TexasCHLforum.com

Thanks baldeagle! That was a very good explanation. I had completely forgotten about the role of Crump and the ABC news guy. After hearing that explanation, I agree that the defense may be moving to put Crump on the stand and just watch the whole prosecution case implode. I did not realize that was where the defense might be going with putting Tracy Martin on the stand.

drjoker wrote:Zimmerman is going to jail. He cannot afford expert witness for voice print Analysts. Instead, they're playing he said she said. Zimmerman's mom says screamer on 911 recording is zimmerman while trayvon's mom says it sounds like trayvon. I can't believe that gov't w unlimited resources overlooks voice print analysis. Their analysis probably says screamer is zimmerman so they hid evidence from the defense. This is lynching n railroading.

They said there is like 2 seconds of the screaming that is not under other peoples' voices on the 911 tape. Experts testified that it was very difficult and inconclusive to determine who was doing the screaming. I believe this was the right decision.

Going to jail? So, they proved to you beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not defending himself in fear for his life? Wow.

mojo84 wrote:The incredibly frequent breaks for commercials on HLN are driving me nuts. Where is a better place to watch the trial?

Yahoo is providing a video/audio feed along with comments and re-tweets from local lawyers. I judge it as neutral and quite informative, although the audio/video does cut out quite a bit.

http://news.yahoo.com/george-zimmerman- ... 43188.html

Valor wrote:

mojo84 wrote:The belief/fear for your life or fear of serious bodily injury is the standard. At least that is the way I understand it. Is that not the case?

Could it not be argued that Martin feared for his life? He felt he was being followed by a "creepy..." When they confronted one another, Zimmerman began to reach in his pocket for, at the time an unknown object. Martin may have then at that time struck Zimmerman in the face out of fear for his life. Should Martin have waited for a deadly weapon to be produced? Because it is fact that Zimmerman conceded and later used a deadly weapon resulting in death. This is not an open and close case folks. The jurors have a lot to consider.

So by your argument, Trayvon would have been justified in killing Zimmerman because he followed Martin and then put his hand in his pocket? So if Trayvon had a gun and had shot and killed Zimmerman in that moment, it would be justified? That is not *reasonable* fear for your life. That is unreasonable fear for your life. If someone walking behind me into the grocery store or 7-11 at night reaches in their pocket, I cannot assault and/or kill them because I have some paranoid mental state. So no. Trayvon may have been scared, but he did not have cause to reasonably be in fear for his life.

Compare that proposed standard for "reasonable fear for your life" (someone following you and then putting their hand in their pocket) to the actual self defense situation being argued: having your face punched and head (arguably) banged on the sidewalk. No comparison.

Valor wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote: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.

Agree, but will a jury see it that way? Will they believe a few gashes and lumps justify an adult shooting to death a teenager that was not committing a crime? As Howdy has mentioned regarding Juror deliberations, they may not be privy to the info and understanding us armchair QB’s have.

O'Mara did clearly state this to the jury during questioning of one of the witnesses--I believe the one who testified that he did not have "life threatening injuries." He stated/asked, "But justified self defense does not require life threatening injuries does it? Or any injuries?" And the witness answered in the affirmative. Whether that stuck with the jurors or not is another question however.

Valor wrote: 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 trial.

A "flip of the coin," by definition, calls for acquittal. Conviction calls for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. A coin flip is absolutely acquittal. If you are "pretty sure" he did it, that's acquittal. You have to be almost positive that he did it to convict. Therefore, he will be acquitted, imo.

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.

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.

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.