Are you following the trial? And what are your thoughts so far. My heart breaks for the parents of Trayvon Martin, and regardless what the outcome is their son still died a tragic and undeserved death
-
I'm following and am extremely disappointed in the Prosecution's handling so far. The Defense team is very good at cross examining the prosecution's witnesses. Just recently a detective was asked his opinion, the prosecution raised a weak objection. The detective was allowdd to continue with his opinion. Later the judge instructed the jurors to disregard the opinion. Come on! A person cannot unhear what was already heard.
-
@Mrs. Lemon-Lime: so true! I also don't know why the prosecution are not making any reference to the fact that the cops in that town didn't even feel the need to press charges On Zimmermann and just let the case die until people like al Sharpton got involved. The jury should take that into account when listening to their testimony because the officers are likely to be biased in favor of Zimmermann being found not guilty because otherwise they will look bad for letting him go without seeing the need for him to have a day in court
-
@Mrsbells: Now that "bias" could go the other way too. I would imagine the defense bringing that up to say these cops didn't see a crime here and even asked Zimmerman had Trayvon been white would he have shot him. Good news is Zimmerman's inconsistent recounts have been entered into the trial. I hope all of the testimony drtailing Zimmerman's non life threatening injuries carry weight with the jury. Was a gun necessary for a fist fight?
-
I'm following it, and to me (so far) I don't think the state's case is very solid. I also think the defendant's attorney (O'Mara?) comes off as a condescending a-hole. Are all defense lawyers like that?
-
No but I'm sure I'll hear my dad complain about it all weekend.
-
No I'm not following it. It will just make me irritated.
-
@Mrs. Lemon-Lime: so true..!
I also wonder why the defense attorney's daughter thought it was okay to post on instagram about it how they "beat stupidity" with icecream and how her "dad killed it" right after one of the witnesses testified. As if the case is about something unimportant like a parking ticker rather than a murder trial
@highwire: Yeah I know what you mean
@dagret: Hahaha
-
@Mrsbells: I can't watch it, it is making my blood boil. I can't believe what I am seeing/hearing.
-
So they just tried to get a witness to testify via skype and didn't block out his skype ID... dozens of randoms started calling him and now he's testifying via cell phone. This is ridiculous.
-
I am definitely following it. I can't believe it ever made it to trial. The prosecution doesn't seem to have much of a case.
-
For those interested, the update today in court is that the judge is allowing Zimmermans criminal justice classes to be admitted. according to his teacher he was well aware of the stand your ground law (although he denied this after the shooting) and was aware of how to "excel as a witness"
-
I've been following it. I think GZ's inconsistencies are probably somewhat attributable to the obviously hectic and crazy situation that had just occurred. I get flustered and confused about how things happened if its a really fast and furious situation. I think there's some adrenaline and survival instinct that kicks in and makes it hard to recall everything exactly as it happened. And by survival, I don't mean necessarily life or death. I don't think his misstatements/inconsistencies were intentional based on what I've seen but that's just my take on it from what I've watched and I definitely haven't seen every bit of it or read everything out there about the case.
I think it was very tragic but I think there is reasonable doubt and that a second degree murder charge is a tall order for the prosecution. Manslaughter may have been a more appropriate charge.
I'm not familiar with Florida law, can the jury find him guilty of the lesser manslaughter charge? I know in some states this is allowed but I'm not sure about Florida.
-
@plantains: Yeah I cant watch it either but I read the updates
@Shutterbug: wow that is crazy!
@Meltini: Well I think whenever an umarmed person has been killed there should be a trial regardless. And the jury should decide guilt
-
@Mrsbells: I just think it is a waste of tax dollars to take something like this to trial when you don't have a case. The prosecution didn't even want to take this case to trial but they were pretty much pressured into it by politicians (or so I've heard and read).
-
@septemberlove: Yeah I am not sure of the florida laws either... I know in other states a defense of "self defense" reduces the charge from murder to manslaughter.. but I THINK in florida if he is successful with his defense he may walk free
-
@Mrs. Lemon-Lime: this case will be decided *despite* the prosecution not because of it. If hey were goin to put forth such a weak case, they shouldn't have gone for second degree, because they are not doing a food job of showing the necessary malice to make the second degree charge stick.
-
I followed it when it first happened but haven't been following it all that closely since it became a circus. I couldn't believe the police just let Zimmerman go without looking into the case further.
No matter how the trial goes I just can't fathom how in this country someone walking home with skittles can be shot, even if he did punch someone who was stalking him.
-
@Mrsbells: I just don't think he's guilty of 2nd degree murder, from what I've watched and read. I don't know if he should walk free... I did see a lot of the testimony regarding his injuries and I'm not convinced he needed to use deadly force in response to those injuries... But if Trayvon truly reached for the firearm, which we will never know, then I'd be more inclined to understand to use of deadly force.
-
@Maysprout: my mom reminded me today that Zimmerman is politically connected. His dad is a magistrate judge. Who knows if that really played a part in how he was treated by the police?
@septemberlove: @Mrsbells: I keep googling the difference between murder 1 vs murder 2 vs manslaughter and I think with manslaughter a person must be killed during the act of another crime. Unless the prosecution can show Zimmerman committed another crime against Trayvon I don't know if manslaughter would stick either. The hazing case with the FAMU drum major has a manslaughter charge in addition felony hazing charge.
-
@Mrsbells: From AP: "Defense attorney Mark O'Mara said Tuesday that if prosecutors start bringing up Zimmerman's past, the defense will dig into Martin's past, including fights. The judge had ruled previously that Martin's past fights, drug use and school records couldn't be mentioned in opening statements."
What do you think about the defense wanting to bring up Trayvon's history? Do you think it's relevant? (I'm just genuinely curious, no one around here is following the case so I haven't been able to discuss it with anyone!) I feel like if GZ's past is relevant enough to be brought up, then I think Trayvon's is fair game... But at the same time, Trayvon isn't on trial and GZ is.
-
@Mrs. Lemon-Lime: I didn't realize manslaughter was only an option during another crime. That makes more sense as to why they didn't pursue a manslaughter charge.
-
@Mrs. Lemon-Lime: @septemberlove: What @MrsLemonLime is describing sounds a lot more like felony murder than manslaughter. I have never read a manslaughter statute that required it (the death) to occur during the commission of another crime.
@septemberlove: Generally, character evidence can't be used to try to show that someone was more likely to commit an act/crime than not. It can, however, be used to impeach witnesses/evidence that speaks to the (truthfulness/ trustworthiness) character of a person.
-
@septemberlove: Manslaughter is usually murder/death without the element of intent.
-
@MsLipGloss: nevermind.
-
@Mrs. Lemon-Lime: Ahhh, i'm a little rusty, but if I am not mistaken, Murder 2 (under Florida law) is the murder without premeditation. I am guessing that the charge is for Murder 2 because the act done by GZ--by and through his use of a gun--was inherently dangerous and likely to cause death, but that he didn't plan to murder TM. Also, again, if I am not mistaken, the justified use of deadly force is a defense to Murder 2 (in Florida).
-
@MsLipGloss: that definition of manslaughter sounds exactly like what he seems guilty of (from what I've read). There's no doubt he killed him but it doesn't seem like the intent to kill was there. It seems like he intended to prevent a burglary he thought Trayvon might be about to commit (GZ had said there were multiple break-ins in the neighborhood in the recent weeks) and his encounter with Trayvon turned violent. I'm not convinced self-defense is appropriate because GZ initiated the interaction by following Trayvon, who very well could've been defending himself from a stranger following him... I just feel like it ceases to be self-defense when GZ started it (though I do believe Trayvon threw the first punch). I don't know, maybe it is still self-defense. I think if Trayvon truly reached for the gun, regardless of who started it.
I'm glad I'm not on the jury!
-
@septemberlove: In this case, GZ is probably claiming justifiable use of force in defense of a person (as opposed to property). I don't think the statute requires that GZ not be the initiator (assuming he was). I believe what is required is that in order for a person to be justified in the use of deadly force (and to not have a duty to retreat) is if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death (or great bodily harm) to himself or another, or to prevent the imminent commission of a felony.
-
@MsLipGloss: Wow. It sounds like he may really walk free.
-
@septemberlove: Here is an excerpt from a good article on the Florida Stand Your Ground Law:
"The justifications for use of force will also not apply where the evidence establishes that the defendant initially provoked violence against him- or herself. To claim self-defense in such a scenario, Section 776.041 requires the defendant to demonstrate that he or she used every reasonable means short of deadly force to extricate him- or herself from the situation, and that the degree of force used by the other person (the initial non-aggressor) led the defendant to reasonably believe that he or she was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. Alternatively, a defendant who is an initial aggressor may claim self-defense if: (1) in good faith, he or she withdrew from physical contact, (2) clearly indicated to the other person that he or she desired to withdraw and terminate the use of force, and (3) despite the communication and withdrawal, the other person continued or resumed the use of force. See Section 776.041(2)(b), Florida Statutes."
http://www.husseinandwebber.com/stand_your_ground.html -
It seems the above statute provides for both initial aggressors and non initial aggressors.
-
@septemberlove: Since trayvon is the victim here I dont think his past is relevant. He isnt on trial and nothing from his past warrants being shot to death
@MsLipGloss: yeah that sounds more like what we have in our state. we have felony murder which is in the commission of a crime but thats different from voluntary/involuntary manslaughter
@Mrs. Lemon-Lime: Yes I heard that too about his dad being a judge. he was well aware of the laws and knew how to handle himself to the police
Reply
Subscribe to our newsletter
- Google Plus
- Stumbleupon
- Twitter
- Facebook
- Pinterest
- Favorite0
31 comments