http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/...r-chris-serino

From the linked timeline, the physical encounter started about three and a half minutes after Martin began running. How long after the obviously terrifying following is Martin still justified in attacking Zimmerman? OBVIOUSLY three and a half minutes is totally fine. What about ten minutes after? A half hour?

You're right. Pick one sentence out in multiple lengthy posts and latch onto it.

It's a reminder that GZ's story might not be all true or that the jury doesn't have to believe it. Some people, coughcough like you coughcough, think his story should be taken at face value and nana nana boo boo stick your head in doo doo, you can't 100% disprove it. Guess what? No one has to disprove it. The jury doesn't have to believe it. The prosecution can point to inconsistencies, which could make the jury doubt GZ's story.

Like, I haven't once claimed that the prosecution needs a hole in GZ's story for a conviction. Has anyone said that? What I'm saying is, the argument "HOW CAN HE POSSIBLY BE CONVICTED WHEN NO ONE CAN DISPROVE GZ'S STORY???" is stupid. I laid out a scenario for you. And then you take out a small section and pretend that's the wagon I'm hitching everything to.

This isn't difficult to understand. GZ's word isn't this insurmountable obstacle. Witness credibility is like a huge part of trials. So how can they possibly have a case? One thing they can do is undermine his credibility. How can they do that? Jesus man, pick whatever the hell you want. Inconsistencies. Pointing to how unreasonable it is for someone to attack someone out of the blue. Painting Zimmerman as an irrational overzealous idiot with a gun. Jesus why can't you understand this simple ****ing point.

Oh, and by the way, a quick google search shows that the prosecution plans to bring up inconsistencies. Holy ****. I'm not even a psychic but I predicted that **** anyway. That crazy idea of undermining GZ's credibility is actually a tactic used by some attorneys.

They're all quite similar, with small adjustments of the placement of the car.



Not only does Phill's statement defy logic, but also Trayvon's girlfriend's account (and Zimmerman's ldo).

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...in.html?ref=us

The interactive feature is a really good way of getting a good intuition of the distances involved in the encounter.

Good poast. This point is swing missed constantly by both sides.

Are you guys still putting faith in those out of date maps? That has already been explained:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8320UK20120403

Trayvon at some point after Zimmerman hung up on that famous 9/11 call saw Zimmerman in his truck, he asked him why he was following him, Zimmerman said he wasnt, he then left to go home whilst talking to DeeDee his girlfriend telling her he sees Zimmerman behind him again and she tells him to run away and he just says he will walk fast, that is when Zimmerman confronted him again and then tried to pull his gun telling police he went for his cell phone to justify that action if anyone saw him.

This blog does a decent job deconstructing the timeline:

http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-lineh...dees-testimony

Basically the initial maps didnt have the info that in Zimmerman's own words he chased Trayvon twice. The first time Trayvon got away but went back to see if was still there cos like most youths he was young and dumb then while talking with DeeDee who he rung to tell about this weirdo who was following him who he saw in the truck Zimmerman catches up to him while he is chatting with her then he goes for his gun causing Trayvon to pounce on him to defend his life.

I'm telling you what the law is. I'll type the statute for you so you don't have to take my word for it.

Section 776.041

The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who: ... (2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless: ... (b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

The law is, if you provoke the use of force, you can't claim self-defense unless you withdraw and indicate clearly your desire to withdraw.

The jury can find GZ provoked the use of force. Obviously some people here think that can't possibly be the case. I think it can be the case, and I'm happy to live with what the jury thinks. I don't understand why it's so hard to believe that GZ could possibly be at fault in creating this situation.

What you're "astonished" at is how much **** you can get yourself in when you stupidly chase people around and make them fear for their safety. Your unreasonable actions will often narrow the number of legal options you have to get out of the ****pile you got yourself into.

Sure, it's nice of you to point out one of the most horrible aspects of our criminal justice system. Any single inconsistency by the accused is used as proof of guilty by prosecutors. That's absolutely horrible, his recollection shouldn't be expected to match the absolute facts of the case, and they sure as hell shouldn't be expected to match testimony from other witnesses. It's completely asinine that prosecutors are allowed to attack people in this way when it's a provable and consistent fact that witness testimony terrible.

If GZ is convicted, the first thought that will cross my mind is, "shouldn't have talked to the police dumbass."

Haha. OK. So three and a half minutes after this terrifying following, Martin runs into Zimmerman. Martin asks Zimmerman what his problem is. Zimmerman says he doesn't have a problem. Martin punches Zimmerman. Zimmerman doesn't have the right to defend himself? Zimmerman saying he doesn't have a problem isn't making it clear that he isn't physically threatening Martin?

If you're claiming that jurors shouldn't be entitled to evidence undermining a witness's credibility, then we're not going to have a very fruitful discussion. I got people telling me left and right that none of the prosecution's witnesses are to be believed for this and that reason, yet we should just let GZ's word be gospel.

Extrapolate to other criminal trials. Take this to its logical conclusion. Do you honestly want it to be that people can't point out inconsistencies in a trial? Or do you disagree with it in this trial because you really, really want GZ to be found not guilty? Does it matter to you at all that he could be lying about crucial details?

I see, that wasn't my intent but I see your point.

Dude, I told you the law. It's up to the jury to tell us what happened. If they believe GZ's story, he's probably fine. If GZ's walking away, chances are there's no reason for TM to reasonably fear for his life. But the jury tells us what happened that night.

If you'll remember, I've said a bunch that I could see him found not guilty. I'm trying to convince some of you that a guilty verdict isn't some impossibility or even some runner-runner backdoor straight flush scenario.

So you actually think that martins state of mind before the attack was more likely to be angry rather than fearful?

To the bolded, honestly, piss off. Are you so emotionally caught up in this trial that you can't possibly fathom that someone else could take a different view without some sort of nefarious ulterior motive? My comment is solely based on the ridiculous standard that is applied to defendants at trial. Misremember one detail, make one mistake when repeating your story, or have some other ****** say something different happened and the defendant is screwed.

Jurors should be made aware, via instructions from the judge, of the horrible track record of witnesses (and by witness I'm including the accused) to be able to recall what actually happened. This does not currently happen, it is simply assumed that our adversarial trial system will sort out those kinds of details. Of course, it doesn't, and it's not even close. I would be completely and totally okay if every person who was convicted solely on eye witness testimony was released from prison tomorrow.

This post helped me understand the argument much better. I still don't like it but I can def see the government prevailing mostly because of the unlikeable nature of GZ and the horrible death of TM. GZ better hope that the money keeps flowing in to his website because he is gonna need a good defense. He would have no chance given the politcal pressure on the prosecution to convict if he had to roll out with a public aid attorney.

At worst for GZ it's a coin flip at this point. He's probably a slight favorite. Almost every legal expert (not the 2+2 armchair variety) with published commentary on this says 2nd degree murder will never hold up. Manslaughter maybe.

I think the question is, why in the world would you think he's angry rather than fearful?

To answer your question, of course he can be both angry and fearful. But if I had to choose one, I'd say he was afraid. I say that because it makes sense and because his girlfriend spoke to him as this was happening. It makes sense because wtf, he's being followed at night and pursued after he ran and pursued behind houses, and being terrified is the natural reaction. I don't know what your life experiences have been that would make you angry in this scenario instead of afraid, but I assure you fear is the normal reaction. And of course his girlfriend's account of his state of mind comports with what makes sense, so I don't know why I shouldn't believe her.

Well he had three minutes to travel a hundred yards. A fearful person travels that distance rather quickly and goes inside. An angry person doubles back and initiates a confrontation.

I'm just giving a reasonable scenario. The defense is free to argue for different meanings of the actions. Personally, I think it's reasonable for someone to hide and wait in this situation, for reasons I've already stated, and I think it will be an uphill battle for to show that this kid walking home from the store hid out of vindictiveness rather than fear. Again, that makes some tall assumptions about the victim, and the defense better be able to back those assumptions up with something other than air.

And why would martin be angry? Because some racist douche is following him for no reason.

Wtf lol. I need some time to wrap my head around this, it changes nearly everything from my point of view.

A fearful person running off the road can get lost with only 100 yards to go. This wasn't his neighborhood. Or a fearful person can stop and hide, then come out when he thinks the coast is clear.

Zimmerman's angry because he's decided Trayvon is one of the criminals who always gets away.

Of course it's plausible that zimmerman was angry and initiated the confrontation. But someone saying they don't see why martin might have been angry seems really dense.

Phil, you are quoting Martin (the dad) recalling what Serino told him. This is third hand information and not reliable.

As for the wagist article, that is where I found out that Zim's call began at 7:09 and not 7:11 as discovery says. After that the article takes some great leaps of faith. It assumes GZ takes a minute to get back to his truck (doable) and that TM approaches the truck right as GZ gets in. They have this conversation: “Why are you following me?” “I’m not.” TM then immediately leaves the vehicle walking but then starts to run a second time. GZ once again exits his vehicle to chase Martin. GZ catches him and the fight begins. All this happens in a little less than 2 minutes. I'm not buying it.

As for Zimmerman's injuries being minor I can't believe we're still arguing this. Here is a slide show of photo evidence (yeah it comes from a site with Breitbart's picture on it so the pics must be doctored):



Do you see those walnut sized lumps on the back and sides of GZ's head? They weren't bleeding but those are not minor. There are some other pics in there including a couple of the holster.

LOL, how did I not know that this happened on a street named Retreat.