Zimmerman stuns court waives stand yo...

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#82 Mar 8, 2013
Enzyte Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
I can summarize my points for all, some based in knowledge of the nuts and bolts of the law, others just opinion:
1. Between the bloody head, his neighbors backing Zimmerman up and Trayvon's history (real or trumped up), I think it's pretty clear that Zimmerman gets acquitted. Remember, the PROSECUTION has to prove its case BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. I think there is enough doubt.
2. Getting all jurors to convict with the evidence presented is going to be an uphill battle.
3. This is a media case. I believe Zimmerman was charged to placate the masses. A jury is going to exonerate him and it will have a little more believability and transparency than public officials making these decisions behind closed doors.
4. Zimmerman is an idiot, no question. Had he not wanted to play policeman this kid would still be alive. I know people like this, with their Napoleon/authority complexes and I typically don't like them.
5. Trayvon was an idiot, no question. Had simply followed instructions and had left private property (condo complex is private property) just as he was instructed and as any normal kid would do, this kid would still be alive.
6. The death of any teenager is a tragedy, even an unruly one. That doesn't make Zimmerman guilty, however.
7. NBC is going to pay out some big money.
I think that you have some misinformation, Bob.

#1--it's not entirely clear that the neighbors back him up. The actual witness testimony is all over the place regard who was on top and even how many (1 or 2) were on the ground. There is witness testamony that flat out contradicts Z.'s story of being slugged and knocked to the ground at the "t" (where two sidewalks meet)--one witness reports chasing northward towards the "t" (in an area that Z. reported not to have been). And the body was nowhere near the "t." The witness that looked really good at first (describing MMA-style pummelling) later recanted, saying he wasn't sure who was on top and couldn't really see the hitting. Speculation is that the prosecution can pull a shocker from phone records showing that Z. called this guy immediately following the shooting. Dunno--speculation.

#5. There were no "instructions" given to Trayvon to do anything. Serino particularly drilled Z. on the point of why he did not do anything to dispel the obvious image of a creepy old guy following Trayvon around. Z.(according to Z) did not introduce himself, he did not ask anything of Trayvon. His only reported words were in answer to the question "do you have a problem, homey?" to which he responded "no." And there is no doubt that Trayvon, as the (minor) guest of a resident, had every legal right to be there (unless you know something of a legal nature that I don't).

I don't know about NBC. My guess is it's not too likely. If they smelled a loss, they probably would have thrown some money on the table (which Z. desperately needs) and made the suit go away. Z. has been sitting on the edge of indigency for the murder trial. NBC clearly has him outlawyered, and he's broke. I look for O'Mara to very carefully tot up the odds of continuing the NBC suit once the trial is over.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#83 Mar 8, 2013
Enzyte Bob wrote:
I think the other issue in this case is whether or not the prosecution is overcharging the defendant. That is what was said to be the problem in the Casey Anthony case. If I remember correctly, the jurors said they probably would have convicted on the lesser charge such of second-degree (?) manslaughter.
I don't know about the Anthony case. I do recall, however, reading that the second degree murder charge would allow the jury the option of finding for manslaughter. Hence, there was thought to be no downside to the more serious charge.
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

#84 Mar 8, 2013
Reality Speaks wrote:
<quoted text>
4 years....dude we are not far from the number of that now with daily murders.
what is going to happen when the gravy train leaves the station.
crime is going to escalate due to the environment the White House landscape painted.
When that crime escalates to a point, then 1000's of Charles Bronson's will be born.
Darn it. You aren't backing off of your prediction, are you? You were saying 100 Zimmerman/Martin homicides per day. Now you are saying 100 murders in general?
Enzyte Bob

Blacklick, OH

#85 Mar 8, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
I think that you have some misinformation, Bob.
#1--it's not entirely clear that the neighbors back him up. The actual witness testimony is all over the place regard who was on top and even how many (1 or 2) were on the ground.
Remember, the PROSECUTION has to PROVE its case BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. If a glove can create enough reasonable doubt to exonerate a murderer, the circumstances surrounding this case should be more than sufficient. The bloody head shows there was a scuffle and that goes a long way toward the self defense claim.

Just speculating here, but do we know anything about Trayvon's autopsy? Were there any drugs in his system? His juvenile record? Get some policeman/drug expert to testify how people use Skittles to make drugs?

Remember, all you have to do is put up a plausible smokescreen and it goes a long way. OJ is still looking for his wife's killer. And didn't Casey Anthony's counsel attempt to blame George Anthony (her dad) as his granddaughter's murderer?

You are also forgetting about the fact that this case is going to be in Central Florida. This is Conservative, gun rights country. The jury pool is going to be predisposed to someone defending themselves.

Reasonable doubt.
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
#5. There were no "instructions" given to Trayvon to do anything. Serino particularly drilled Z. on the point of why he did not do anything to dispel the obvious image of a creepy old guy following Trayvon around. Z.(according to Z) did not introduce himself, he did not ask anything of Trayvon. His only reported words were in answer to the question "do you have a problem, homey?" to which he responded "no." And there is no doubt that Trayvon, as the (minor) guest of a resident, had every legal right to be there (unless you know something of a legal nature that I don't).


I don't think the case turns on this. Even if Trayvon is trying to fight off a "creepy old guy" and even if nothing was said, Zimmerman is still defending himself.
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know about NBC. My guess is it's not too likely. If they smelled a loss, they probably would have thrown some money on the table (which Z. desperately needs) and made the suit go away. Z. has been sitting on the edge of indigency for the murder trial. NBC clearly has him outlawyered, and he's broke. I look for O'Mara to very carefully tot up the odds of continuing the NBC suit once the trial is over.
Come on! Doctoring videos? Ginning up a lynch mob? If Zimmerman is exonerated, they are going to pay through the nose. Not only did he incur hundreds of thousands of dollars of legal time, he also spent a year in jail because of political-agenda driven media coverage. ABC might also pay for blurring out the bloody head shots.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#86 Mar 8, 2013
One problem that the defense has is that most of the self-defense narrative has to come from Z. himself, and if they put him on the stand the prosection, if I understand correctly, can bring in all of his contradictory previous statements.

Now--some things that contribute to the state's case are the 911 tape in which screams can be heard in the background ending with the shot. At least one witness took them to be the screams of a young person. And without Zimmerman on the stand to claim that those were his screams, I believe the jury is going to lean towards believing them to be from Trayvon.

There is also the Non-emergency call in which Zimmerman appears to give chase until he loses sight and asks for the police to call him when they get there (indicating that he was NOT going back to his vehicle to wait--but would continue in search and pursuit).

There is the location of the body--which would have required Z. to deviate pretty far from where he CLAIMS to have been.

There is the autopsey report--no trace of drugs except for traces of thc (which would be up to the defense to bring in) consistent with non-recent use (skittles the candy are not used to make a drink. "Skittles" is street slang for pseudophedrine cold pills used to make a drink). If defense tries to introduce drug use, the prosecution brings an expert to explain what the tox screen actually showed.

Judge has said she will only allow stuff from school/juvie record in (I believe that there IS no juvie record) if it is relevant. However any such character stuff admitted would only open the door for the same against Z--which is a pretty big risk, because he actually HAS a record.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#87 Mar 8, 2013
Enzyte Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Come on! Doctoring videos? Ginning up a lynch mob? If Zimmerman is exonerated, they are going to pay through the nose. Not only did he incur hundreds of thousands of dollars of legal time, he also spent a year in jail because of political-agenda driven media coverage. ABC might also pay for blurring out the bloody head shots.
The only suit thus far is against NBC and it centers around the one edited portion of the NEN tape.

Pretty sure that NBC will be able to argue that the legal expenses derive from the act of killing someone, not anything that they did. And I challenge you to find anyone from the state to say, well, we only charged him because there was a public outcry.

And Zimmerman hasn't been in jail beyond a few days since this began--prior to the first court appearance, and then again when it came out that he had lied to the court about his finances.

As far as "blurring out the bloody head shots," I really don't think that happened. If you look at the police head shots taken at the station as a part of their evidence gathering, it's pretty consistent with what is seen in the security video. The wounds. while they bled, were both very minor and absolutely non-life-threatening.
Enzyte Bob

Blacklick, OH

#88 Mar 8, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
One problem that the defense has is that most of the self-defense narrative has to come from Z. himself, and if they put him on the stand the prosection, if I understand correctly, can bring in all of his contradictory previous statements.
Now--some things that contribute to the state's case are the 911 tape in which screams can be heard in the background ending with the shot. At least one witness took them to be the screams of a young person. And without Zimmerman on the stand to claim that those were his screams, I believe the jury is going to lean towards believing them to be from Trayvon.
There is also the Non-emergency call in which Zimmerman appears to give chase until he loses sight and asks for the police to call him when they get there (indicating that he was NOT going back to his vehicle to wait--but would continue in search and pursuit).
There is the location of the body--which would have required Z. to deviate pretty far from where he CLAIMS to have been.
There is the autopsey report--no trace of drugs except for traces of thc (which would be up to the defense to bring in) consistent with non-recent use (skittles the candy are not used to make a drink. "Skittles" is street slang for pseudophedrine cold pills used to make a drink). If defense tries to introduce drug use, the prosecution brings an expert to explain what the tox screen actually showed.
Judge has said she will only allow stuff from school/juvie record in (I believe that there IS no juvie record) if it is relevant. However any such character stuff admitted would only open the door for the same against Z--which is a pretty big risk, because he actually HAS a record.
You are still looking at things from the standpoint of whether Zimmerman is an evildoer or in the right. That's not how this works.

The way this works is that the prosecution is claiming Z is guilty of X crime. X crime has certain elements that have to be proven according to either statute or case law, and the jury instructions will spell out what they have to decide.

Here is an example of jury instructions for homicide in Mass:

http://www.mass.gov/courts/sjc/docs/homicidei...

In other words, this process works a lot like a computer program does. It is in pretty elaborate detail. The jury will have to decide if the elements specified in these jury instructions were proved at trial or if there is any reasonable doubt.

IOW, getting a conviction involves a lot of detail and is going to be hard.

That has nothing to do with who is right or wrong, but what can be proven at trial within the specificities of the law.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#89 Mar 8, 2013
Enzyte Bob wrote:
I don't think the case turns on this. Even if Trayvon is trying to fight off a "creepy old guy" and even if nothing was said, Zimmerman is still defending himself.
Zimmerman defending himself depends on a narrative that only he can tell.

And should he be put on the stand to tell it, there is a good bit of evidence what contradicts it--including, but not limited to, his own changing version of the story.
Enzyte Bob

Blacklick, OH

#90 Mar 8, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Zimmerman defending himself depends on a narrative that only he can tell.
And should he be put on the stand to tell it, there is a good bit of evidence what contradicts it--including, but not limited to, his own changing version of the story.
Keep dreaming, Reader. This case is being tried in the Orlando area. Remember how they tried to hold on to Rifqua Barry? Remember what an affront it was to the the people down there that a convert to Jeeee-sus was being sent back to her Muslim family for a potential "honor killing"? Remember the ridiculous arguments we had here where people actually thought that was a reasonably likely scenario?

This is conservative, right to bear arms, middle America. Most of the people there will sympathize with Z unless the prosecution has a very, very strong case.
Enzyte Bob

Blacklick, OH

#91 Mar 8, 2013
Also to jog peoples' memories a little bit:

Remember the Elián González saga? Remember what an uproar there was because (shudders) Clinton sent him back to Cuba to live with his father?

Now think about this logically for a minute. Who in their right minds is going to separate father from son for the sake of political dogma? Likewise with Rifqua Barry.

But that's the mentality you have down there.

This mindset is obviously wrong when it comes to alienating a child from their parents, but I'm not saying it's wrong in the context of defending yourself. Nevertheless, that will be the mindset down there. Prosecution will have to go a long way to overcome this unless they get an all-black or all-liberal jury.
Enzyte Bob

Blacklick, OH

#92 Mar 8, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Zimmerman defending himself depends on a narrative that only he can tell.
And should he be put on the stand to tell it, there is a good bit of evidence what contradicts it--including, but not limited to, his own changing version of the story.
I still don't think you completely get it. The way this is going to work is going to be similar to how things are decided administratively in government.

You have certain steps to follow, you may even have a flow chart, but at the end of the day it's a process of whether something meets X-criteria or not.

Think of this like a mechanical coin counter. It sorts through coins and puts them in their appropriate slots. This is how the trial is going to work. If it fits certain specific criteria, he's guilty. If the evidence doesn't fit within that criteria, he gets off.

I still say he walks. But look at it this way, he still spent a year in prison so you can look at that as his punishment for something accidental, much like OJ's 9 years in a Nevada prison will accomplish the same thing.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#93 Mar 8, 2013
Enzyte Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
You are still looking at things from the standpoint of whether Zimmerman is an evildoer or in the right. That's not how this works.
The way this works is that the prosecution is claiming Z is guilty of X crime. X crime has certain elements that have to be proven according to either statute or case law, and the jury instructions will spell out what they have to decide.
Here is an example of jury instructions for homicide in Mass:
http://www.mass.gov/courts/sjc/docs/homicidei...
In other words, this process works a lot like a computer program does. It is in pretty elaborate detail. The jury will have to decide if the elements specified in these jury instructions were proved at trial or if there is any reasonable doubt.
IOW, getting a conviction involves a lot of detail and is going to be hard.
That has nothing to do with who is right or wrong, but what can be proven at trial within the specificities of the law.
Absolutely. However the defense is hampered by the reality that their client made a lot of mistakes before he was even charged. And following charges being brought, he continued to do so.

First, he was so sure of himself and his claim of self-defense that he spent a good deal of time talking with police before being charged and before getting an attorney. If you go through all that stuff, you can see how he elaborates on his story as he goes along, trying to account for various conflicts with evidence and ends up tying himself in knots. An example--on tape during phone call he says "shit, he's running," and we hear the car door open and close and George start moving. Evidence of a chase.

Later on, George thought better, realizing that chasing someone down might not fit well with self-defense. So, he adds the story of having to get out of the car to look for an address for the dispatcher (doesn't fit with the taped call). Sean Hannity asked him about it. He then denies that Trayvon was running (maybe he was skipping--yes, he actually said that) and tries to reinforce his tale of not knowing the name of the OTHER street in the housing development (the one he didn't live on).

Putting Z. on the stand to give his side of the events puts a whole lot of gifts into the prosecution's lap. And NOT putting him on the stand allows the prosecution to portray the stalker George going after the frightened Trayvon--running away, a scuffle of some kind in which George had to have gained the advantage before killing the terrified and screaming Trayvon.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#94 Mar 8, 2013
Enzyte Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
I still don't think you completely get it. The way this is going to work is going to be similar to how things are decided administratively in government.
You have certain steps to follow, you may even have a flow chart, but at the end of the day it's a process of whether something meets X-criteria or not.
Think of this like a mechanical coin counter. It sorts through coins and puts them in their appropriate slots. This is how the trial is going to work. If it fits certain specific criteria, he's guilty. If the evidence doesn't fit within that criteria, he gets off.
I still say he walks. But look at it this way, he still spent a year in prison so you can look at that as his punishment for something accidental, much like OJ's 9 years in a Nevada prison will accomplish the same thing.
What is the evidence of self-defense?

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#95 Mar 8, 2013
Enzyte Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Keep dreaming, Reader. This case is being tried in the Orlando area. Remember how they tried to hold on to Rifqua Barry? Remember what an affront it was to the the people down there that a convert to Jeeee-sus was being sent back to her Muslim family for a potential "honor killing"? Remember the ridiculous arguments we had here where people actually thought that was a reasonably likely scenario?
This is conservative, right to bear arms, middle America. Most of the people there will sympathize with Z unless the prosecution has a very, very strong case.
There was no jury in the Bary case.

What there was--in addition to a bunch of online wackaloons with their own agendae--was Governor Charlie Crist who was up against Marco Rubio in the Senate primary. Rubio used the case directly as a wedge against Crist who acted in ways that would never see the light of day in Ohio (where Family Services are county administered). But even then, at the end of the day, they had to send the child back to the evil state of Ohio.

Not to say that there are not political pressures in this case, but I don't think that they are running the way that you assume.

Zimmerman is practically the poster child for gun control.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#96 Mar 8, 2013
Enzyte Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
I still don't think you completely get it. The way this is going to work is going to be similar to how things are decided administratively in government.
You have certain steps to follow, you may even have a flow chart, but at the end of the day it's a process of whether something meets X-criteria or not.
Think of this like a mechanical coin counter. It sorts through coins and puts them in their appropriate slots. This is how the trial is going to work. If it fits certain specific criteria, he's guilty. If the evidence doesn't fit within that criteria, he gets off.
I still say he walks. But look at it this way, he still spent a year in prison so you can look at that as his punishment for something accidental, much like OJ's 9 years in a Nevada prison will accomplish the same thing.
Again, Z. has spent less than a week in prison. He's been out since the second bond hearing--all expenses paid by his donors.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#97 Mar 8, 2013
Enzyte Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Keep dreaming, Reader. This case is being tried in the Orlando area. Remember how they tried to hold on to Rifqua Barry? Remember what an affront it was to the the people down there that a convert to Jeeee-sus was being sent back to her Muslim family for a potential "honor killing"? Remember the ridiculous arguments we had here where people actually thought that was a reasonably likely scenario?
This is conservative, right to bear arms, middle America. Most of the people there will sympathize with Z unless the prosecution has a very, very strong case.
I do believe that the prosecution has a very strong case--and one that would be strengthened immeasureably should Z. be allowed to take the stand.

Remember--no defensive wounds, either party.

No Zimmerman DNA on Trayvon's hands or sleeves.

One way to interpret the wounds is that Z. scratched his face pushing through bushes between the houses, hit his head on a concealed sprinker while they were rolling in the grass (perhaps as Z. attempted to detain Trayvon) and the recoil from the pistol knocked his left hand (holding onto Trayvon's sweatshirt--which accounts for the shot going cleanly through the shirt, but with a pattern representing "mid-range" on the chest) back into his face.

If O'Mara wants reasonable doubt, he'll have to put Z. on the stand to tell his story of one-punch to the ground (at the "t") and somehow account for the body travelling two condos south.
Enzyte Bob

Blacklick, OH

#98 Mar 8, 2013
Reader, you're still in activist mode and in denial of how this is going to go down.

The reality of it still is that the prosecution puts its case forward, while the defense only has to poke holes in it. Furthermore, the defense goes last so what they present will be freshest in the minds of the jury.

The jury, like most people especially in the Orlando area, will have a strong sentiment for the right to defend yourself.
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#99 Mar 8, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
What is the evidence of self-defense?
duh.....a broken nose and a bashed head

alive to be judged by 12; and not carried by 6

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#100 Mar 8, 2013
Enzyte Bob wrote:
Reader, you're still in activist mode and in denial of how this is going to go down.
The reality of it still is that the prosecution puts its case forward, while the defense only has to poke holes in it. Furthermore, the defense goes last so what they present will be freshest in the minds of the jury.
The jury, like most people especially in the Orlando area, will have a strong sentiment for the right to defend yourself.
But, the only thing that supports the notion of Zimmerman defending himself is HIS narrative of what happened.

Are you suggesting that his attorney will put him on the stand to tell it?

I think you are completely overlooking any of the forensics and buying into the story that Z. has been putting out.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#101 Mar 8, 2013
Reality Speaks wrote:
<quoted text>
duh.....a broken nose and a bashed head
alive to be judged by 12; and not carried by 6
Couple a problems there, fella.

The medical evidence is not particularly strong. Broken noses are not necessarily clear-cut diagnoses. Z. never sought an X-ray.

There is a late-surfacing, out of the chain of custody color-photo that shows blood on the tip, upper lip, mouth, some smearing on the cheek, and some possible swelling to one side. The swelling does not appear in the photo taken at the police station.

"Bashed head" is a spectacularly non-medical term. I believe that the terminology appearning in both the EMT report and the follow-up with Z's doc the next day is something more like 1/2" laceration to the back of the head. Not consistent with Zimmerman's description of multiple (10 or more) violent (and unprovoked) bangs against the concrete.

But--without Z. on the stand, how will that story even make it into the evidence presented to the jury?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
President Trump:We love the (DACA)Dreamers. We ... 18 min d pants 548
UTrashy & Spook 21 min sidekick 54
Ohio State Buckeyes could lose to the UNLV Rebels 2 hr Local 5
Why Obama Really Spied on Trump 5 hr 404 not found 29
NH White Supremacists teens lynch 8 Yr. old bo... 7 hr Terry 4
Hillary Rodham Clinton's book 9 hr Duke for Mayor 5
Rocket Man 9 hr Duke for Mayor 6

Columbus Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Columbus Mortgages