Just to play devil's advocate (cuz it's fun) on the reasonable doubt issue, lets stop speculating on what TM might have been doing and look at something that is in GZ statement.

So we are at the point of the verbal brouhaha. We know it is dark, overcast, poorly illuminated (from various statements). Adrenaline will be running a bit hot. The Zimmerman reaches for his phone, per his own testimony. OK, so where was the phone? In a jacket pocket? Back pocket? belt holster? Regardless, any of those movements could appear to be reaching for a weapon, at which point TV decked him "in fear for his life". I wear my phone on a belt clip and if I was moving my right hand fast for it and you couldn't see it clearly it could be perceived to be reaching for a gun holster.

So, was TV actually the one on SYG?

Not saying it happened that way, but I think a case could be made to cause some doubt on TV being the aggressor, but rather responding to what he thought was a potentially aggressive action.

Long day at work and it is my turn to be a total ass (after dealing with a bunch of them all day).

---

Jim
"In dog beers, I've only had one"
http://www.shakercolonial.com/
Creating custom made furnishing to your requirements

This picture was posted by the Martin family so no reason to question it's authenticity but Trayvon (far right) looks slender but I don't think that fits the narrative of a 'child'.

Ohhhh! Ooooohhhhhhh! I want to play!!!

According to the Florida jury instructions, for second degree murder, there are 3 elements that must be met -

• The victim is deceased,
• The victim's death was caused by the defendant's criminal act, and
• There was an unlawful killing of the victim "by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life."

Let's break it down.

Element 1: The victim is deceased. CHECK.

Element 2: The victim's death was caused by the defendant's criminal act. Uh oh. Florida has that pesky "stand your ground law." The affidavit admits Zimmerman was engaged in a struggle. There is no assertion that he could have fled, but, chose not to. Oops.

Element 3: There was an unlawful killing of the victim "by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life." Uh oh! See element 2, above. There is an admission in the affidavit that there was a struggle. There is no allegation in the affidavit that Zimmerman followed Martin with the intent to confront him with the gun Zimmerman was carrying.

We could have a problem here ...

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

>The "police" didn't tell Zimmerman to "back off." the 911 dispatcher told him it wasn't necessary for him to follow Martin.

We're both wrong. The exact were "We don't need you to follow him." That sounds like a request to now follow. Followed by a Zimmerman apparently complying with the request. "OK." And the the dispatcher arranging for cops to meet Zimmerman at a specific location. That's pretty clear direction, to me. The totality of that conversation, to most reasonable neighborhood watch types would be that's signal to pull off and turn it over to the pros. And if I was the dispatch, my understanding of that conversation, is that Zimmerman had peeled off and headed to the meet-up location.


I completely agree with this. It would be a pretty rare situation where the dispatcher would specifically tell the caller not to act/pursue/etc. It is pretty standard for dispatchers to use the phrase "we don't need you to ..." or words to that effect. A reasonable person would (or at least should) understand that as a directive to stand down.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

I've brought up about elements of the crime before. Juries also have historically had difficulty in figuring out the whole "depraved mind" versus mens rea thing. I think she (Corey) knew she'd have a tough time with the traditional common law meaning of mens rea (malice aforethought), so she's trying to broaden the opening by going with "depraved mind." That gives her an opportunity to try to convict on conduct, attendant circumstances. That way she can push an "intent or knowledge that the conduct would result in death" line of attack, the "conduct" in this instance being Zimmerman pulling his pistol and firing it into Martin's chest, resultant circumstance being death, and also being murder.

I dunno, though...I still think she's going to have an immensely difficult time in convincing a jury of this characterization of Zimmerman and whatever "depraved mind" he was supposed to be exhibiting. And there's plenty of exculpatory evidence (some circumstantial, as in the Zimmerman's cuts and bruises, some direct, as in witnesses that say that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and punching him. To me, this all sounds like a tragic misunderstanding between two persons that went wildly out of control because neither one of them was communicating with the other. There's no way Corey in a million years will be able to prove that Zimmerman stalked Martin with bad intent in mind. Just the 911 calls alone put the kibosh on that tactic. Then you have the confused circumstances of the struggle. Like I said; this is tough row to hoe for the prosecutor.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

---

************************
#WeAreTheForge #BlackGunsMatter

"Look, will you guys at leats accept that you are a bunch of dumb asses and just trust me on this one? Please?" BarryP 7/30/2012

> you are entitled to your opinion though.

Precisely. It's your opinion to take Zimmerman at his word (apparently), it's my opinion there are are enough inconsistencies to bring before a jury. I'm not sure about the 2nd-degree murder, but nevertheless.....

I think the bolded is still inaccurate, could you provide your source? I thought it was "we don't need you to do that"

---

************************
#WeAreTheForge #BlackGunsMatter

"Look, will you guys at leats accept that you are a bunch of dumb asses and just trust me on this one? Please?" BarryP 7/30/2012

More than sufficient probable cause....

---

"How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world." ~Anne Frank

I don't think your characterization of 'taking Zimmerman at his word' is accurate. I don't want to speak for anyone else but I'm not taking his word - it's more that I haven't seen any evidence OTHER than what backs up what he says. So I'm not taking his word for it but until something comes forth further than what already has I don't like the idea of sending this to a trial just to find out what happened. Although I haven't studied criminal law since law school I firmly believe our justice system isn't designed to let the courts figure out what happened absence any evidence. If the evidence isn't there - there shouldn't be a trial. Read that carefully because I'm basing this just on whats been published. If they have evidence not set forth then my mind will likely be changed.

I find it odd that actual witnesses to the event have stated to reporters that the Special Prosecutor has not interviewed them. Does it seem strange to you that an eye witness that says he saw Martin on top beating Zimmerman was not interviewed by the current prosecutor?

A simple hypothetical for you: someone breaks into your house and is charging you and you shoot him. Should you go to trial?

Another: you're at a friend's house and he gets mad at you and starts beating you up. You defend yourself and in the process your friend is killed. Another friend was in the other room but is pretty sure your friend started it. Should you go to trial to determine what happened?

I think that is the point others are trying to make. Unless there is more to be presented this should not be going to trial as it stands.

"Like I said before, there are going to be some really pissed off people when this case is decided."

That's the idea. It should be a great success. When is the trial/acquittal going to happen? Mid to late October?

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

>I don't like the idea of sending this to a trial just to find out what happened.

I do like that idea. The shooting death of an unarmed kid is serious. I think the 911 transcript and testimony of the girlfriend is enough to warrant moving the decision from the executive decision of the DA to a public forum.

I don't like the murder charge. I think some form of manslaughter is more appropriate, even a misdemeanor.

I see little evidence that Zimmerman is either racist or a killer. I see plenty of evidence that he's a whackjob, and there should be *some* accountability for killing someone when the circumstances as a whole are largely inconsistent with the use of deadly force.

Here (bolded above) is where our paths part then. I agree with everything you say up to there. An eye witness says he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman punching him. That same witness says it was Zimmerman screaming for help. The courts are not designed to find innocence but to prove guilt. Unless the state has something that renders that eye witness irrelevant it is not Zimmerman's duty to have to prove his innocence that deadly force was required.

So you want him to go to court to prove his innocence and all I'm saying is don't try a case unless there is a lot more than what has been released publically.

> An eye witness says he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman punching him. That same witness says it was Zimmerman screaming for help.

I should have clarified. By "overall" I meant an unarmed kid walking home from the store, talking on the cell phone with his girlfriend. (all facts!)

It's a pretty extraordinary escalation for that to end in a shooting death. And I have reason to suspect that Zimmerman himself may play a significant role in that escalation to the point where some accountability should be considered in the public venue.


Can you admit that this is very, very far from "perfect self-defense."

Not to the extent that will make you happy. Yes Zimmerman called 911. Yes he followed TM. Yes there is a gap in the phone records and a gap in time where neither you nor I know what happened. Consider:

a) Zimmerman lost sight of him and then saw him again and snuck up behind TM tried tackling him but missed and fell on his back (grass stains and wound on head). TM defended himself and GZ shot him.

-or-

b) TM hid in a bush and when GZ was walking back to his truck TM jumped out and struck him knocking him to the ground and started beating him. GZ was either to be beaten to death or shot in self defense.

All we know is partially what lead up that point and after but not during. I will admit that if the circumstances were more like (a) above then yes self-defense is shaky. Can you admit if the facts are like (b) then self-defense is valid?

"I do like that idea"

You're not supposed to take someone to trial in order to find out what happened. A big part of the police and prosecutor's jobs are to find out what happened before going to trial. If they don't know what happened, with evidence to back it up, it's irresponsible to take it to trial.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

>Can you admit if the facts are like (b) then self-defense is valid?

Absolutely. And let's presume Z is innocent.

Let's get all o' them witnesses up on the stand so they can be cross examined about every little detail. See if they consistent with their initial statements to the police.

Ok, final question on this then: again a hypothetical - if there were 100 witnesses that all say the same thing would you still want to have a trial to cross examine the witnesses? What about 50? 25? 10? 5? 1 - if that person is the only witness?

I'm just not on board with having a trial to find out what happened. When the state thinks they have zero doubt then and only then prosecute and let a fact finder determine. That's it. Innocent until proven guilty. "We don't know what happened so let's have a trial to see if we can find out" doesn't sit well with me and shouldn't for any American. Our laws are designed to protect against false imprisonment not to put away people who shouldn't follow people they think are suspicious. Just because GZ thought TM didn't belong when he in fact did does not make a crime. Following him and reporting him to the police doesn't either. Neither does self defense. So basically the only way we should be prosecuting if the state knows GZ met the criteria of the law that JSA outlined above in post #53. Based on the evidence presented publicly I think a trial is a joke and simply wrong. But again as I admitted earlier IF the state has more than they've released then we can discuss this again.

> JSA outlined above in post #53.

JSA's post is based on the actual 2nd-degree murder charge and the actual affidavit. I've, already, stated several times I believe that to be excessive, and stated even a misdemeanor might be appropriate.

From my wide-angle lens, I see a well-meaning, but nutty and aggressive, self-appointed neighborhood watch guy who made bad decision after bad decision leading to the point where, for whatever reason, he killed TM.

A sequence of very bad decisions leading to a death of an innocent person (innocent until the point where he suddenly turned into a bad-ass, and pounced on the creepy, weird dude who'd been stalking him) should be subject to some accountability.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xpnz9y_new-witness-911-tape-proves-trayvon-martin-attacked-george-zimmerman_news

Last time I checked break and enter is not a robbery.

---

___________________________________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/...eoesophageal_fistula
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebral_palsy
2020 National Masters Champion - M40-44 - 400m IM
Canadian Record Holder 35-39M & 40-44M - 200 m Butterfly (LCM)

I don't really see "bad decision after bad decision" in this case, if Zimmerman's story is to be believed.

I doubt we're going to agree on that point, but regardless, making "bad decisions" is not a crime. (I think your opinion that Zimmerman should be charged with something less than murder, like manslaughter or "maybe a misdemeanor" is ridiculous.)

The situation ended tragically, and you seem to be arguing that because of that, someone has to pay, and that someone is Zimmerman- whether or not he actually committed a crime or not.

I suggest that's a flawed approach. If he didn't commit a crime, he should go free. It's that simple. Civil remedies would remain available to Martin's family.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Who said anything about robberies?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

So let's apply this clarification to your opinion in #62 that "the circumstances as a whole are largely inconsistent with the use of deadly force." By "the circumstances as a whole," you didn't really mean all the circumstances, but rather one particular subset of them?

---

-----
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
Which is probably why I was registering 59.67mi as I rolled into T2.

 

---

___________________________________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/...eoesophageal_fistula
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebral_palsy
2020 National Masters Champion - M40-44 - 400m IM
Canadian Record Holder 35-39M & 40-44M - 200 m Butterfly (LCM)