George Zimmerman's Trial

He didn't "create the confrontation".
Saint Trayvon doubled back and attacked Zimmerman, when what he should have done was gone into his father's house. And the extent of the injuries don't tell the whole story: he had a gun, a gun that Trayvon was trying to grab and maybe use on Zim. He acted in self-defense.

Anyways, even if he is acquitted (which I pray he is), he will be lucky to escape the wrath of those baying for his blood.

This Chicago policeman is already issuing warnings for what he predicts will be terrible riots:

http://www.infowars.com/ex-chicago-cop-zimmerman-acquittal-to-cause-race-riots/

It took a lot of guts for the witnesses today to testify in Zim's favour (saying TM was on top of Zim, etc)....given the kinds of pressure they are under from these savages.

Awakened wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqRN0WqQYmQ

Try this guy:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=54W57246bME#at=119

Uh, no thanks, lol.........

If anyone's interested in the actual legal definitions of the charges in question and the related standards of proof, you might find the judge's instructions to the jury useful:

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/national/document-instructions-george-zimmerman-jury/nYnqZ/

Cheers,

Ac

I watched several days worth of footage from the trial including the drafting of and oral delivery of the jury instructions and the verdict and I got the feeling at the jury instructions stage that the prosecution were making the wrong case. The charge should have been manslaughter by way of culpable negligence.

Even so the big issue as I saw it was the burden of proof. At all times the prosecution had the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing was unlawful.

Zimmerman did not contest the fact that he shot and killed Martin but argued that he did so in self defense. In raising an affirmative defense, the burden of proof is still on the prosecution. So it was up to the state to establish that the threat to Zimmerman was not imminent, that the belief he would be met with great bodily harm (lethal force) was not reasonable and that he did not meet the threat with the appropriate degree of force.

I don't think the State met this burden of proof.

Zimmerman's own defense relied on the fact that he was not competent enough to properly assess and deal with a threat. The "force instructor" and MMA/Gym trainer really drilled that point home. These were expert witnesses called by the defense.

In that window of time (lasting only a few minutes) where there is a loud "bump" heard in Martin's cellphone conversation with Rachel Jeantel and when Zimmerman's line with Sean Noffke goes dead, there is not enough evidence to say definitely who instigated or escalated the fight which ended up with Martin getting fatally shot. There were no witnesses other than Zimmerman and Martin.

The defense posited that Martin ambushed Zimmerman but there was no firm evidence of this and no witnesses who saw who started what. There was (conflicting) witness testimony of who had the upper hand prior to Martin getting shot but none of it particularly concrete. There was expert witness testimony given by Dennis Root that it is normal to have conflicting witness testimony because every witness has a different vantage point on the scene which can be influenced by many external factors.

I thought that George Zimmerman's injuries were inconsistent with what George Zimmerman said had happened, namely that his head was repeatedly smashed into the ground. He alleged that we was punched in the nose but other than his own testimony there is no proof this happened. I thought it was entirely possible that he could have sustained the injuries he did during a struggle and that these could have been accidental and could have happened to either party regardless of who started the fight.

A bloody, fractured nose does not mean someone punched you and thus instigated the fight. It doesn't discount the possibility that you may have been the aggressor, got into a struggle and then sustained a fractured nose as the other person flailed or fought back. So I don't think it could have been used in court to back anything up. All we know is that a something happened in those few minutes resulting in these injuries and there were no living witnesses except George Zimmerman.

We do know that George attempted to follow Martin on foot prior to getting injured but following someone in and of itself is not instigating a fight. Just like looking at houses with a hoodie up whilst walking at night does not mean you are going to case the joint.

The devil was in the details but overall, I think the defense didn't win so much as the prosecution lost. I was dismayed by the defense's closing statement because it distorted the narrative to such a painful degree that its not hard to see why the racial profiling angle is getting airplay. I nevertheless think any possible federal hate crime charges are doomed to fail because I don't think there is enough proof to overcome Zimmerman's presumption of innocence. What was revealed during the trial suggested more negligence and incompetence resulting in the death of a 17 year old boy. He jumped to the wrong conclusion about Martin based on too little information (of which it can be argued there is a racial profiling argument). He disregarded the 911 operator's advice not to follow Martin (which is as much for his own safety as anything else since the point is to not escalate the situation into a hostile encounter). When he got into a physical altercation, he couldn't get out of it because according to his gym instructor, he hadn't progressed beyond a training dummy and had no experience fighting a live opponent in controlled conditions (nevermind uncontrolled conditions).

But I find the whole case very troubling because no matter what, the end result is that an armed adult shot and killed an unarmed minor. This has been admitted and the shooter walked. Martin loses his life, his family loses everything else and there is no restitution.