Is Zimmerman Guilty?

Cut the crap...

I have looked at all the evidence in all 13 evidence dumps.. and I think George is a habitual liar.

 

Thanks so much for these highly constructive responses to someone's opinion. Certainly that helped your side of the argument show its value. Next time just say "i know you are but what am i?" ....

 

What Evidence is Required to Raise a Self-Defense Claim in Florida?


he does not HAVE to take the stand. If he is smart he won't.....
"The defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on self-defense in Florida when there is any evidence to support the claim. This is a low standard and even a “scintilla” of evidence will be sufficient, even if the self-defense theory is extremely weak or improbable. Self-defense may even be inferred from the State’s evidence without the Defendant or a defense witness ever taking the stand."
http://www.husseinandwebber.com/florida-law-self-defense-use-of-force.html

 

Some of your posts have really inspired me to look into things, and i have said before that i think he will walk in this case, murder2 was too high of a charge for the offense, but i found this......

"In addition to the exception for forcible felonies, self-defense is not available where the evidence establishes that the defendant initially provoked violence against himself. See Section 776.041, Florida Statutes. To claim self-defense in this scenario, the accused must present sufficient evidence that the force used by the alleged victim was so great that the accused reasonably believed that he or she was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she had exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant. Alternatively, the person who provokes the initial attack may nonetheless claim self-defense if: (1) in good faith, he or she withdrew from physical contact, (2) clearly indicated to the other person that he or she desired to withdraw and terminate the use of force, and (3) despite the communication and withdrawal, the other person continued or resumed the use of force. "
http://www.husseinandwebber.com/florida-law-self-defense-use-of-force.html

I feel like Z might have some trouble with this one, While i KNOW that the second part of the quote is probably the case, (he may very well have thought that his life was in danger) the first part, (the defendant initially provoked violence against himself) i see as a potential problem for him. I know that he didn't do anything 'illegal' by initially following Martin, the jury may see that by ignoring the suggestion that he not follow TM, it could be seen as provoking violence against himself.
remember, i am not claiming he did anything 'illegal', he did not break any laws by getting out of his car, but that one action is what lead to the altercation, and based on what i've just read could easily lead to problems for him. (and for those on the forum who like to claim i "make up laws" i have added the link to where i found the information, for your reading pleasure. Some people are not good at supporting their statements with evidence, i am not one of those)

and as far as the "facts" being the only thing the jury will be looking at, i found this....
"In determining whether the use of deadly force or non-deadly force was warranted, a jury will look at the facts and circumstances as they appeared to the defendant at the time he or she claims to have acted in self-defense. The jury will examine what a reasonable person would have done under the circumstances appearing to the defendant at the time of the incident. This inquiry into what a “reasonable person” would have done is known as an “objective standard.”" (same site as above)

A jury will look at the facts AND circumstances .......while to you, the fact that he followed martin is irrelevant, the prosecution will most definitely introduce it to the jury, and they will have to not only consider what a "reasonable person" would do a the time of the altercation, but they will also have to consider what a "reasonable person" would have done from the very beginning....

 

Even if he is a habitual liar it doesn;t make him guilty of Murder.

 

Isn't this called an Affirmative Defense? I don't see how George can possibly avoid testifying...and putting him on the stand would also be disasterous.

I have read that website over and over again in the past several months..

[video=youtube;EsQeTKnD_f0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsQeTKnD_f0&feature=player_detailpage[/video]


Massad F. Ayoob is an internationally-known firearms and self-defense instructor. He has taught police techniques and civilian self-defense to both law enforcement officers and private citizens in numerous venues since 1974

 

Jessierae. I appreciate you taking the time to spell out your thoughts. I'm sorry if I lumped you together with Margot. Please carry on in this manner.


The Judge will confirm exactly what constitutes provocation under the law. There is no evidence that Martin did anything under the law that can be considered provocation. Provocation has an exact meaning and following at a distance is not 'provoking' asking someone what they are doing is not 'provoking'

 

What did George do? What would a reasonable and prudent man do under the same circumstances?

 

If you cannot explain what was ILLEGAL about Zimmerman's actions then please go away until you can.

 

Sab, George didn't have to be doing anything illegal to cause the death of Trayvon Martin.

 

Oh my, did hell just freeze over?

??? Did you mean Zimmerman here? or did you switch teams? lol. Regardless, i think that the issue for Z is that he was advised not to follow TM (i know, it was not an order, and he didn't break a law doing it) but when the jury hears that he chose not to listen, and instead follow him.....to any reasonable person it may seem he provoked the altercation....
but, when it comes down to it, i doubt he'll ever get convicted of murder2....not the appropriate charge for this situation.

 

There is utterly no proof that Martin committed any crime prior to the point at which a known sociopath and liar caught up with him. There is no evidence that the sociopath had any reason to think him suspicious. Martin is known to have been on a legitimate errand at the time that the socioppath began pursuing him.

The sociopath had reported nuymerous other persons to the police as suspicious and NOT ONE of them was arrested on the sociopath's word.

The socipath showed horribly bad judgement in all other known cases, so I fail to see any reason to believe that his judgement was any better the night that he murdered martin.

And I do not give aq rat's what sort of injuries the sociopath says Martin inflicted on him, because they do not look at all right. His nose does not look broken in any but the picture taken with a slight fish-eye lens, the blood from his nose is not smeared the way that it would have been smeared by someone's putting their hands on his face, but, rather, like he licked it with his own tongue.

There are no bruises on the most protuberant parts of his chignon, but, in the fossa that encircles the chignon is what looks like the imprint of a handgun of exactly the same proportions as that which the sociopath carried.

The sociopath is lying to you.

 

False imprisonment. It's a felony. It appears that he tried to detain Martin. Martin would have had a legal right to use deadly force. Under self-defense laws, Z had the legal obligation to try to escape before shooting.

SYG ceased to operate when the sociopath got out of his truck.

 

Watch the video.. He explains it very well.

[video=youtube;EsQeTKnD_f0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsQeTKnD_f0[/video]

 

If he was doing something STUPID and somebody died, he committed a felony.

He is a felon.

 

i) you have no evidence he is a psychopath
ii) It is irrelevant as to whether Martin commited a crime up to the point where t he two came into contact. If Martin threw the first punch he becomes a criminal. the fact that you think he was justified to throw the first punch is immaterial
The sociopath had reported nuymerous other persons to the police as suspicious and NOT ONE of them was arrested on the sociopath's word.

His judgement isn;t on trial. It is whether he acted in self defence that it.

We really don;t care what you care about. The jury is not likely to be made up of chumps

- - - Updated - - -

I see no evidence that Zimmerman tried to detain Martin. You are welcome to stop being such a chump and actually bring evidence.

 

Typical chumpy answer. Zimmerman committed no crime up to the point of contact. If Martin threw the first punch he also commtied no crime.

Now stop being a chump and come up with evidence rather than your supposition

 

Great post seriously, and I think you have done a very good job pointing to both sides of the matter without the usual smoke. Sure they will look at some of the circumstance, I would expect them to, problem I see is that,, that's all the prosecutor has,,,right? Like you said,,''The charge is just to heavy''

If they consider one side of the circumstances than they will have to consider the others,,,no? That comes down to [in my opinion] he said, she said. It's pure circumstantial, and not enough for murder two. They will hope Zimm takes a deal I think, they will want some racially balanced satisfaction out of this, and maybe for this case that's the right thing to do, I dunno.

If a deal is made watch how little Zimmerman will get....very little don't you think? I think the prosecution will jump at anything, they want to show some type of win no matter what.
Mind you as before the guy could be as guilty as Hitler I have no idea, he could also wind up a sacrificial lamb in the name of social harmony.

I am desperately trying to find some good out of all this,,something. I cant, the loss of a young man, our press completely losing all concern for justice for ANYBODY , and parents that can never be consoled enough. There is some lesson to be learned I'm sure, but at the moment it escapes me.

 

I think you need to review the evidence. Margot and others dont like to tell the facts they prefer a world where facts are bad because it allows more supposition. Zimmerman was already following trying to see where Martin went per the dispatchers request when the dispatcher told Zimmerman not to follow. When the dispatcher instructed Zimmerman to break off he did.

 

No, he didn't.

You are the one who doesn't accept the EVIDENCES, but prefers to ignore the 2 minutes between the time Zimmerman hung up with the dispatcher and the time the confrontation with Martin began.

ANYONE who looks as the evidences, ALL the evidences revealed until now, can see that there are too many discrepancies between Zimmerman's tale and those evidences to take Zimmerman's word seriously.

IF Zimmerman had returned to his car when he was advised to do so, he would have been at his car even BEFORE he hung up from the 911 call.

And that is a FACT!

Look at the time line.

 

Again you are playing rather lose with the facts here.

It was a 1:20 seconds from the end of the call till when someone called the cops not when the attack began.

And he was never advised to return to his car.

 

When was he told to return to the car?

 

The blood stain on the bottom of Trayvon Martin's shirt (Zimmerman's blood), and the placement of the hole in Martin's shirt made by the bullet which do NOT correspond with the way the shirt would normally have been worn (bullet hole in shirt were several inches higher then the bullet hole in Trayvon's chest), seem to indicate that the shirt was being stretched downward by "someone" holding on to the shirt while the gun was fired.

Obviously, only a forensic expert will be able to demonstrate the real meaning of those evidences. But the evidences clearly exists.

 

Oh........were you there? what evidence is there to support that Z broke off when the dispatcher told him he need not to follow?

 

The audible change in tone in the background noise indicating that Zimmerman had slowed down. The continued conversation between the dispatcher and Zimmerman. An audible increase in the background noise later in the call indicating that Zimmerman had left the protection of the cut through onto Retreat View Cr. as Zimmerman said he did. The timeline, had Zimmerman continued south in following Martin the confrontation would have occurred further south than and much sooner than it did. These things aren't hard to find.