I just read the long thread on the Martin/Zimmerman event, and no place did I read

[shraby]

in it the fact that the coroner stated after examining Martin that there were NO marks on his hands...NONE.
How could Martin have attacked Zimmerman and knocked him to the ground and pummeled him beyond belief and have no marks on his hands? Methinks Zim lies a tad.

[Skittles]

1. Zimmerman should have just admitted the truth from day one

he stalked and then overreacted and it resulted in the death of an innocent person - if he had just admitted this from the start he'd be much better off and his life would not be in complete shambles

[Rex]

3. So true!!!!

All this lying is going to get him is a longer jail sentence imo. All he had to do is be a real person about this and admit to shooting the kid for no good reason. FEAR, sure whatever, ANGER...I will buy that too. Anything HONEST out of Zimms mouth. It would be a good idea, but I think one that is far too late now.

He has lied his ass off for so long now that I think it is too late to repent.

[hollysmom]

22. Well, lying about how much money was available and

having multiple passports and not turning them all in when applying for bail didn't help any.
Oh and there was no gun shot residue on Trayvon's hands. So they were not that close to the gun when he was shot.

[JaneyVee]

29. It's funny how rightwingers believe the guy WITH the gun was the one screaming "Help me!".

[Skittles]

31. well, gun humpers ARE cowards

[orpupilofnature57]

2. If he's told the truth, it was by mistake .

Truly Zimmerman was the neighborhood threat, along with extortionist, embezzler .

[arthritisR_US]

6. Neighbourhood threat I see but I don't get the "extortionist, embezzler".

[orpupilofnature57]

9. The contributions for his defence .

[arthritisR_US]

10. Who did he extort or embezzle for his defense? I think the pigs that gave were

probably just your run of the mill racist repigs

[orpupilofnature57]

43. Only a racist could defend him, and even though I'd gladly malign him...

I was wrong calling him an extortionist and embezzler, this is what I was referring to .




http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014402936

[arthritisR_US]

44. I don't know about racist but I sure know about bottom feeder. I don't know what's in this lawyer's

heart but I sure recognize someone who smells money. The money that has flooded in to support this racist murderer has come from like minded racist pigs, IMHO.

[Jenoch]

51. Every defendent deserves a competent attorney for their defense.

That is part of what America is founded upon.

[orpupilofnature57]

59. And I have a right to Malign Misanthropes using the

facilities I, We, and You provide . Monies allocated for one thing and used for another is a form of embezzlement, serving as a figurehead of anything and accepting money for personal gain is psychological extortion .

[Just Saying]

4. The autopsy showed a small abrasion

On his left ring finger. Only mark on his hands.

http://www.hlntv.com/video/2013/05/30/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-autopsy

[HockeyMom]

5. All this will come out in trial

They cannot block forensic evidence, but living in the Gunshine State, I think Zimmerman will walk based on the love of guns here.

I hope I am wrong. I really do. I would not want a George Zimmerman "patrolling" my development in Florida. He would get a major fight from this little, white, old lady. Shoot ME, Georgie Boy, if you DARE.

[arthritisR_US]

7. The love of guns there and a black lad killing a white..that's why he'll get off, IMO. n/t

[malaise]

15. The love of guns there and a black lad killing a white..that's why he'll get off, IMO. n/t

Huh? The white guy killed the black guy

[arthritisR_US]

16. Talk about a major brain fart, mine has to rank about the all time top of the list! I meant to say a

white guy killing a black lad I multitasked myself right into the loo, I am so sorry

[malaise]

20. No problem

[arthritisR_US]

21. Thanks mate

[Common Sense Party]

28. Huh? The Hispanic guy killed the black guy.

If this is all about race, we might as well get the correct race.

[malaise]

30. Well then keep going because only one of Zimmerman's parents is Hispanic n/t

[virgogal]

32. Huh? Only one of Obama's parents is black. What's your point?

[malaise]

33. He's still biracial regardless of who says what

My only interest in the subject is that arthritisR_US incorrectly had the black guy killing the white guy.

[Hoyt]

13. Agree. Not sure he'll get a not-guilty verdict, but at least one bigoted gun lover will hang jury.

[TheDebbieDee]

18. Gunshine State! Lol. I'm committing that one to memory.

Thanks for the laugh........

[Donald Ian Rankin]

8. Very easily. Human flesh and clothes is soft; grappling someone might well not leave marks N.T.

[davidn3600]

11. Regardless, convincing 12 jurors that this wasn't self defense won't be an easy task

All it takes is one juror to think it was self-defense to derail the whole thing.

[customerserviceguy]

23. That's why O'Meara took the case

He figured he had a lot to work with to exonerate someone that "everyone" knew was guilty. Finding that juror in Florida is probably easier than any place else in this country.

[Skittles]

26. he stalked and killed an unarmed person

WTF!!!!

[cheyanne]

12. In no place in this forum have I read what presumption of innocence means.

Presumption of innocence means that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the defendant on the charge of murder 2 brd (beyond reasonable doubt). The defendant does not have to prove his innocence.

Thus the prosecution has to prove

At least one of the following must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt:
1.Zimmerman was committing a forcible felony at the start of the physical conflict with Martin. For example, trying to forcibly detain him.
2.Zimmerman did not have a reasonable fear of great bodily harm at the time he shot Martin.
3.Both a) and b) below must be proven BRD.
a)Zimmerman was the initial provoker of the conflict with Martin.
b)Zimmerman could have safely withdrawn from the fight but chose not to do so.

I may not like what Zimmerman did, but the evidence so far does not show that the prosecution has the evidence to convict. Most of the posts here do not address these three issues.

The TalkLeft website has the relevant legal issues and purported evidence explained (and debated). I think that posters do a disservice to themselves and du to discuss issues without knowing the legal definition of stalking, etc.

The point raised above is a good point but could also count against Martin.

[Hoyt]

14. I can believe a dick with a gun and "suspicion" of unarmed black teens did all that.

Not sure a Florida jury will though, even if there were videos from several angles proving it.

[Bjorn Against]

17. Presumption of innocence goes both ways

Trayvon also deserves the presumption of innocence, when someone kills another person they sure as hell better be prepared to prove that person was guilty.

[cheyanne]

38. No Zimmerman doesn't need to prove Martin guilty of anything.

The state needs to prove Zimmerman guilty of murder two. If they can't do that, then Zimmerman is free.

Right now there doesn't seem to be evidence that Martin was guilty of anything, but that doesn't prove it that Zimmerman is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

It is important to separate the social issues from the legal issues. It is unfair to propagate opinions about racism or gun control into the legal case. By confabulating the two types of issues one may lead people into misunderstanding the legal system and the verdict.

These issues and their consequences should be debated in society at large, but they should not be introduced into the trial of a particular situation.

We may legitimately deplore the behavior or Zimmerman but that is a societal issue not legal.

[Bjorn Against]

42. Self defense is an affirmative defense that shifts the burden of proof

Self Defense claims are not a get out of jail free card, because Zimmerman is claiming self defense the law requires him to show that it truly was self defense by presenting "clear and convincing evidence" or a "preponderance of the evidence."

Burden of proof [edit]
Because an affirmative defense requires an assertion of facts beyond those claimed by the plaintiff, generally the party who offers an affirmative defense bears the burden of proof.[6] The standard of proof is typically lower than beyond a reasonable doubt. It can either be proved by clear and convincing evidence or by a preponderance of the evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense

[Just Saying]

19. I think the outcome depends on the credibility of the witnesses.

Such as they are. I've seen differing accounts on what people saw/heard that night. The 911 call will probably be in evidence and depending on how George is viewed by the jury this could be damaging to him. If he testifies, whether he is believed or not. He probably wont anyway. I'm sure the size of both men will be brought up. The idea that an armed, much larger Zimmerman feared bodily harm from the smaller unarmed Trayvon isn't reasonable to me.

And reasonable doubt is an interesting thing. It doesn't mean any doubt, but what a reasonable person would believe based on the evidence.


In spite of some evidence to the contrary, I still keep faith in my fellow man to take their duty seriously and give Zimmerman a fair trial. And I still believe he will be convicted.

[davidn3600]

24. He'd be convicted on manslaughter...murder Im not so sure

Whenever you utter the term "murder" juries like to think you need intent to kill. It is true that the law says you don't need prove intent. But juries historically don't like to convict people of murder unless there is criminal intent to commit the killing.

Im not so sure the jury will view this as Zimmerman actually targeting Trayvon with the intent to kill him. I think he targeted him, got into an altercation, and Trayvon got killed in this fight. But Im not convinced that Zimmerman entered this fight with the intent to kill Trayvon. The killing was manslaughter. I think the case is overcharged right now....and I hope the state includes manslaguhter as a lesser included option for a jury. Otherwise we are looking at a Casey Anthony situation where its all or nothing.

[Just Saying]

25. He's chargd with 2nd degree murder

Pretty sure that leaves off premeditation. The jury will get tons of info about what the charge entails. I believe manslaughter usually means it was accidental and this was not, IMO.

I'll look online for wording on his charges.

[Just Saying]

27. More details on 2nd degree murder charge

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/12/us/zimmerman-faces-second-degree-murder-charge-in-florida.html?_r=1&

Is Zimmerman going to claim this small, black kid scared him just by his presence despite the fact that he was much larger and armed? He may have to take the stand to explain and that in itself could bury him.

[dkf]

34. The fear was not of an unarmed person, but of the person who broke his nose and hit his head on

The concrete.

Is it unreasonable to think a jury would believe someone with those injuries could have felt in fear of their life?

I imagine that involves putting yourself in that position on the ground receiving that punch. How many would have no fear given that situation?

[Just Saying]

35. I wouldn't start following around someone if I was that bad of a fighter.

And Zimmerman was a shitty self-appointed neighborhood watcher if Trayvon was able to do all that to him while he was carrying. Zimmerman had 40lbs and a weapon on the kid.

I think the jury is going to wonder how and why Zimmerman put himself in that situation.

[dkf]

36. But self defense isn't dependent on why you were in that situation.

If you walked into a dangerous area or town should you have known better such that you are not entitled to defend yourself?

That's just like saying to a woman because you got slousing drunk you are not entitled to shoot a guy if you wake up and find yourself being raped. You aren't enough of a fighter to get drunk and beat up your rapist.

[Just Saying]

37. that's a false analogy

Zimmerman was in his own neighborhood and in a truck. He chose to get out and follow someone AND he had a gun!

It seems to me Zimmerman appointed himself authority he didn't have to go after someone he saw as suspicious and then when an altercation happened (not sure how since 1 party is dead) he got his ass beat and shot the kid.

Zimmerman went looking for trouble and found it.

[dkf]

39. Some men think that is "asking for it".

Boy I learned a lot during our recent DU postings about sex, women getting drunk, and the way it was.

[Just Saying]

41. Then some men are morons

But chasing someone down because you don't like the look of them, is asking for trouble,

[dkf]

46. It wasn't illegal. That's all that matters in the eyes of the law.

[Just Saying]

47. Murder is.

And we'll see if the eyes of the law think an armed guy chasing down then shooting a kid is self-defense.

[dkf]

48. You forgot the part where the kid breaks his nose and pounds his head on the concrete.

Which is the basis of a self defense argument. Convenient set of facts there.

[Just Saying]

49. Aw you know what happens when we

Assume. Not only do you not know if that happened, you don't know how the alleged fight started.

Snark doesn't win debates.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

52. How do you sleep at night?

Nevermind. I don't really want to know.

[peacebird]

40. So you equate Z to a woman who has been raped because she got drunk? There are SO many ways that

analogy is wrong that I cannot begin to count them....
So if Z were a drunken woman who regained counciousness in time to find he was being raped then he would have the right to use that gun in his purse to kill his assailant...? But Z was not a drunken person, Z chose to disobey the rules of Neighborhood Watch, which clearly state you observe and report, you do NOT follow suspects or engage them. Z was the one who followed a teen after police told him they did not need his "help". Z was emboldendend by the gunstrapped to his hip. He knew he was not in any real danger, he after all had a gun. He could have pulled the gun at any time and held the teen until the cops arrived. He chose to shoot.

[dkf]

45. "Asking for it" is all in the eyes of the beholder.

I don't think those women were "asking for it". Nor do I think walking into a bad neighborhood is "asking for it". Nor do I think Zimmerman was "asking for it". I don't think "asking for it" has a place in the law.

[csziggy]

50. There is no evidence that GZ's nose was broken

He refused to get it Xrayed.

Zimmerman lied to his Family Physician Assistant, EMS never stated Zimmerman had a broken nose.
Zimmerman was forced by his employer to get medical clearance before he could return to work. Zimmerman went to see his family Physician Assistant, Lindzee E. Folgate, about 9 hours after he was released from SPD, about 16 hours after he killed Trayvon Martin. His family Physician Assistant only took Zimmerman's word for it when he falsely claimed he was "told" by EMS he had a broken nose but she did not take xrays independently to verify.

To prove Zimmerman lied about being "told" by EMS that he had a broken nose, the EMS report does not state he has a broken nose. The EMT report simply says his nose is "tender," the "mucous membrane is normal" and that all of Zimmerman's injuries have "minor bleeding nothing at all about an alleged "broken nose."
http://m.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/03/1213239/-Officer-s-Cellphone-Pics-Show-Zimmerman-May-NOT-Have-Been-Punched-the-Night-he-Killed-Trayvon

[pokerfan]

53. Those emts are miracle workers

http://www.wesh.com/news/central-florida/trayvon-martin-extended-coverage/-/14266478/17081472/-/5qhosnz/-/index.html

[uppityperson]

55. My nose looked much worse after being punched. Don't know if it was broken but Zimmy's is meh.

[Pelican]

57. Just for reference...

... are there photos from this series that show the rest of the blood trail behind the ear in #4.

[uppityperson]

54. Zimmy's nose wasn't broken. There is no evidence it was.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

58. And again, Zimmerman should lose this case just based on the fact that the dispatcher told his

ass to stand down and he refused to do so, instead getting out of the car and pursuing Trayvon. For me, that's the end of the story. How can one claim self defense if he is pursuing the alleged perpetrator?

[wercal]

56. The report actually lists one mark on his hand.

And Zimmerman's nose is bloodied.

Look, the prosecution has pretty much ceded the point that Zimmerman was losing a fight. Whether or not Martin had marks on his hand will not be important at all.

Instead the charge requires gross negligence to be proven. They will concentrate on Zimmerman's actions, which were a prelude to the confrontation. That is the heart of their case and the only thing that addresses the charge.

To argue that one mark on Martin's hands isn't enough...or that Zimmerman wasn't really hurt is a waste of time, that doesn't address the charge...and the very discussion could bolster a Zimmerman claim of self defense.