• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

George Zimmerman (killer of unarmed Florida teen Trayvon Martin) found not guilty

Status
Not open for further replies.
Van Owen said:
Actually, the onus is on prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Nice try though.
Click to expand...
While true, self-defense/justification is an AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, which means that once the prosecution has met its burden, the burden shifts to the defense to prove that self-defense/justification applies.
 
I might add some perspective here. When I was 14, I was interviewed by police as well. Victim of a crime. Won't elaborate farther than that. But basically, I didn't understand at the time much of what was going on. They taped it, and there was a lot of information I didn't want to talk about at the time, it was too fresh, it hurt to much. Months later, when questioned again, I was farther from the event and less scared, and volenteered more information. This doesn't mean I was changing my story or lied about it initially. I was a scared as hell kid talking about things I didn't want to talk about. I had no idea I was even under oath or what that really meant.
 
GaimeGuy said:
The testimony of every person of interest so far has contradicted at least one major component of Zimmerman's account of how the fight went down (which itself has changed significantly over time). Every testimony has suggested that Zimmerman not only was an aggressor in the lead up to the fight, but during the actual fight, as well.
Click to expand...

Like what? The witness that admitted she couldn't tell which of the two was bigger and therefore which of the two was on top of the other?

Furthermore, everyone, including the defense, agrees that Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin after abandoning the safety of his own home and his vehicle to engage Trayvon Martin, who he perceived to be a dangerous criminal that was fleeing from George Zimmerman.
Click to expand...

Engage Martin? You mean see where he was going and what he was wearing?
 
Fiction said:
I might add some perspective here. When I was 14, I was interviewed by police as well. Victim of a crime. Won't elaborate farther than that. But basically, I didn't understand at the time much of what was going on. They taped it, and there was a lot of information I didn't want to talk about at the time, it was too fresh, it hurt to much. Months later, when questioned again, I was farther from the event and less scared, and volenteered more information. This doesn't mean I was changing my story or lied about it initially. I was a scared as hell kid talking about things I didn't want to talk about. I had no idea I was even under oath or what that really meant.
Click to expand...

Police don't say "tell us your story." they try to get you in that 'you see, you know you just fucked up, right' moment with confusing questioning.
 
This chick is 19 she has been coached for over a year about this trial and she botched it up. Now she is saying that interview that was set up about the murder of her friend she said didn't mean anything to her she didn't want to do it. It screams this chick needs to impeached her credibility is going down the tube every time she opens her mouth.
 
Van Owen said:
He was already out of his vehicle when the dispatcher asked if he was following, so...
Click to expand...

It didn't sound that way from the call, but I'll take your word you are probably following the case more than me.

That doesn't explain why he followed even when he was told not to, and had clearly (he said "okay" in the recording) agreed not to. "These guys always get away" - except for Martin, Zimmerman made sure of that.
 
Still don't understand what her motivation to lie now is. First she lies in order to try and detach herself from the situation but now she's lying to put the guy away, why?
 
ivedoneyourmom said:
It didn't sound that way from the call, but I'll take your word you are probably following the case more than me.

That doesn't explain why he followed even when he was told not to, and had clearly (he said "okay" in the recording) agreed not to. "These guys always get away" - except for Martin, Zimmerman made sure of that.
Click to expand...

Actually, it does sound that way on the call. You can hear the wind sound stop as if he stopped walking.

And he says he did stop following and was later jumped by martin.
 
Van Owen said:
Because no one (other than Martin's friend who has already lied under oath) has said that Zimmerman started the fight between the two, and Martin had no damage to his body other than the gunshot wound and the abrasion by his knuckle, while Zimmerman had multiple wounds on the face and back of the scalp.

So it seems to me that so far it comes down to whether you believe Martin jumped Zimmerman as Zimmerman states or if you believe Martin's friend that Zimmerman walked up behind Martin and started the altercation.
Click to expand...

Saying that Martin had no damage besides the gunshot wound while Zimmerman had multiple wounds is disingenuous, because those multiple wounds don't amount to the kind of damage Zimmerman did with his one shoot. Basically, Zimmerman would also have less wounds if Martin had a gun and decided to use that instead.

Besides that, think of the implications this would have. I can stalk stalk someone, first in a vehicle, and then on foot after said person has tried to run away. And if this person at any point decides to confront me fearing harm, I can shoot him/her.
 
Sushigod7 said:
This chick is 19 she has been coached for over a year about this trial and she botched it up. Now she is saying that interview that was set up about the murder of her friend she said didn't mean anything to her she didn't want to do it. It screams this chick needs to impeached her credibility is going down the tube every time she opens her mouth.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I missed that portion - but from what I gather a question was asked (I don't know what the question was) and she replied by saying "I wasn't really taking it seriously" the defense asked "You didn't take the interview seriously?" she said "No, I didn't want to do it" (paraphrasing).

I don't know what that implies - what does it mean to not take it seriously?
 
mernst23 said:
Still don't understand what her motivation to lie now is. First she lies in order to try and detach herself from the situation but now she's lying to put the guy away, why?
Click to expand...

A lot of powerful people pulling her in many directions. It's gotta be overwhelming and confusing. I'm not even sure she fully understood the questions she was answering. Kinda like how you zone out during a listening test for a foreign language. I zoned out just listening to it.
 
Kinitari said:
Honestly, I missed that portion - but from what I gather a question was asked (I don't know what the question was) and she replied by saying "I wasn't really taking it seriously" the defense asked "You didn't take the interview seriously?" she said "No, I didn't want to do it" (paraphrasing).

I don't know what that implies - what does it mean to not take it seriously?
Click to expand...

I am seeing as more from my situation: She didn't want to talk about her friends death, and didn't understand the gravity of the interview.
 
Sushigod7 said:
This chick is 19 she has been coached for over a year about this trial and she botched it up. Now she is saying that interview that was set up about the murder of her friend she said didn't mean anything to her she didn't want to do it. It screams this chick needs to impeached her credibility is going down the tube every time she opens her mouth.
Click to expand...

In closing the defense will show that she's changed her story, even though she was in a highly emotional state. The jury will not know which story to believe and might not take her testimony into consideration. At least that's the way I see it.
 
mre said:
While true, self-defense/justification is an AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, which means that once the prosecution has met its burden, the burden shifts to the defense to prove that self-defense/justification applies.
Click to expand...

Actually I think in Florida once the defense is raised and some evidence is presented, the prosecution still has to disprove it BRD.

Murray v. State, 937 So.2d 277, 279 (Fla. 4th Dist. 2006) ("The real nature of his burden concerning his defense of justification is that his evidence of additional facts need merely leave the jury with a reasonable doubt about whether he was justified in using deadly force.")

www.4dca.org/Sept 2006/09-13-06/4D05-3691.op.pdf‎
 
vas_a_morir said:
A lot of powerful people pulling her in many directions. It's gotta be overwhelming and confusing. I'm not even sure she fully understood the questions she was answering. Kinda like how you zone out during a listening test for a foreign language. I zoned out just listening to it.
Click to expand...

Yea but what is going to force this girl to commit perjury as is being implied by the defense. Honestly, trying to make some sort of story out of texts from 16 months ago seems very arbitrary.
 
Fiction said:
I am seeing as more from my situation: She didn't want to talk about her friends death, and didn't understand the gravity of the interview.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but people in the thread are also saying she was caught in a lie - about what? I think I missed some of what was said, so maybe I missed the lie.
 
Thought it might be helpful if I copied over the Standard Florida State Jury Instruction form for justifiable use of deadly force. I cleaned it up a little and took out what I thought was clearly irrelevant. Remember, the question of self-defense is separate from the question of whether the prosecution has met their burden for the underlying elements of the charges. See the bolded near the end if you need that clarified.

3.6(f) JUSTIFIABLE USE OF DEADLY FORCE

An issue in this case is whether the defendant acted in self-defense. It is a defense to the offense with which (defendant) is charged if the [death of] [injury to] (victim) resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force.

“Deadly force” means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.

A person is justified in using deadly force if [he] [she] reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent
  1. imminent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] or another, or
  2. the imminent commission of (applicable forcible felony) against [himself] [herself] or another.
Aggressor.
However, the use of deadly force is not justifiable if you find:
  1. (Defendant) was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of (applicable forcible felony); or
  2. (Defendant) initially provoked the use of force against [himself] [herself], unless:
    • The force asserted toward the defendant was so great that [he] [she] reasonably believed that [he] [she] was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger, other than using deadly force on (assailant).
    • In good faith, the defendant withdrew from physical contact with (assailant) and clearly indicated to (assailant) that [he] [she] wanted to withdraw and stop the use of deadly force, but (assailant) continued or resumed the use of force.
Read in all cases.
In deciding whether defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge [him] [her] by the circumstances by which [he] [she] was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing the defendant need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, the defendant must have actually believed that the danger was real.

Prior threats. Give if applicable.
If you find that the defendant who because of threats or prior difficulties with (victim) had reasonable grounds to believe that [he] [she] was in danger of death or great bodily harm at the hands of (victim), then the defendant had the right to arm [himself] [herself]. However, the defendant cannot justify the use of deadly force, if after arming [himself] [herself] [he] [she] renewed [his] [her] difficulty with (victim) when [he] [she] could have avoided the difficulty, although as previously explained if the defendant was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where [he] [she] had a right to be, [he] [she] had no duty to retreat.

Reputation of victim. Give if applicable.
If you find that (victim) had a reputation of being a violent and dangerous person and that [his] [her] reputation was known to the defendant, you may consider this fact in determining whether the actions of the defendant were those of a reasonable person in dealing with an individual of that reputation.

Physical abilities. Read in all cases.
In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the relative physical abilities and capacities of the defendant and (victim).

Read in all cases.
If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty.

However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.
Click to expand...
 
Dude Abides said:
Actually I think in Florida once the defense is raised and some evidence is presented, the prosecution still has to disprove it BRD.

Murray v. State, 937 So.2d 277, 279 (Fla. 4th Dist. 2006) ("The real nature of his burden concerning his defense of justification is that his evidence of additional facts need merely leave the jury with a reasonable doubt about whether he was justified in using deadly force.")

www.4dca.org/Sept 2006/09-13-06/4D05-3691.op.pdf‎
Click to expand...

Well, damn. Florida's got some screwy laws.
 
Van Owen said:
Like what? The witness that admitted she couldn't tell which of the two was bigger and therefore which of the two was on top of the other?



Engage Martin? You mean see where he was going and what he was wearing?
Click to expand...

Even if she couldn't tell who was on top of who, she could tell that the person on top walked away from the fight. Since we know who lived and who died in the fight, we can infer that the person on top was Zimmerman.

When you are on a full mount of someone, that's not a defensive position. Your full body weight is pressing down on someone. Their maneuverability is compromised because their center of mass is pinned down, and their range of motion is restricted.


And yes, he engaged Martin. From Zimmerman's perspective, he spotted a burglar, left his home, followed the burglar in his vehicle, was noticed by the burglar, and contined following him in his vehicle and then on foot even when the burglar was fleeing.


Who removes themselves from safety and persistently follows a dangeorus criminal while aware that they've been spotted and identified by the criminal, then argues they weren't trying to engage? What kind of reasonable argument is that?

Keep in mind that, ignoring the perceptions of character, Zimmerman's actions as I described are basically a textbook example of assault. He was assaulting Trayvon prior to the physical fight. Which automatically invalidates his defense.
 
vas_a_morir said:
A lot of powerful people pulling her in many directions. It's gotta be overwhelming and confusing. I'm not even sure she fully understood the questions she was answering. Kinda like how you zone out during a listening test for a foreign language. I zoned out just listening to it.
Click to expand...

If she was coached by the defense, jesus, they should have recommended her to not answer any questions on why she lied or changed her testimony, at least to protect her from further perjury claims.
 
GaimeGuy said:
Even if she couldn't tell who was on top of who, she could tell that the person on top walked away from the fight. Since we know who lived and who died in the fight, we can infer that the person on top was Zimmerman.

When you are on a full mount of someone, that's not a defensive position. Your full body weight is pressing down on someone. Their maneuverability is compromised because their center of mass is pinned down, and their range of motion is restricted.


And yes, he engaged Martin. From Zimmerman's perspective, he spotted a burglar, left his home, followed the burglar in his vehicle, was noticed by the burglar, and contined following him in his vehicle and then on foot even when the burglar was fleeing.


Who removes themselves from safety and persistently follows a dangeorus criminal while aware that they've been spotted and identified by the criminal, then argues they weren't trying to engage? What kind of reasonable argument is that?

Keep in mind that, ignoring the perceptions of character, Zimmerman's actions as I described are basically a textbook description of assault. He was assaulting Trayvon prior to the physical fight.
Click to expand...

Came to post pretty much that. It's almost as if people are being purposefully obtuse. smh
 
vas_a_morir said:
A lot of powerful people pulling her in many directions. It's gotta be overwhelming and confusing. I'm not even sure she fully understood the questions she was answering. Kinda like how you zone out during a listening test for a foreign language. I zoned out just listening to it.
Click to expand...

Indeed.It's easy to see how anybody could be overwhelmed, I know I'd probably zone out a bit myself, Especially after the death of my friend; it would all seem so surreal.
 
I'm confused by some of the reactions here. Are people worried that she is being brought into question by her poor testimony because they want Zimmerman found guilty? Damn the possibility that her testimony may actually, genuinely be questionable?

Edit: Holy shit she is getting really hostile/adversarial.
 
I knew she was trouble the second I saw her. I can't beleive anyone thought she was doing any good for anyone. She is one of the worst possible witnesses I've ever seen.
 
ElFly said:
If she was coached by the defense, jesus, they should have recommended her to not answer any questions on why she lied or changed her testimony, at least to protect her from further perjury claims.
Click to expand...

I doubt she was all that cooperative with the prosecution w/r/t coaching.

You have to answer a question unless you take the 5th, and if you take the 5th, you may as well put a big sign on your forehead stating "don't trust a word I say."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

George R R Martin developing multiple sequel projects to A Game of Thrones for HBO
2
65
1K
BennyBlanco replied
Hideo Kojima found guilty of nearly 100 documented instances of sexual misconduct, still keeps his job.
19
562
ReBurn replied
Will GRR Martin finish the books?
Opinion  2
69
603
Brazen replied
Ashley Buzzard is now a confirmed killer
19
410
KyoZz replied
  • Poll
If you found a Death Note, would you use it?
2
55
550
Lambogenie replied
Top Bottom