GZ doesn't seem like one that's concerned with making bad moves.

Two witnesses have GZ on his back, Goode and police officer who said his back was wet. Goode knows the location was near a sidewalk. Doctors say injuries consistent with Head striking pavement ( so i guess that idea was introduced).

Its so clear they prolly will not have GZ take the stand.

I admit I don't know lawyering at all but it seems weird that you can introduce something as your narrative and not have anyone speak to it actually happening.

Though I suppose prosecutors would never be able to prove a circumstantial case if you couldn't.

Fyp. Don't know if anyone ever exposed their gun to you in a threatening manner but most people would get a turtle head poking out of there butt from fear, especially a kid armed only with skittles.

Anybody who has had the unfortunate experience of a gun exposed or pointed at them when unarmed will tell you fear is the first sudden emotional reaction. I don't care if you are Kimbo Slice, you are not going to be in the mood to tussle at that point.

Right, it's just a matter of presenting evidence to support the theory of the case that you're allowed to speak to somewhat in opening arguments but then especially in closing arguments.

I think his statements to the police get read into the record. We really could use intrade markets for questions like "Will Zimm take stand/be coonvicted."

Prosecution doesn't have the right to ask him questions if his statement is read in?

Some TV head said that the prosecution is going to read it into the record and then have the detectives poke holes in it. Hopefully one of our lawyers will address.

Oh, that makes more sense. Thought you meant defense could just read it in and be done

I know it's interesting to follow and dissect trials, but lets not pretend that this trial should have happened. The race hustlers and media wanted a big race story, so they made one out of this tragedy.

GZ seems to be a weak/soft wannabe rent-a-cop type, and TM seemed to be a bit of a punk. They met in the night, TM was beating the crap out of GM, GM couldn't get away and he shot TM.

I can not see how they could possibly prove beyond reasonable doubt that TM wasn't beating the crap out of GZ at the time of the shot. I don't think the prosecutors think they can either. They just want to defuse the hostility in the air created by the media and the RH.

Defense: Officer Toody. You and your partner Patrolman Muldoon were the officers in charge of the scene that night. Why didn't you arrest Mr Zimmerman?

Toody: He said that...

Possible, but not probable. Surely not beyond a reasonable doubt provable.

When you have a gun, you want space between you and the threat ( you want a good 10 ft. or more). When you see someone with a holstered gun, you don't punch them. I promise you, if a guy asked you what you were up too and slid their jacket over to expose their gun, your hands will go up shoulder level, palms out.

I don't think the murder charge will stick but GZ should be convicted of something.

I don't think he intended to murder anyone, but he was clearly playing policeman and was very much responsible for helping create the bad situation that lead to the shooting.

He very well may have gotten himself into a situation where he was being attacked and feared for his life, which is why the murder charge is iffy, however he really shouldn't walk away scott free as he bears some responsibility for the whole incident occuring.

Yours would. Most people would be pissed someone is threatening them with a gun, and react accordingly.

I don't get this thinking.

What offense do you think he should be convicted for?

What if GZ was defending himself in such a way that it would look like - from the point of view of the mounted position - the mounted guy (GZ) was trying to pull a weapon from his pocket, or worse, verbalizing that he had a gun?

What's the threshold for Involuntary Manslaughter?

hey man im not defending other ppls assertions itt just saying that any time you use the phrase "too much" you are gonna run into such a problem.

Lol, people who want to get shot might " get pissed and react accordingly" that's not most.

didnt cheat

this is all ok
TM has a legit claim of assault at this point

Tm MIGHT be able to get away with this. in court he probably would so long as we dont have a racist jury or anything. if its just a judge, his chances of success go down.

TM is allowed to do this so long as he is in the necessary fear that his well being is in danger. if GZ didnt do anything after TM hit him, almost certainly not short of GZ going for his gun.

this is OK if GZ thought it was the only way out. and by GZ i mean, if a reasonable person in the same situation thought it was the only way out. but thats really a question for the judge/jury.

This doesn't strike anyone esle as odd? If you are the guy talking to Zimmerman, are not concerned whether the shot guy can be helped???

Hey Politics fellas. Haven't read a post in this thread and haven't watched a minute of the trial. I've only been reading the end-of-day highlights.

What's the general feeling in the thread vis-a-vis the result of this one?

yeah again i could be wrong but my understanding on this is that pros can ask the police ppl questions to the point of essentially having his entire statement in the record (and they might be able to just introduce his affidavit as evidence), and then will try to discredit it in a number of ways. pretty sure that as long as GZ put his pen to paper on this that it will be ok wrt hearsay stuff.

definitely doesnt give them a backend way of getting to be able to ask him questions. what i think would happen is that when pros gets the cops or whoever to testify regarding GZs statements, defense would try to discredit the validity of anything that might hurt GZ. putting him on the stand would be awful, he has a shaky story at best.

id say 85-15 that he gets off, mayyyyybe something like 75-25. its really hard to tell because of the people that still have to get up on the stand. and id be willing to put money on that. these percentages include possibility of hung jury.

basically im convinced that he is morally guilty but legally innocent. unless some witness comes forward who destroys what everyone in america already knows about the case i cant see a way that he gets convicted.

as far as general thread consensus id guess it is something like 55-45 in favor of acquittal but i really dont think the people on the TM side are viewing this objectively in any sense of the word. like phil brought up some prosecutor lady who hasnt even really been involved in the trial. DM thinks anyone who doesnt side with TM blindly is apparently racist. and adios was struggling to understand a burden of proof issue that was settled on like page 2 of this thread.

Those people are wrong. The law clearly says you can only use deadly force against unlawful violence. If Zimmerman started the fight, Martin defending himself would be lawful. Problem prosecution has is that there is zero evidence that Zimmerman started the fight.

Edit, I guess you could make the case that Martin's defense became unlawful if he keeps pounding away on Zimmermin after he is subdued, but not just for mounting and throwing some punches. If there was evidence Zimmerman started the fight he would be screwed.

776.012Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1)He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2)Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.