DescentBB

6 women jurors. I'm guessing the mothering instinct will help make the final decision. They'll think about whether their kid could have ended up as Martin did. I'm betting manslaughter.

Spidey wrote:In my opinion slick, that’s just a little to convenient, anyway you look as this Zimmerman has to be the instigator, the question really lies in whether someone has the right to go on neighborhood watch without being attacked. (assuming Zimmerman didn't actually attack Martin)

If there are problems with that issue, like wearing something that identifies you, then that issue needs to be addressed, but I’m under the impression, Zimmerman’s actions were all legal.

since when does a civilian 'neighborhood watch' person have the right to instigate a fight with someone merely walking by the neighborhood? It sure doesn't work that way up here. They are supposed to be the on-scene eyes and ears for the authorities, nothing more, whatsoever. Thus, it gets back to my point, earlier, if Zimmerman instigated the confrontation, isn't he guilty of at least involuntary manslaughter due to the tragic result?

callmeslick wrote:

since when does a civilian 'neighborhood watch' person have the right to instigate a fight with someone merely walking by the neighborhood? It sure doesn't work that way up here. They are supposed to be the on-scene eyes and ears for the authorities, nothing more, whatsoever. Thus, it gets back to my point, earlier, if Zimmerman instigated the confrontation, isn't he guilty of at least involuntary manslaughter due to the tragic result?

So what you are saying is Zimmerman didn't have the right to walk in his own neighborhood. And I guess what you are saying is if anyone thinks they are being followed they have every right to attack the person and attempt to kill him by smashing their head into the pavement. What a nice peaceful world you want us to live in.

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:In my opinion slick, that’s just a little to convenient, anyway you look as this Zimmerman has to be the instigator, the question really lies in whether someone has the right to go on neighborhood watch without being attacked. (assuming Zimmerman didn't actually attack Martin)

If there are problems with that issue, like wearing something that identifies you, then that issue needs to be addressed, but I’m under the impression, Zimmerman’s actions were all legal.

since when does a civilian 'neighborhood watch' person have the right to instigate a fight with someone merely walking by the neighborhood? It sure doesn't work that way up here. They are supposed to be the on-scene eyes and ears for the authorities, nothing more, whatsoever. Thus, it gets back to my point, earlier, if Zimmerman instigated the confrontation, isn't he guilty of at least involuntary manslaughter due to the tragic result?

Where is the evidence that he started a fight?
All the evidence shows the physical assault was one sided until the shot was fired.

That’s not what I meant slick, I’m saying that just the very act of following and observing Martin instigated the violence.

Not something like Zimmerman deliberately started the fight…understand?

No I’m sure you don’t because this is a political trial.

You can instigate a fight in this area, just by looking at someone wrong…therefore “instigate” cannot be the basis for guilt in this scenario.

Update on this:

snoopy wrote:

Foil wrote:As for the defense, in order to use "self-defense", they have burden of demonstrating the defendant had reason to fear for his life...

I don't know the exact way it works. I'd be interested to know what the judge's instructions to the jury on the matter are...

According to the defense, self-defense carries only a very miniminal burden:

Defense attorney O'Mara wrote:"George Zimmerman is not guilty if you have just a reasonable doubt that he acted in self-defense..."

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:In my opinion slick, that’s just a little to convenient, anyway you look as this Zimmerman has to be the instigator, the question really lies in whether someone has the right to go on neighborhood watch without being attacked. (assuming Zimmerman didn't actually attack Martin)

If there are problems with that issue, like wearing something that identifies you, then that issue needs to be addressed, but I’m under the impression, Zimmerman’s actions were all legal.

since when does a civilian 'neighborhood watch' person have the right to instigate a fight with someone merely walking by the neighborhood? It sure doesn't work that way up here. They are supposed to be the on-scene eyes and ears for the authorities, nothing more, whatsoever. Thus, it gets back to my point, earlier, if Zimmerman instigated the confrontation, isn't he guilty of at least involuntary manslaughter due to the tragic result?

Where is the evidence that he started a fight?
All the evidence shows the physical assault was one sided until the shot was fired.

no it doesn't. The evidence, at best, is mixed. Hell, Z was told, point-blank, by the cops to wait for them. That alone leads to suspicion of instigation.

Spidey wrote:That’s not what I meant slick, I’m saying that just the very act of following and observing Martin instigated the violence.

Not something like Zimmerman deliberately started the fight…understand?

No I’m sure you don’t because this is a political trial.

You can instigate a fight in this area, just by looking at someone wrong…therefore “instigate” cannot be the basis for guilt in this scenario.

I understood you fine the first time, and re-read my comments about avoiding this trial at first because of excess politicization. But, sorry, I disagree with your conclusion. Seen a certain way, yes, instigation can be clearly seen as a factor in whether the death was legitimate use of the weapon.

Seems to me that Zimmerman contacted the police for assistance, then followed Martin to keep him in sight, if Martin turned back to confront the guy following him, he instigated the confrontation.

callmeslick wrote:...

no it doesn't. The evidence, at best, is mixed. Hell, Z was told, point-blank, by the cops to wait for them. That alone leads to suspicion of instigation.

He was not told anything by the police before the shooting
He was told by an emergency operator they 'don't need him to follow'...
There is no authority behind the operators opinion and no obligation to adhere to it
Nor is there any evidence the contact was made while he was following Martin.

And regardless of the way you interpret that please show how it is evidence he started the fight?!? Following someone is not starting a fight...
What evidence is mixed on that point? I don't recall ANY evidence that Zimmerman started the physical contact which is what constitutes starting a fight.

Will Robinson wrote:I don't recall ANY evidence that Zimmerman started the physical contact which is what constitutes starting a fight.

There's zero evidence Zimmerman started it.
There's zero evidence Martin started it.
We can't tell from the recording, and the witness accounts (Zimmerman's account, Martin's friend's account) differ.

So it comes down to:
* Who do the jurors believe started it?
* Do they think this is an important point, or are they focusing on what was happening at the end of the fight?

Instigate:

1. Get Something Started
to cause a process to start

2. Start Trouble
to cause trouble, especially by urging somebody to do something destructive or wrong

See what I’m saying here is Zimmerman is by default the “instigator” according to the first definition, because his actions led to the death of Martin.

The problem as I see it, is the confusion with the second definition, which implies Zimmerman started the fight.

If Z didn't start a physical contact and he feared for his life because of M's actions then it is self defense.period.

There is no need for Z to prove anything else.

Spidey wrote:Instigate:

1. Get Something Started
to cause a process to start

2. Start Trouble
to cause trouble, especially by urging somebody to do something destructive or wrong

See what I’m saying here is Zimmerman is by default the “instigator” according to the first definition, because his actions led to the death of Martin.

The problem as I see it, is the confusion with the second definition, which implies Zimmerman started the fight.

I disagree.
the "instigation" was the history of theft and break-in in the area that had continually been tracked back to young black males, that is what caused the process to start.
The result was Zimmerman profiling Martin and observing or following him because of the previous which ultimately lead to Martins death.

Instigating the encounter doesn't mean you intended or caused physical combat.

Who gave Martin the idea it is OK to smash someone's head in if they offend your racial sensitivity or your pride?
Community agitators like Obama, Jackson and Sharpton and his peer group are to blame for Martins death.

Will Robinson wrote:Instigating the encounter doesn't mean you intended or caused physical combat.

hence, my feeling that he is, at worst case, guilty of involuntary manslaughter. He didn't start the chain of events with the intent of killing, or even shooting Martin at all.

Who gave Martin the idea it is OK to smash someone's head in if they offend your racial sensitivity or your pride?

conversely, who gave Zimmerman the idea it was ok to harass or intimidate a 17 year old boy with a soda and candy? This stuff is FAR less cut and dried that you, Will, seem to want it to be. Why is it that you refuse to at least acknowledge the murkiness of this case?

Community agitators like Obama, Jackson and Sharpton and his peer group are to blame for Martins death.

oh, this is why.....you are completely either delusional or bigotted. Your call.

flip wrote:Seems to me that Zimmerman contacted the police for assistance

.....who told him, in no uncertain language, NOT to pursue Martin, but to wait for them.

then followed Martin to keep him in sight

for what reason? In other words, not even Zimmerman claims that Martin was doing ANYTHING overtly that anyone should find alarm. NOTHING. I went back over everything testified to, and there isn't one word suggesting that Martin did a damn thing to justify being followed.

if Martin turned back to confront the guy following him, he instigated the confrontation.

IF........which we will never know, that were the case, are you suggesting that it is alright to overtly follow strangers in public for no justification? Isn't that called STALKING? No one on any neighborhood watch setup that I've ever heard of, is empowered to do anything beyond calling the cops. No tailing, no confrontations, nothing. Are the rules different in Zimmerman's Neighborhood Association?

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Instigating the encounter doesn't mean you intended or caused physical combat.

hence, my feeling that he is, at worst case, guilty of involuntary manslaughter. He didn't start the chain of events with the intent of killing, or even shooting Martin at all.

I agree it is possible. It is possible he committed premeditated murder in the first degree!
But we have been discussing what the evidence points to instead of what is possible. Well, I have been following that line of reasoning....you and others are clinging to bits of conjecture and trying to portray the evidence and testimony as supporting that conjecture as equally likely even though, as the trial has progressed, the evidence and testimony has eroded that likely hood.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Who gave Martin the idea it is OK to smash someone's head in if they offend your racial sensitivity or your pride?

conversely, who gave Zimmerman the idea it was ok to harass or intimidate a 17 year old boy with a soda and candy? This stuff is FAR less cut and dried that you, Will, seem to want it to be. Why is it that you refuse to at least acknowledge the murkiness of this case?

As I just said above, and had said initially before the trial began, it is possible but now, with the benefit of seeing and hearing the details unfold, the murkiness is in the hopes of people like you who insist on assigning behavior to Zimmerman that has no basis in evidence! For example "harass" or "intimidate"....he followed him and how that can translate into harassment and intimidation is most likely only in Martins mind that the creepy assed cracker was attempting to do so. The way a young black man gets those prejudicial perceptions is the byproduct of the race baiting and race pimping his psyche is culturally steeped in.

Making a perfect segue to your next comment....

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Community agitators like Obama, Jackson and Sharpton and his peer group are to blame for Martins death.

oh, this is why.....you are completely either delusional or bigotted. Your call.

Not bigoted or delusional, just not afraid to call a small pointy shovel a spade. See previous reference to how cultural race baiting has created a monster....

Martin likely reacted violently to his perceptions that he was being racially profiled and that justified, in his mind, his assaulting the man who turned out to be armed...

Will, you can feel free to answer the question I asked Flip: Is it OK for a private citizen, with no official capacity, to follow someone without any overt reason for suspicion? Isn't that stalking, Will? Do you wish to be treated that way, and if it happens, would YOU confront the nitwit tailing you? I would.

callmeslick wrote:....

if Martin turned back to confront the guy following him, he instigated the confrontation.

IF........which we will never know, that were the case, are you suggesting that it is alright to overtly follow strangers in public for no justification? Isn't that called STALKING? No one on any neighborhood watch setup that I've ever heard of, is empowered to do anything beyond calling the cops. No tailing, no confrontations, nothing. Are the rules different in Zimmerman's Neighborhood Association?

More of your spinning reality to try and make Zimmermans actions somehow criminal.

It IS alright to overtly follow someone in public. It is NOT stalking.
There is no EMPOWERMENT needed to follow someone if you want to and if you want to be able to tell the police where the suspect is, and/or prevent a criminal from stealing from your neighborhood following them overtly is a great way to be able to accomplish those goals.
Regardless of how anyone feels about being followed that way it isn't justification for assaulting the follower....so therefore you can't cite the following as 'starting a fight'...not legally anyway. Obviously you can try to spin it that way to appeal to the emotions of people who will ignore the law if it suits their agenda.

Yes, I would confront him. But I wouldn't punch him knock him down and bash his head into the cement....
And I carry a 9mm in my pocket so, in this case two armed men would have had a discussion and cleared up any misunderstanding about why we were there and my little brother would have received his Skittles and we would have watched the second half of the game....
But then my cultural foundation didn't cause me to believe I was supposed to be violent if someone dared suspect me based on my profile or even if I thought they used it as their excuse for simply wanting to harass me. I was taught to have more self control.

Following somebody at a distance to keep them in sight seems reasonable to me. I think it says a lot that Zimmerman was on his back and getting his head slammed before ever reaching for his gun.

Actually in Florida you can make a citizen’s arrest. (assuming someone has actually committed a crime)

This doesn’t apply in this case, but only to the comment as to what a town watch person has the “right to do”.

Spidey wrote:Actually in Florida you can make a citizen’s arrest. (assuming someone has actually committed a crime)

This doesn’t apply in this case, but only to the comment as to what a town watch person has the “right to do”.

thanks for that clarification/

Now, to Will: I am not 'spinning' anything, for any purpose. As I said earlier, I find this to be an interesting case because it deals with the question of whether the law views the 'in the moment' situation versus the events that got to the moment. To return to the actual hard facts presented, it is clear that Zimmerman certainly was not 'pounded' into the ground terribly hard, his injuries aren't consistent in any way with that. As Foil points out, there are no witnesses(save Zimmerman, who didn't take the stand) to testify as to the details of the fight at all. And yes, I am suggesting the possibility of shooting an unarmed young man is criminal, and further, that such an outcome should ALWAYS be investigated for criminality. ALWAYS. This latter statement is to address the folks I have read out there who suggest that Zimmerman shouldn't have ever been arrested or charged, and that the only reason he is on trial is due to public outcry. IMHO, the outcry was due to the fact that the Sanford police simply didn't originally wish to do their job.

Heh, let me tell you a story about head injuries, and I'll try to make this short. I had 3 'friends' from the huge crowd of rednecks I grew up with decide to start robbing banks. Well, 2 of those idiots decided to tell me, which made the ringleader kinda paranoid. I also worked on a framing crew with these guys, so one day we were all gonna party like hell , I drink about 6 long island ice teas, we got a case of beer for the ride home, and the weed was burning. Well, after I was wellllllllll drunk, that guy decided to jump on me. I only remember flashes, but they say I picked him up to throw him off the porch but apparently as drunk as I was, we both went off. I hit the ground from about 6 feet up and was out cold. Apparently, and I found out this some days later, he had grabbed a stick and hit me square in the forehead. Another friend of mine restrained him and took the stick away from him. Now, nobody would tell me what happened, because they figured I'd kill him and I had no idea . I remember waking up that night, apparently after falling 6 feet and knocked unconscious and hit in the head with a stick of some sort, and all I had was a little sore spot on my forehead I had no idea how got there. Now, though, after losing all my baby fat, there is a slight indention that you can see if the light hits it just right and a very small, round scar. I never even knew what happened until all those guys ended up in prison. You cannot judge this by 'apparent' injury.

fascinating story. Flip, but let me bring you to one detail from what you write. "I was out cold". There's your apparent injury, right there. No such traumatic occurance happened to Zimmerman, now, did it? BTW, I wholeheartedly concur and understood completely what you were attempting to convey to Foil a few pages back: that a street fight can produce imminent life-threatening injury at any time, often the result of a slip or misstep. But, back to my core point, what the jury is tasked with deciding here is does it matter if a situation was instigated or escalated by the armed person to the point where the confrontation breaks out? No matter what the jury decides, BTW, I suspect that an appeal, should they concur with my conclusions, will be filed.

Well, if my head was being banged against the ground, I would know that there is a split second between consciousness and unconsciousness. What happens if I'm knocked unconscious? A stick to the head? A stomp to my throat? No, Zimmerman waited until the very last minute to use deadly force and in my mind was justified at that point.

flip wrote:Well, if my head was being banged against the ground, I would know that there is a split second between consciousness and unconsciousness. What happens if I'm knocked unconscious? A stick to the head? A stomp to my throat? No, Zimmerman waited until the very last minute to use deadly force and in my mind was justified at that point.

right, I agree with you, but would that situation have ever occurred had Zimmerman done as he was instructed by the police? That point matters, IMHO.
Also, someone brought this up as I cycled through cable news last night(rain delays and cancellations ruined my end of week baseball watching): How, exactly, could Zimmerman have produced the gun and shot Martin whilst lying on the pavement, involved in a physical fight? The only logical conclusion is that he had already drawn the weapon, and that speaks to his intentions and use of the weapon in a way I hadn't considered prior to hearing that. Apparently, that is a fact being pondered by the jury, several of whom(if not all) have some experience with/around firearms.

That's an assumption that is not in evidence. If Zimmerman had already pulled his weapon before the fight went to the ground, and Martin still decided to advance, would that say anything about Martin's state of mind?

flip wrote:Following somebody at a distance to keep them in sight seems reasonable to me. I think it says a lot that Zimmerman was on his back and getting his head slammed before ever reaching for his gun.

two points: First, if Zimmerman indeed was following 'at a distance', how did a close-range altercation break out? Did Martin dash back 'a distance' to confront him? If so, no one has mentioned that as even a possibility. Second, as was noted by some TV 'expert' last night, Zimmerman could not have possibly waited that late to reach for the gun. Leery though I always am of 'TV Experts', that point seems to have some plausibility.

flip wrote:That's an assumption that is not in evidence. If Zimmerman had already pulled his weapon before the fight went to the ground, and Martin still decided to advance, would that say anything about Martin's state of mind?

The other possibility you aren't considering (and which I omitted from my writeup of the analysis)is that Zimmerman did, indeed, pull the gun after the street fight phase. However, that would have meant that he had physically disengaged from Martin, at which point he could simply back away from the altercation and thus, his life was no longer in any danger.

by the way, these 'what-ifs' and 'supposes' speak to what Foil wrote earlier, and that I tried to communicate to Will. This case, and it's facts are FAR, FAR from cut-and-dried. Now, it could have been cleared up, to a great extent, had Zimmerman taken the stand, but he chose not to. Why?

Slick, your characterization of Zimmermans injuries as not potentially lethal or grave is a real stretch on your part. There was testimony by medical professionals to the contrary. The detectives considered those injuries substantial enough to warrant Zimmermans reaction to recieving them as justification for self defense. And finally, you don't even need to be injured of even touched to be justifiable in employing deadly force to defend yourself!

I think Zimmerman faced enough of a threat to justify defending himself from any further risk at the hands of Martin who clearly was beating on what he likely thought was a helpless individual!
It is reasonable to believe what I just proposed.
Much more reasonable than it is to demand Zimmerman refrained from defending himself because it is possible Martin was never going to deliver a head wound that could severely injure him!

If you had been magically pulled out of where ever you were in that moment to suddenly be standing beside them and watch Martin strike Zimmermans head into the cement I seriously doubt you would think Zimmerman wasn't in grave danger.

And that is just what you would be able to assess from the security of not being the one who was punched into the ground and then having the assailant jump on and straddle you and pound your head into the cement!
I have absolutely no doubt that any reasonable person who suffered that would think they were facing grave bodily harm in that moment.
Once you believe that is the threat you face, if you did not first initiate willful combat with the assailant you are completely justified in killing that attacker under the law.

The deadly mistake made that night was Martins decision to physically attack Zimmerman.
Wounded pride is not a grave bodily injury. Martin had no justification for violence and the sub culture that makes people think they have that right is the underlying cause.

I actually did mention that earlier. If Zimmerman was flowing at a distance, did Martin stop or circle back, or did Zimmerman run up to where he was at? Again, there is no way to know that now. I do know it is entirely possible to pull a gun from your side whilst laying on your back and mounted by an attacker, which is in evidence. Martin was shot by Zimmerman while on the ground correct?

I think we are also forgetting that Zimmerman was carrying. And stated his fear that Martin was attempting to take his gun.and he had fear that it would be used against him. That is also justification for self defense.
He was on his back. Being beaten. With the man attempting to take his gun.
That seems like a self preservation act to me

Zimmerman didn't need to testify because the prosecution entered his extensive explanation of events on video interviews into evidence.
He has the luxury of getting to 'tell' his story with no cross examination by the prosecution and that was given to him by the prosecution!

Also, he never asked for a lawyer initially, he went back to the police the next day and walked them through at the scene of the shooting, re-enacted the whole thing for the police detectives, answering all questions. That detective, called by the prosecution as their witness, proceeded to validate Zimmerman's claim of self defense!

So why in the world would a defense lawyer subject the accused to cross examination spin when all the information the defense wants their client to relate has already been entered into the record and validated by the detectives who determined Zimmerman was justified in his self defense claim?

flip wrote:I actually did mention that earlier. If Zimmerman was flowing at a distance, did Martin stop or circle back, or did Zimmerman run up to where he was at? Again, there is no way to know that now. I do know it is entirely possible to pull a gun from your side whilst laying on your back and mounted by an attacker, which is in evidence. Martin was shot by Zimmerman while on the ground correct?

From my own experience of carrying a gun I would think that it wouldn't be too hard to retrieve a weapon from a waistband holster while struggling with someone sitting on top of you. From a pocket holster it wouldn't be so easy but Zimmerman had a waistband type holster.

I once wrestled with a friend who had me pinned the same way. I was too strong for him to pin my shoulders being bigger than him but I couldn't get him off of me no matter how I wriggled and fought. I know I could have pulled a gun from a holster though no problem.

Wow, just Wow, so now it’s a case of the police not doing their job, I guess slick has given up his cheerleader position.

It wasn’t public outcry that persuaded the DA to press charges…it was the Whitehouse…in an overzealous politically motivated attempt to get a good gun nut case on the TV. (pretty much proven by the drama queen prosecutor)

And, I watched the expert explain just how the evidence was consistent with the shot being fired while Zimmerman was on the ground with Martin above him.

Personally I believe that Zimmerman’s self defense instincts kicked in, and he did what his body told him to do, regardless of how he got into that position, and some allowance for that must be made…unless we are going to deny that we are humans.

I’m also going to go on record here and say that it is my belief that Zimmerman is not getting a fair trial here, and will give just one example of the many I have seen.

The fact that the jury was deliberately withheld the information that following somebody is not against the law.

There are others but I can’t type for long times without getting a headache.

I think this whole case points out the problem with todays stereotypes and racism. I imagine if Zimmerman would have called him over in a friendly manner to speak to him, or if Martin hadn't assumed he was this "creepy ass cracker" following him, none of this would have happened. Probably would have ended up an inconsequential and friendly conversation. Given the circumstances though. I do not think Zimmerman was the aggressor here. There is no way to know for sure who initiated contact first, but the things we do know seem to support what I feel about it. Zimmerman saw Martin, contacted the police. Decided to 'follow' Martin, who then in turns feels like he is being stalked. At that point, I think Martin decided to see what was up. I have no idea how that turns into a street fight, but I do know that for it to become a street fight, one of them has to be unyielding. Zimmerman was armed and did not pull the weapon until already on the ground, with Martin banging his head on the ground. I doubt Martin would have been so aggressive with a gun in his face and I doubt Zimmerman would have, being he was the neighborhood watchman, just run up and attack Martin. It's self defense.

Why is everyone assuming this was a “fight”?

To me the term "fight" assumes something agreed on by both parties.

That's true too. I know for a fact it's hard to just knock somebody down on their back, unless they are somewhat unsuspecting, but that's pure conjecture. It reads simple to me. Z knew the police were coming, whether he initiated contact or not is unimportant. All that matters is what happened after contact was made.