17y/o Killed By Neighborhood Watch/CHL

[SlowDave]

If there is a hole in Zimmerman's story, this is where it is. As I understood, he says that he had gotten out to follow, the dispatcher told him "We don't need you to do that" (in other words, we do not require you to follow him, much different than a command not to follow), and he said he quit following but somewhere around this time, continued walking because he was looking for an address. Not only does it sound a bit thin, but also he could have easily went to find an address in his car, which would make more sense going with the "I was scared of Trayvon when he approached my car" piece of the story. If the burden of proof was on Zim, this might be enough to create reasonable doubt. As it is with the burden of proof on the prosecution, it is not nearly enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not exercising self defense.

I don't see that the prosecution has a case. You can clearly see why they didn't charge him originally.

[texanjoker]

I've been following this very close and am growing irritated to be honest. If Zimmerman made a mistake, it likely was getting out of his truck when the dispatcher said not to.

This is a common misconception promoted by the media. The dispatcher never told Zimmerman not to get out of his truck. After Zimmerman got out of his truck, the dispatcher asked him if he was following the suspect. Zimmerman replied yes, and the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman then said, "OK."

Correct, he was only told his "following" was not needed. Many keep stating he was told not to follow. One is a directive the other is a suggestion. What I do question, if he admits to following, doesn't that contradict Zimmerman statement he got out of the vehicle to get an address?

I have stated all along I believe he made a mistake. He put himself in this no win position when he should have been a good witness. The dispatcher suggested he not follow and he said "Ok". While that may have not been a legal order, it is something he should have done. As a CHL holding neighborhood watch member he had no authority to detain anybody and regardless how this incident went down, the person he was or was not following depending on what version you believe obviously got concerned because, according to Zimmerman, then Martin came back and attacked him. IMO that shows Martin knew he was being followed. His comments about punks and them getting away with stuff IMO shows he didn't want the person to get away. Now he is fighting for his freedom. My opinion doesn't mean much and in reality it only matters what the jury believes. I can see a mistrial in this case with a jury not agreeing on a verdict.

[A-R]

If there is a hole in Zimmerman's story, this is where it is. As I understood, he says that he had gotten out to follow, the dispatcher told him "We don't need you to do that" (in other words, we do not require you to follow him, much different than a command not to follow), and he said he quit following but somewhere around this time, continued walking because he was looking for an address. Not only does it sound a bit thin, but also he could have easily went to find an address in his car, which would make more sense going with the "I was scared of Trayvon when he approached my car" piece of the story. If the burden of proof was on Zim, this might be enough to create reasonable doubt. As it is with the burden of proof on the prosecution, it is not nearly enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not exercising self defense.

I don't see that the prosecution has a case. You can clearly see why they didn't charge him originally.

I'd have to listen to recording again to be sure, but I believe after the "we don't need you to do that" comment the dispatcher and Zimmerman discuss where he will meet the patrol officer and it is from this portion of the conversation, while he claims he was returning to his truck, that he began looking around for an address so he could better describe for the patrol officer where he was located and where he last spotted the "suspect" ... he was still in "assist the police" mode

[hillfighter]

I have stated all along I believe he made a mistake. He put himself in this no win position when he should have been a good witness. The dispatcher suggested he not follow and he said "Ok". While that may have not been a legal order, it is something he should have done.

1. Do you have any credible evidence he didn't comply with the request? I didn't see any in the trial coverage.

2. It may be a mistake for a young woman to get drunk at a club but that doesn't justify her being attacked.

[texanjoker]

I have stated all along I believe he made a mistake. He put himself in this no win position when he should have been a good witness. The dispatcher suggested he not follow and he said "Ok". While that may have not been a legal order, it is something he should have done.

1. Do you have any credible evidence he didn't comply with the request? I didn't see any in the trial coverage.

2. It may be a mistake for a young woman to get drunk at a club but that doesn't justify her being attacked.

1 and 2 are two different discussions. It doesn't matter whether he did or did not as that was not a lawful order. What does matter is that somehow he ended up in a confrontation with another person and ended up killing him. Zimmerman had the phone conversation with his friend and if you believe that testimony he knew he was being followed. We all have the right to our own opinions. Regardless, as I stated above the jury's verdict is the only opinion that will matter.

[hillfighter]

1 and 2 are two different discussions.

Thanks for noticing I used different numbers and didn't lump them together.

[texanjoker]

1 and 2 are two different discussions.

Thanks for noticing I used different numbers and didn't lump them together.

Don't mention it

BTW just because I believe Zimmerman put himself into a bad position, that does not mean I don't believe he had the right to defend himself. I know if I was on the ground with my head getting pounded onto the pavement I would do whatever it took to go home.

[howdy]

Let me speak from the experience of a professional jury member (Been on 6 juries including 2 murder trials. I have that "face" they all love) The jury has only heard all this stuff ONE time. I can guarantee they will not discuss all that we are discussing here. Maybe one or two heard Z's friend contradict GZ about TM reaching/grabbing his gun. I doubt they can remember what was said 10 days ago about when Z got out of the car and what he did after he got out. I believe the most important part of the trial will be the lawyers closing statements and the Judges instructions. Z's lawyer laid out a great case to have a bench verdit of not guilty and the Judge ignored it. Call it politics or whatever.

The lawyers forget that the jury only has the information that they hear in court. They can't listen to CNN and Nancy Grace at night to put a liberal slant on the case. On both murder trial juries, we all worked hard to come to the correct verdict. I remember having evidence in the jury room and we had no clue what it was or how it tied into the case. We would be sent out of the courtroom while the lawyers discussed a point of law, and on our return, the lawyers would just skip to the next area and leave us wondering what happened to their last point. The talking heads say the jury members are taking notes. That is OK except they are probably not listening to the current testimony while they write. This is going to be a hung jury. That is all the procecution can hope for. They will retry it and correct their mistakes from this trial. They will interview these jurers and see what helped and what hurt. The procecution has the money and the time. They will eventually win.

[The Annoyed Man]

ABC TV analysis: Zimmerman will walk.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerm ... dnkHz7DVoY
Analysis: George Zimmerman Probably Won't Be Convicted of Murder or Manslaughter -- Here's Why
ANALYSIS by DAN ABRAMS
July 7, 2013

I drew a legal conclusion on "Good Morning America" Saturday that would have surprised the Dan Abrams who covered the George Zimmerman case leading up to, and shortly after, his arrest.

Now that the prosecution's case against Zimmerman is in, as a legal matter, I just don't see how a jury convicts him of second degree murder or even manslaughter in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.

——{SNIP}——

....based on the legal standard and evidence presented by prosecutors it is difficult to see how jurors find proof beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't self defense.

——{SNIP}——

With all of this said, juries are notoriously impossible to predict and the deliberation process can take on a life of its own, but if they follow the letter of the law, it's hard to see, based on everything we know now, how they find him guilty of either murder or even manslaughter.

[G26ster]

ABC TV analysis: Zimmerman will walk....

"With all of this said, juries are notoriously impossible to predict and the deliberation process can take on a life of its own, but if they follow the letter of the law, it's hard to see, based on everything we know now, how they find him guilty of either murder or even manslaughter."

Who said this case will be decided by evidence, the letter of the law, or the deliberation process? It will be decided by emotion and self guilt IMHO. Likely a hung jury at best.

[chasfm11]

ABC TV analysis: Zimmerman will walk....

"With all of this said, juries are notoriously impossible to predict and the deliberation process can take on a life of its own, but if they follow the letter of the law, it's hard to see, based on everything we know now, how they find him guilty of either murder or even manslaughter."

Who said this case will be decided by evidence, the letter of the law, or the deliberation process? It will be decided by emotion and self guilt IMHO. Likely a hung jury at best.

I've felt since the beginning that those on the prosecution side should be wearing trainmen uniforms. Nothing in the prosecution's best witness testimonies has changed my opinion.

[SlowDave]

I am not arguing that Zim took the best approach for this entire evening. I think it's pretty clear that he could have done things better. However, not taking the best approach does not mean you go to prison for the rest of your life. Per the testimony and the evidence to this place, there is definitely reasonable doubt as to whether he committed 2nd degree murder or even manslaughter. I don't see a hung jury--I see a declaration of not guilty. Of course, my opinion doesn't count, only the 6 in the box.

Zim NEVER implied nor has anyone else implied that he intended to detain Martin. He intended to follow him so he could accurately tell police where he was and not let him get away. When the dispatcher notified him that he didn't have to follow anymore, he responded "Ok." That signifies compliance. He also stated that he quit following Martin at that time.

If Zim had stayed in his car and tried to keep track of Martin, probably neither one would be dead and life would be a lot easier for Zimmerman, for the last year+ in addition to the rest of his life, regardless of the verdict. That said, he did nothing to remove his right to defend himself, and I think it's an important case to confirm the right of a citizen (not a community watch person) to defend themself when attacked. And to confirm that the person defending themself is not required to have made zero mistakes in the entire encounter.

[SlowDave]

Oh, and p.s., I have felt that I have been followed by people before but I did not turn around and try to jump them. That Martin felt he was being followed and was scared has no bearing on his right to assault Zim. Again, all of this is subject to the "if this is what *really* happened." I think we'll never know for a fact what really happened. So we go on what we do know, which is actually very little. That is DEFINITELY an advantage for the defense.

[Valor]

Good insight Howdy from a Juror’s point of view. With that, the jury has heard from:

- an ear witness, although a questionable testimony, it is consistent and asserts Martin felt he was followed. That same testimony assert Martin and Zimmerman had a verbal confrontation (prosecution)
- many neighbors with conflicting stories (defense)
- questionable forensics (defense)
- photos of Zimmerman injuries, which do not appear life threatening (prosecution)
- A zany ME, that may have confused the jurors (neutral)
- family members from both sides claiming the screams were their beloved (neutral)

At this point, I still say it is a flip of the coin; from a Juror’s perspective. If the defense can present a "glove that doesn't fit" scenario, deliberation will be short and Zimmerman walks. Should be another interesting week of trail.

Various timeline speculations:

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[ScooterSissy]

Sorry man, but self-defense does not require any "life threatening" injuries. As a matter of fact, they don't require any injuries at all. No one should have to wait until they've been seriously injured before they are justified in defending themselves.

The fact that he was already injured only shows he exercised some restraint before defending himself. Martin didn't bash is head, then stand up and say "I'm done, you can go home now". He not only continued bashing, but had already expressed an intent to kill Zimmerman.