07-01-2013, 04:44 PM #1
Dude got fat. Wow
07-02-2013, 08:46 PM #2
Not sure what to say. Prosecutor charged him with murder as opposed to manslaughter. I'd have thought manslaughter would have been a pretty easy conviction given that Zimmerman went against what he knew and was told to do... Murder is a tougher standard, and I don't think Zimmerman was planning on killing the victim...
07-02-2013, 08:49 PM #3
07-02-2013, 08:51 PM #4
That said, I can't believe the prosecution put a cop on the stand that they didn't vet enough to find out he thought Zimmerman's version was credible. I don't know how a jury can convict a man when the lead investigator thinks his story checks out. Pretty incredible.
07-03-2013, 10:45 AM #5
I think the prosecution is trying to demonstrate how calculated Zimmerman was in his version of his story and how well (or oddly) it fit within self-defense guidelines. Since Zimmerman won't take the stand, so they need to establish his point of view even through favorable accounts--in order to demonstrate how much a calculated liar he might be.
They showed his interview with Hannity in court yesterday, and I thought it was pretty damning for Zimmerman, but Zimmerman himself watched the video like he just done so very well. There was question at the end where Hannity asked him if he had any remorse or wished he could change anything, Zimmerman coldly answered, it was all part of gods plan and who I am to question that.
07-03-2013, 11:16 AM #6
I agree Psuedo...but can you really make that case when the lead police investigator says, on the stand, that he seemed honest and his story was credible with the evidence collected? I guess having watched that cross examination.....I thought the case ended right there for second degree murder.
07-03-2013, 02:57 PM #7
This is arm chair psychology/legalese, so forgive it's sloppiness: I'm not sure that this will come out in trial, but there's an undercurrent behind the notion of Zimmerman's presumed innocence--an ugly one. That, while Martin wasn't a criminal that day, it seems at least in Zimmerman's mind, Travon was going to become one, and that Zimmerman was really doing everyone a favor (the investigators could have been instinctual persuaded by this, what with their initial assessment that Zimmerman may have been the victim). If I'm prosecution, I try to use Zimmerman's assumption of Martin's guilt against him--Zimmerman wanted to go out and kill a criminal, that it turned out to be some seventeen year old relatively harmless punk, doesn't really change Zimmerman's desire to do justice by blood if in his mind it came to that.
07-03-2013, 03:54 PM #8
I'm pretty convinced that this fat dumbass made multiple manslaughter-level mistakes to create a situation in which he started getting his butt kicked enough to justify legit self defense. (Of particular import to me in this case is the idea that the police have concrete evidence to put Zimmerman on the bottom and Martin on top. I highly doubt, while on top putting a beating on Zimmerman, that it was Martin screaming frantically for help)
This is arm chair psychology/legalese, so forgive it's sloppiness: .
07-03-2013, 05:47 PM #9
"Mediocre breaking balls are a gift from God." - Kirby Puckett
07-04-2013, 03:01 PM #10
07-05-2013, 02:13 PM #11
If you've been following the trial, Zimmerman's wounds (doctor called them insignificant) don't seem to justify 'legit' self-defense. Zimmerman's own exaggeration about how many times his head was slammed (he said 20 to 30 times, doctor said once) demonstrate the tall-tale-ness of the self-defense angle. It won't look good for Zimmerman, if the prosecution can prove that it was Martin's voice yelling for help, and that it might have been Zimmerman who instigated the physical altercation.
Zimmerman's attempt to manipulate how the police handle the case is just another piece in the second degree murder charge. I don't know whether the jury will agree, but the prosecution is going to try to show that Zimmerman had motive to deal out justice by death. It's the notion of vigilante "justice" that can demonstrate a will to kill. From the state's perspective, you can't let things like this go, you can't have dudes walking around armed thinking that they can police their neighborhood with deadly force. I know it prickles some of our libertarian sensibilities, but I think it's an important case symbolically, especially in a place like Florida where there's laws that empower vigilante "justice."
Again, I don't know if the prosecution can prove the case, but there's plenty of Zimmerman's lack of remorse, preparation to deal out justice (ignoring recommendations to discontinue pursuit, knowing what to say to cops, wanting to be a cop, being armed, neighborhood watch, etc.), and the actual forensic evidence of the case (witnesses, no blood on Martin's hands, 'insignificant' injuries, 911 calls, recorded pleas for help)--the case is provable. It looks like murder to me, and Zimmerman's own paranoia and lunacy (believing his life was in danger, that Martin was a criminal at all) don't at all mitigate his crime.
Last edited by PseudoSABR; 07-05-2013 at 02:23 PM.
07-05-2013, 02:33 PM #12
The standard for self-defense is reasonable fear of being in danger. Having your head slammed around by someone bigger than you is good reason to be in fear for your health. It's very common for people to exaggerate their injuries, especially when there is blood present. If you are expecting someone being beaten up to have some kind of precise, analytic take on their injuries in a fight.....we have to go to square one here about how human beings react under stress. You can read into whatever you want about his indifference, all I know is that the facts of the case don't support your version.
Especially if the prosecution can prove that it was Martin's voice yelling for help, and that it might have been Zimmerman who instigated the physical altercation.
I just can't see how any rational human being could come to the conclusion that this was the grand orchestration of a master of Florida self-defense crime laws so he could kill a teenager. And for what? Clearly this same criminal mastermind would know it'd forever ruin his career as a cop or even a common vigilante....or is he just some kind of self-defense savant who is completely incompetent at all other things?
Cmon Psuedo....you're smarter than this, separate the politics of it.
I get the desire to crack down on vigilantism...but you can do that without fabricating an insanely unlikely scenario like the one you have laid out and the prosecution is doing as well. Manslaughter of a child carries a SERIOUS sentence in florida. (minimum 9 years with the judge being allowed to impose another 15 years, something common in cases involving children). Nail this moron with that rather than creating something to make us all sleep better at night about what happened.
Last edited by TheLeviathan; 07-05-2013 at 02:43 PM.
07-05-2013, 02:48 PM #13
Let me clear again about what I think the simple truth here is (Occam's Razor and whatnot):
The forensics collected by the police department supported Zimmerman's version of events. They also knew this guy made dozens of mistakes along the way (as evidenced by them grilling him about how he could've defused the situation multiple times), but ultimately the situation his stupidity created was not pre-thought, but reactionary. Making it a clear case of manslaughter. The cops know, on that charge and given the facts in the case, they can charge him and get a conviction with a sizable penalty.
In come politic pressure and the feds, they trump the charge, bring in a whole lot of specious arguments to try and turn him into a cold blooded killer and try to bring that case to justice. Except the reality wins out. The forensics, the investigations by trained law enforcement, the inconsistencies in their own witnesses, and the enormous leap to take "*****ing punks" and turn it into a premeditated act of murder....and you get the utter mess that has been their case.
If they had just charged him with manslaughter, they'd have looked less inept, made Zimmerman look more the jerk he is for making this happen, and got virtually the same sentence.
07-05-2013, 03:05 PM #14
We're both biased and we're both being rational. I'm not at all suggesting that Zimmerman orchestrated his injuries, but I do think the order of events, when the screams of help happened, when Zimmerman's head struck whatever (no signs of that on the concrete by the way), when Martin was punching Zimmerman, who started the physical engagement are all open for interpretation. There was some kind of struggle but I'm not at all convinced that Zimmerman was ever in danger enough to warrant deadly force--if I'm on the jury, i'd have to look at the letter of the law to see what kind of 'danger' actually legitimizes self defense. But as a citizen, living among other armed citizens, I'm not going to have a pretty threshold for what I consider legitimate self-defense warranting deadly force.
Part of why I'm stickler on this notion of self defense, is that it empowers those with delusional paranoia--which is what led to Martin's death in teh first place. It's was delusional paranoia that led Zimmerman to follow Martin around, and it was delusional paranoia that caused Zimmerman to shoot Martin instead choosing a myriad of other options.
The prosecution right now is making some these arguments better than I can, right now.
07-05-2013, 03:12 PM #15
Levi, I don't really take dispute with your version of what may have happened, for me though, Zimmerman was eager to kill someone whom he thought was a criminal, and he was seeking to put himself in a situation where such actions would be justified, knowing that we have to be cynical about the notion of 'self defense' and have a much higher threshold for it. Maybe that's not he letter of the law, but it provides context for me that make it murder and not an accidental death.
Zimmerman didn't simply get in over his head, he was seeking danger and he himself was dangerous aprori to his encounter with Martin.
Last edited by PseudoSABR; 07-05-2013 at 03:18 PM.
07-05-2013, 03:21 PM #16
Pseudy...you gotta separate some of your good notions from this case. Your larger points I agree with, but they're leading you astray methinks.
Now what you choose to believe about self-defense is irrelevant here. If you're asking me if self-defense laws have become too lenient, I'd agree. But they are lenient. The threshold to meet them is incredibly easy, regardless of who started what. (I think it's clear Zimmerman started the situation, the confrontation is anyone's guess)
The prosecution right now is making some these arguments better than I can, right now.
Answer: What happened AFTER the confrontation. Whereas it should be about what happened before it. That's the second most tragic part of this. This was never second degree murder, a proper charge would've had a proper focus.
07-05-2013, 05:37 PM #17Then why note that there was no evidence on the sidewalk? You're saying things out of both sides of your mouth. The re-enactment with the cops was backed by forensic evidence. The lead investigator said so, at that point speculation should end. Beyond that becomes conspiracy theory IMO.
And I think your distinction between manslaughter and second degree murder isn't quite correct. This is copied from wikipedia.
- Second degree murder is a murder that is not premeditated or planned in advance.
- Voluntary manslaughter (often referred to as third degree murder) sometimes called a "Heat of Passion" murder, is any intentional killing that involved no prior intent to kill, and which was committed under such circumstances that would "cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed." Both this and second degree murder are committed on the spot, but the two differ in the magnitude of the circumstances surrounding the crime. For example, a bar fight that results in death would ordinarily constitute second degree murder. If that same bar fight stemmed from a discovery of infidelity, however, it may be mitigated to voluntary manslaughter.
07-05-2013, 05:52 PM #18
Pseudo...did you really just quote wikipedia rather than looking at the specific state law? Yeesh, here:
Second degree murder
You're right that premeditated isn't necessary, but "delusional paranoia" wouldn't even come close to cutting it. Nor does one throw away statement account for that. It's an ENORMOUS stretch. By forensic accounts, Zimmerman reached across his body, pulled, and fired. I don't see how that requires aiming. This was a fight, not a gentleman's debate. That isn't excusing him, just the reality of how the human body works.
I don't deny that the Florida law, and the law in many states, has developed a threshold too low. But even before "stand your ground" the threshold was low. In court cases the term is "reasonable", which I think the general public thinks is a higher standard than it really is. It's a very low threshold and I don't see how you can argue away a busted nose and a bunch of cuts on the back of your head by a larger person. That more than meets the threshold.
And again, here we talking about self-defense. If you want to pick that bone, here are more than your fair share of cases to pick apart. This one should have been about this overzealous vigilante. Instead this case is about self-defense which, again, quite easily clears that bar.
Last edited by TheLeviathan; 07-05-2013 at 05:57 PM.
07-05-2013, 06:12 PM #19
here, if anyone wants to wade through them.
Instead this case is about self-defense which, again, quite easily clears that bar.
07-05-2013, 06:59 PM #20