. Vincent Di Maio, world renowned forensic pathologist and expert witness disagrees with you. But shit man, don't let facts from testimony get in the way of your emotional verdict.

You mean Di Maio who was on the stand for the defense made the assertions? You don't say? I thought he was an expert in gunshot wounds....not head trauma. He also said you can have severe head trauma without any marks on your head.....so you can slam a man's head into the concrete hard enough to cause sever trauma without leaving marks? I guess if they are wearing a football helmet you could.....Di Maio will testify for anyone who is paying. Hence his testimony for both Drew Peterson and Phil Spector who were undoubtedly guilty. Yep.....Zimmerman's head injuries were so sever hedeclined ttreatment for them.

 

[Jon Jackson]

Yes. The defenses expert witness. Probably the most damning for the prosecution, sans precious' testimony. Martin clearly harbored some serious racial hatred in his heart. So much hate, in fact, that its pretty reasonable to assert that he would climb on GZ with the intent to cause great bodily harm or death. Hence, the self defense plea. Hence, GZ being found not guilty.

 

[MR_ARKANSAS]

Originally posted by Jon Jackson:
Yes. The defenses expert witness. Probably the most damning for the prosecution, sans precious' testimony. Martin clearly harbored some serious racial hatred in his heart. So much hate, in fact, that its pretty reasonable to assert that he would climb on GZ with the intent to cause great bodily harm or death. Hence, the self defense plea. Hence, GZ being found not guilty.

Lol!

 

[WooPig71657]

I'll help you out.



Prosecution Witness

 

[hawgfan620]

I have my concealed... I was told if I'm going to shoot someone to shoot to kill. They also told me I better say the key words I was in fear for my life.

 

[NEastArkie]

Originally posted by WooPig71657:
MR_, so all of the witnesses (including the prosecution's own witnesses) that testified during the trial that said his injuries were consistent with having a head smashed against concrete were wrong?

That's not true. One or two said his "injuries" could've been caused by hitting it on concrete, but those were not by any stretch serious injuries. They were at best consistent with losing a fight. Zimmerman raised reasonable doubt in the jury's mind so I have no problem with the verdict, but the law in Fla needs to be changed so that a person shouldn't be allowed to initiate events that lead to death and walk away when things go wrong.

 

[Ole Hambone]

Originally posted by NEastArkie:

Originally posted by WooPig71657:
MR_, so all of the witnesses (including the prosecution's own witnesses) that testified during the trial that said his injuries were consistent with having a head smashed against concrete were wrong?

That's not true. One or two said his "injuries" could've been caused by hitting it on concrete, but those were not by any stretch serious injuries. They were at best consistent with losing a fight. Zimmerman raised reasonable doubt in the jury's mind so I have no problem with the verdict, but the law in Fla needs to be changed so that a person shouldn't be allowed to initiate events that lead to death and walk away when things go wrong.

Per TM's girlfriend's testimony... Trayvon told her on the phone that he was either home or very close to being home.

Trayvon SHOULD have walked on in the door... and he'd been safe and secure.. He could have called the police to come check on that "Creepy ass cracker" that was falling him..

Instead of going home, he decided to go back and confront Zimmerman.

Both the physical evidence and the eye witness supports Trayvon assaulting Zimmerman.

But, under Florida law, it doesn't matter who started it. All that matters is whether or not Zimmerman felt that his life was threatened or that grievous bodily harm was about to occur.


The states case was based primarily on emotion. It seemed like every witness the prosecution called ended up supporting Zimmerman's version of what happened.

 

[Smashmouth2004]

According to Florida law he is not guilty but he is far from being innocent. In Florida you can approach someone, instigate a fight and then shoot them in self defense. I think the family can win a wrongful death suit but it would be symbolic since Zimmerman has no money.

The moral of this sad story, don't bring fist to a gun fight!

 

[NEastArkie]

Per TM's girlfriend's testimony... Trayvon told her on the phone that he was either home or very close to being home.Trayvon SHOULD have walked on in the door... and he'd been safe and secure.. He could have called the police to come check on that "Creepy ass cracker" that was falling him..
Instead of going home, he decided to go back and confront Zimmerman.
Both the physical evidence and the eye witness supports Trayvon assaulting Zimmerman.
But, under Florida law, it doesn't matter who started it. All that matters is whether or not Zimmerman felt that his life was threatened or that grievous bodily harm was about to occur.
The states case was based primarily on emotion. It seemed like every witness the prosecution called ended up supporting Zimmerman's version of what happened.

You don't know how near he was. The girl didn't know that, either. She said he was getting near his home, but how close is that. No one said Martin doubled back. That was the defense's theory, but there was no evidence of that. All the physical evidence shows is that Zimmerman had superficial cuts and scrapes. It's just as likely he went for his gun, Martin saw that and began to hit hit him in self defense. It is awfully hard to imagine Z on his back pinned to the ground, reaching into the back of his pants and then pulling the gun (presumably getting the safety off) while being "pummeled". It's much more likely he had some control of his gun before that. It does matter who started it even under FL law. That's why the defense had to have him outline back. It tried to portray two independent events, not one series of events, and it had to claimMartin threw the blow without being in fear for his own safety. True, he didn't get home, but we not know how close or menacing he thought Z was. Z was stalking the "f...g punk" who dare to be walking home wearing a hoodie in a mostly white neighborhood