Starting with the audio tape evidence that Zimmerman was following Martin, and, obviously continued to do so after being told not to by a police dispatcher, that would make Zimmerman the agressor in the minds of most reasonable people. Add to that the fact that Martin was unarmed and according to reports no more than 500 feet from his destination, Martin suddenly turning to attack his pursurer is not as reasonably plausible as other scenarios.


If Zimmerman had a legal right to not retreat, so to did Martin. If you cannot prove Zimmerman attacked, how can you prove Martin attacked? Yet Martin is dead. Other audio evidence regarding timeline and the confrontation, calls into question motives that night.

You mentioned Martin's past juvenile record, so I assume you think Zimmerman's 2005 attack on a police officer will be fair game as well?

Even if Zimmerman's nose is broken (we'll see) that's not proof that he still was not the agressor. Broken noses usually result in lots of lost blood. Yet Zimmerman's shirt appeared to be virtually free of blood (from video), and his face was bandage-free, 35 minutes after the confrontation. Add to that the EMT, heard on audio cancelling the second ambulance (meant for Zimmerman). There are plenty of reasons for reasonable minds to question the severity of the alleged injuries and whether deadly force was necesary.

There indeed are plenty of questions to be answered in the case.

The state will have to prove that Zimmerman attacked. Not that it was likely or plausible that he attacked.

If Zimmerman takes the stand, it could be introduced that he plead to resisting an officer without violence.

You don't have to wait until you've suffered severe injuries to defend yourself. Don't be so obtuse.

But to defend yourself with lethal force against someone half your age and half your size? That's a bit much.

Save the ad hominem. Zimmerman's surrogates claim he was beaten severely, and his fear led him to shoot Martin. Hopefully, a jury will get to decide whether they saw sufficient "injury" to fuel the fear his surrogates say led to his actions.

Fox News has released "enhanced" video, which could mean enhanced as in improved or enhanced as in doctored which shows possible injuries to Zimmerman's scalp area.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/03...show-injuries/

That's consistent with the story that he was knocked down and his head was hit on the curb.

Size isn't everything.

True, but if a lanky 13 year old walked past me, my first instinct would not be "kill it with fire"

But, as you and others have stated, hopefully all of this will get sorted out with the investigation(s).

Martin was 17.

I thought Zimmerman was older, so I was referring to the "half my age" thing I said earlier. I didn't realize he was only 28.

He was a 17-year-old football player with a juvenile drug conviction in a neighborhood with a crime problem.

That's all I'm saying. Calling this thread, for example, "The Murder of Trayvon Martin" presumes an awful lot. There has been information released to the public which doesn't fit with that narrative and there seems to be information which corroborates Zimmerman's account of things.

... which is additional evidence of Zimmerman's capabilities and strength, given 28 is the in the middle of one's physical prime.

He claims to have lost significant weight from his previous booking measurements of around 5'9-5'10 and 230 lbs, which would indicate exercise and (workout) training. Additionally, those with the inclination toward a neighborhood watch (including following a 'suspect' and potentially engaging that person, as is clear was Zimmerman's intent) would or should likely put themselves in a physical condition where they shouldn't be easily overpowered.

If you think a string-bean 17 year old could easily overpower somebody of that description, I'm fine with that. However, Zimmerman's actions and apparent lifestyle don't jibe with the story promoted through his family nor with the need to 'enhance' video to see his injuries.

That obviously doesn't mean he did or did not feel he was in actual and imminent danger. There are a lot of unanswered questions, and not a lot of ways to answer them.

^^ You said what I was thinking much better than I did.

ETA: Kevin -- how would Zimmerman have known he was from an area in Miami with a drug problem just by looking at him?

Everything I've read says he was not in any legal trouble, but was just suspended from school. And it was for having marijuana. I'm sorry but I just don't really see that as a big deal.

Having represented a fair number of folks facing time, especially those who haven't done time before, the prospect of incarceration hanging over one's head tends to be enough to cause significant stress-related weight loss. Considering Zimmerman's situation, the stress combined with the fact that if he's recognized by someone on the street, he might be killed, gives him a really good reason to lose weight.

That assumes an awful lot. While we know Zimmerman pursued against the advice of the 911 operator, we don't know that he confronted or engaged at any time, do we?

Zimmerman's surrogates didn't enhance the video (whatever that means). Fox did. Even if false, it couldn't be any worse than the NBC editors who edited the 911 call to cast Zimmerman in a false light.

Right and the state will have to prove that he could not have reasonably thought he was in danger of death or serious bodily injury. It's also likely true that Martin likely would have been privileged to use deadly force as well. If I'm a gun manufacturer, that's a pretty good marketing strategy.

I never said that. I said that Zimmerman's neighborhood, though gated, had recently had some crime.

As for the marijuana conviction, I do think that's relevant. I'm not suggesting reefer madness, but I am suggesting that someone who partakes in illegal narcotics is by definition someone who doesn't mind breaking the law when it suits them to.

OK, I see.

I read this...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 2137337) He was a 17-year-old football player with a juvenile drug conviction in a neighborhood with a crime problem.

.. as "Trayvon had a drug conviction in his own high-crime neighborhood"

I can't seem to find it now, but I remember reading about Zimmerman's (violent) priors somewhere. If I wasn't imagining that, then that would be relevant as well.

His drug conviction goes to his character, not the context in which Zimmerman would have observed him. Scofflaws (and if you smoke marijuana illegally, whether you think it's a good law or not, you're a scofflaw) are generally going to be more predisposed to violence.

The light Martin has been portrayed in this case by the media seems more about preserving the narrative than worrying about the truth.

But that's what we have criminal investigations for.

How do you get "violent" priors from him pleading out to nonviolently resisting a police officer? I mean the name of the crime pretty much rules out what you're trying to impute to Zimmerman's character.

Like I said, I can't find the article, but I seem to remember reading about priorS that were violent.

Of course, I'm not going to stand firmly behind something that I can't back up, but IF what I read was true (and not just someone posting shit all willy-nilly, which seems to be par for the course on both sides, in this incident), then it would be relevant.

In 2006, he was charged with resisting an officer with violence. That was plead out to resisting an officer without violence. Only the plea goes to the jury and that's questionable as #1, I doubt Zimmerman would take the stand and #2, even if he does, that evidence may be excluded by the judge as being not very probative and overly prejudicial.

He and an ex-fiancée both filed restraining orders against the other in 2005 alleging domestic violence. I don't know what happened there, but it's not uncommon for folks to take out restraining orders with very little to base them on. As with much in this case, this proves absolutely nothing.

One article I read even tried to make a speeding ticket received 6 years ago as evidence of Zimmerman's violent nature. The emerging facts don't seem to fit the narrative and folks are grasping at straws.

Now the prosecutor may be sitting on some other evidence which changes everyone's mind, but at this point, there is no possible way that you could look at the evidence and be able to come to the conclusion that there is no way Zimmerman wasn't defending himself.

Just putting this out there, he was taller than Zimmerman and a football player.

I'm 31, 5'2, and a lot of pounds. If a 17 year old 5'0 gymnast came at me, they'd beat the shit out of me. Size sometimes doesn't matter. You'd think I could kick some ass, but I'm really weak as hell.

(Disclaimer: Still waiting for the trial, haven't convicted anyone in my mind yet. I still believe that not ALL details have been released to us, so I'm waiting to see what the courts and professionals say.)

Understood.

Now, there's no mention of his role on the football team (he could've been JV or 3rd string kicker, for all we know), so all the talk (not on this site) making him out to be a brick wall with cat-like reflexes may not be true.

The reports I've seen say that Trayvon was ~6'0" and ~150-160 pounds. Zimmerman is listed as being ~5'9" and ~240 pounds. If you don't think you can defend yourself (against someone smaller than you, no less), then 1) don't volunteer to be the sole neighborhood watchman in a community with an increasing crime rate and 2) don't pursue someone who you think could take you down.

(Ditto with your disclaimer, since we're all speculating :))

I got lost in the triple negatives. Do you mean no way to come to the conclusion that there no way Zimmerman was defending himself?

Wasn't. Maybe I got lost in my own poor writing.

That's absolutely not how it's been portrayed by the Zimmerman camp, at least in my reading - he also could have cut the fat out with his own hunting knife, but why deal with anything other than Occam's Razor?

The point of stating he doesn't weigh 230 (or whatever was his booking weight) was that he didn't have a "100lb advantage" as some initially latched onto. The Zimmerman camp simply didn't realize that advertising weight loss isn't an explicitly 'good' thing - after all, getting more fit doesn't make you less likely to win a fight.

By pursuing, he engaged - I didn't mean to imply anything about starting a fight, only that he chose to pursue (with the expressed intent to confront - "they always get away").

What a bizarre, non sequitur response (the NBC part - which was indeed despicable) - I meant that the injuries were not obvious in the original footage, as they might be expected to be in the instance where they were dreadful, scared-for-your-life-type injuries. (That doesn't mean the injuries were NOT that type - just that it's far from conclusive, or even indicative)

Thanks for the quick lesson on how the case will be tried :p

I agree mostly with the latter part though, and am fascinated with the jury's determination (WEIRD HUH).

Agreed

No grand jury:

http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/...s_charged.html

"Now that Corey has decided against using a grand jury, the decision on whether to charge Zimmerman is hers alone. According to the AP, Florida law requires the use of grand juries in first-degree murder cases, but not for lesser charges."

This makes some intuitive sense to me - I'm no expert in FL criminal law, but just from a more jury-oriented standpoint, 1st degree would be a tough row to hoe.

The cynical part of me might want to make further commentary on prosecutors "kicking down" charges to keep that all-important conviction rate high, as well, but we'll see how it goes.

Racial slur on Michigan road sign targets Trayvon Martin
 

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Co...0;380;7;70.jpg

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20...on-martin?lite

This is just an aside regarding stupid people. It has nothing to do with the incident and whether there will be an arrest and trial.

Ugh I was hoping this wouldn't make national. Apparently those signs are really easy to hack into. Idiots. A lot of my friends saw it last night driving home from jobs and what not.

George Zimmerman sets up website to raise defense money.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20...s-confirm?lite

Because he is (legally*) innocent until being proven (legally*) guilty, he deserves enough money for a strong defense. I just would not be the one donating to his defense.

*I do not know whether this has been discussed before but if a criminal suit is not possible or finds him not guilty, is a civil suit possible?

It's certainly possible, in that you can bring a suit in this kind of instance without much difficulty (assuming the case goes to criminal trial*).

However, (not legal advice or legal opinion) assuming Zimmerman is found innocent by way of an affirmative defense* (in this case, self defense) that would likely be fairly strong evidence for the jury in the civil case as well. The traditional "civil cases have a lower burden" (see: Simpson, OJ) would, in some ways, be flipped.

**This may not be the case though, since as far as I know, Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law is actually based on immunity from prosecution ... I'm assuming though that if the case goes to trial it will still be an affirmative defense.

(Note that "Stand Your Ground" also conveys immunity from civil action, so if criminal action is not possible on those grounds, then the answer is a pretty simple "No" although I'm sure there will be efforts otherwise)

Live now: Zimmerman Lawyers withdraw counsel


Going against the advice of lawyers may get you in trouble.

Breaking on msnbc.com:

Fla. prosecutor to file criminal charges against George Zimmerman

Zimmerman arrested:

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20...rtin-case?lite

About time

Amen.

Now hopefully, the truth about what happened will come out and, if appropriate, result in a conviction.

It'll be interesting to see how much evidence the state has that we haven't seen. I certainly haven't seen enough to convince me the state can overcome its burden, but I'm assuming they've played their hand in the media. We'll see I guess.

I doubt she would have charged murder rather than manslaughter unless she had something else up her sleeve.

The truth. Not the media's truth.

That much is obvious.

Some people don't see it that way. Lots of people spouting off my FB status feed, might as well be saying to hang the guy. I'm interested to see how this plays out and what evidence there is that the public doesn't know about.