Man follows black teen who seems "suspicious" and kills him.

Originally posted by Oliver North
alright, I'll bite

in the first 5/6 days of the trial, which witnesses do you think supported which position of the defense?

If you really want to impress, you could divide between which witnesses supported the defense's argument against murder 2 versus those who supported the evidence against manslaughter. I assume, of course, you are taking the position of Zimmerman's innocence of all charges, yes?

I want to answer so bad for juggers...

But I'm trying to let people address stuff, first. 🙁

Originally posted by Oliver North
alright, I'll bite

in the first 5/6 days of the trial, which witnesses do you think supported which position of the defense?

If you really want to impress, you could divide between which witnesses supported the defense's argument against murder 2 versus those who supported the evidence against manslaughter. I assume, of course, you are taking the position of Zimmerman's innocence of all charges, yes?

Did that really sound like bait? I didn't intend it to be. Just voicing my opinion

I thing Trayvon's friend and the guy that witnessed Trayvon on top of Zimmerman in a "ground and pound" position help the defense's stance on Tryavon being the aggressor.

I guess i am. I do think he should have some kind of punishment being that someone was killed but I'm not really feeling like he did anything "wrong" in this instance. Of course in hindsight people can nitpick what he coulda/shoulda but at the time it seemed like he wasn't looking for an altercation and only wanted to keep an eye out until the police arrived. I don't really want to impress.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I want to answer so bad for juggers...

But I'm trying to let people address stuff, first. 🙁

You have my blessing 😛

Originally posted by juggerman
I do think he should have some kind of punishment being that someone was killed...

Me too.

But I think that should be volitional and not court ordered.

Here's what I think should happen: he should have to mow the Martin's lawn for 2 years, for free.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Me too.

But I think that should be volitional and not court ordered.

Here's what I think should happen: he should have to mow the Martin's lawn for 2 years, for free.

You are a ****ed up individual...

So, you guys think dude murdered the kid? Or that he was defending himself?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Me too.

But I think that should be volitional and not court ordered.

Here's what I think should happen: he should have to mow the Martin's lawn for 2 years, for free.

Not bad

Originally posted by juggerman
I thing Trayvon's friend and the guy that witnessed Trayvon on top of Zimmerman in a "ground and pound" position help the defense's stance on Tryavon being the aggressor.

Maybe I misunderstood... Are you suggesting these witnesses actually support the position of the defense, or are you talking about the quality of the defense lawyer's cross examination?

I'd agree, the defense has been running circles around the prosecution, in terms of how juries are lead and all that sort of lawyer-y stuff. Their witnesses are far better prepared and coached and they are certainly earning their wage during cross-examinations. Even in terms of how often they raise objections, most of the time overruled, shows they are very good at what they are doing (though I suspect nobody on this forum actually thinks what a lawyer does is "find truth"😉.

John Good didn't see the start of the altercation, thus by definition cannot comment on who the aggressor was. Rachel Jeantel certainly didn't support Martin as the aggressor, and the tactics of the defense were to discredit her rather than her story. They did a good job of it, but I certainly don't think you can say either of those support Zimmerman's case.

EDIT: John Good also did not see the shot.

Did you see the motion for acquittal?

Originally posted by Oliver North
Maybe I misunderstood... Are you suggesting these witnesses actually support the position of the defense, or are you talking about the quality of the defense lawyer's cross examination?

I'd agree, the defense has been running circles around the prosecution, in terms of how juries are lead and all that sort of lawyer-y stuff. Their witnesses are far better prepared and coached and they are certainly earning their wage during cross-examinations. Even in terms of how often they raise objections, most of the time overruled, shows they are very good at what they are doing (though I suspect nobody on this forum actually thinks what a lawyer does is "find truth"😉.

John Good didn't see the start of the altercation, thus by definition cannot comment on who the aggressor was. Rachel Jeantel certainly didn't support Martin as the aggressor, and the tactics of the defense were to discredit her rather than her story. They did a good job of it, but I certainly don't think you can say either of those support Zimmerman's case.

Did you see the motion for acquittal?

Ah i see. I meant that certain parts of their testimony directly support the defense's claims. John Good saw Martin attacking Zimmerman and not stopping even when he shouted for him to stop. He also heard Zimmerman's screams for help. That supports what the defense has said.

Rachel said Martin was the first to address Zimmerman and not the other way around. She also said Martin told her that a man was following him and watching him. That supports the idea of Zimmerman actively trying to avoid a confrontation and just "keep an eye" on Martin until police showed up and then Martin approaching him.

I didn't know about that motion.

EDIT: I know he didn't but everything seems to be confirming Zimmerman's story.

Originally posted by juggerman
Ah i see. I meant that certain parts of their testimony directly support the defense's claims. John Good saw Martin attacking Zimmerman and not stopping even when he shouted for him to stop. He also heard Zimmerman's screams for help. That supports what the defense has said.

with the exception of who was screaming, the prosecution does not challenge this at all. There is no question that there was an altercation between Martin and Zimmerman, and little evidence to suggest it was Zimmerman on top at that point.

Originally posted by juggerman
Rachel said Martin was the first to address Zimmerman and not the other way around.

Jeantel was not on the phone when the altercation began, iirc.

I haven't seen a comparative timeline of the phone calls, but it is entirely possible this was the point where, in Zimmerman's 911 call, he says "He is coming toward me", or something of that nature.

The prosecution would also suggest that Zimmerman's actions would justifiably make Martin fearful, thus justifying the initiation of the conflict.

Originally posted by juggerman
She also said Martin told her that a man was following him and watching him. That supports the idea of Zimmerman actively trying to avoid a confrontation and just "keep an eye" on Martin until police showed up and then Martin approaching him.

yes, that is how the defense has been presenting this

Originally posted by juggerman
I didn't know about that motion.

YouTube video

It's about 1h 40m, gives perspective on how Florida law works in these cases. Good case for why Murder 2 might not apply, defense doesn't even try to get the acquittal on manslaughter though. In the end I agree with the judge here, in that, there is enough to suggest the jury should decide the Murder 2 charge, though it is certainly the weaker position for the prosecution.

tbh, I'd say they are only going for Murder in the first place because of the profile of the case.

Originally posted by juggerman
Ah i see. I meant that certain parts of their testimony directly support the defense's claims. John Good saw Martin attacking Zimmerman and not stopping even when he shouted for him to stop. He also heard Zimmerman's screams for help. That supports what the defense has said.

Rachel said Martin was the first to address Zimmerman and not the other way around. She also said Martin told her that a man was following him and watching him. That supports the idea of Zimmerman actively trying to avoid a confrontation and just "keep an eye" on Martin until police showed up and then Martin approaching him.

I didn't know about that motion.

EDIT: I know he didn't but everything seems to be confirming Zimmerman's story.

interesting point of vew

i think everyone can agree that the prosecution is barely holding their own. i have a feeling that zimmerman is probably going to get off.

zimmerman should do jail time though. it's funny, everyone can put themselves in the shoes of the neighborhood watch zimmerman but can't seem to fathom that maybe, just maybe martin was scared of this man who had been following him by car and was now out of his vehicle getting closer on a dark rainy night.

no one will know who started the fight because martin is dead and zimmerman's articulate memory gets fuzzy around that point. i do believe that zimmerman's account of the incident is truthful with the exception of those minor details his memory gets fuzzy on that could change the whole perception of his story.

Zimmerman shouldn't do jail time, because there's no evidence (that I've seen) that shows that he did anything illegal.

Is he a meddling *******? Seems like it.

Is he a racially profiling douche? Probably.

Is the Stand Your Ground law retarded and in dire need of either overhaul or removal? Yes.

Is Zimmerman a criminal? Not that I can see. What law did he break? Following someone is not illegal, and frankly, should not be illegal. Hell, Zimmerman could have walked right up the Martin and started saying dumb shit, that's well within his rights. Following someone, even talking smack to someone's face, is not "instigating a fight", and it isn't a crime.

Who put their hands on who first is the only thing that matters here, frankly.

Well Blax, you're clearly a racist. So your points are invalid.

I figure, if a light skinned individual kills a dark skinned individual, it must be for a damned good reason, and it certainly isn't the place of a genetically flawed person like myself to question it.

This:

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
Zimmerman shouldn't do jail time, because there's no evidence (that I've seen) that shows that he did anything illegal.

+

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
Is the Stand Your Ground law retarded and in dire need of either overhaul or removal? Yes.

= ya, probably why Zimmerman gets off on the Murder 2 charge.

Maybe he gets manslaughter, but that might be the Canadian in me that doesn't understand why people would ever be allowed to play wannabe cop with a loaded, concealed, firearm. In our context at least, aside from there being no concealed carry for civilians, the breadth given to vigilantism under Florida law is astounding. That was one of the amazing parts of the acquittal motion, even the defense attorney mentions that the law allows for things that, in his opinion, are excessive.

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
Zimmerman shouldn't do jail time, because there's no evidence (that I've seen) that shows that he did anything illegal.

Is Zimmerman a criminal? Not that I can see. What law did he break?

Who put their hands on who first is the only thing that matters here, frankly.

the evidence you seem to be overlooking is the fact that zimmerman's story wasn't adding up. the crime he committed is murder.

we never know entirely who hit who first, but it is well known that zimmerman instigated the situation, plus he had an obligation to be more mindful since he was the one armed. he knew he was following a teenager.

but lets say martin hit zimmerman first. remember, martin didn't know who zimmerman was, zimmerman was following him by car and then by foot. martin could have thought that zimmerman was about to mug him and decided to react first.

the problem with this whole case from the get is that the police had a murder and decided to believe the killer's version of events without question.

Originally posted by jedi90
the evidence you seem to be overlooking is the fact that zimmerman's story wasn't adding up.

That isn't evidence that he committed murder. If it's proven that his recollection of events isn't accurate, that is, at worst, proof that he's lied. Which is perjury.

Perjury =\= murder.

Everyone seems to avoid this one truth:
If Mr. Zimmerman would have just minded his own business, nothing would have happened.
I'm quite certain if he didn't have a firearm on his person, he wouldn't have approached Trayvon.

Now lets review the "stand your ground law"
[ start a fight with a random individual for reasons of your choosing: (funny looks, praying in public or sleeping on a park bench for example and when you and the individual engage in either verbal or physical confrontation you feel threatened and brandish your firearm and discharge a round killing your "attacker".]
I kinda like that law.....

Originally posted by Oliver North
This:

+

= ya, probably why Zimmerman gets off on the Murder 2 charge.

Maybe he gets manslaughter, but that might be the Canadian in me that doesn't understand why people would ever be allowed to play wannabe cop with a loaded, concealed, firearm. In our context at least, aside from there being no concealed carry for civilians, the breadth given to vigilantism under Florida law is astounding. That was one of the amazing parts of the acquittal motion, even the defense attorney mentions that the law allows for things that, in his opinion, are excessive.

see, that's the problem. in America we don't allow neighborhood watch to carry firearms in course of carrying out their duties, hence why zimmerman lied and said he was going grocery shopping with his pistol locked and loaded.

it's the little details i believe zimmerman to be lying about. the stuff that could change perceptions.

Originally posted by SMIFF-N-WESSON
Everyone seems to avoid this one truth:

People aren't ignoring it, people are just aware that it's an irrelevant fact.

Zimmerman is an *******? Okay, cool. That doesn't make him a criminal, though.