Zimmerman Trial Poll -- June 26 edition

[Tom]

They have determined that he was on top of Zimmerman when shot. There is direct testimony to that effect and the prosecutor didn't question it.

I don't see how that's possible since no witness claims they were looking when the shot was fired.

What witness are you talking about ?

 

[Tom]

Memory isn't a video camera, your brain makes all sorts of changes so what you remember may be much different than what actually happened... Your memory can even be tricked simply by someone telling you they saw something else.

True. For example, the witness Jonathon believes the "screams" were coming from the person on the bottom, not becasue he really could tell but becasue it seems logical to him that the person on the bottom would be the one screaming.

But, its also logical that if the person on the bottom has a gun, which is a fact in this case, and the person on top is trying not to get shot, he could be screaming for help.

An example of how our brain thinks it sees and hears things that it thinks make sense, even if it isn't necessarily realityl.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

True. For example, the witness Jonathon believes the "screams" were coming from the person on the bottom, not becasue he really could tell but becasue it seems logical to him that the person on the bottom would be the one screaming.

But, its also logical that if the person on the bottom has a gun, which is a fact in this case, and the person on top is trying not to get shot, he could be screaming for help.

An example of how our brain thinks it sees and hears things that it thinks make sense, even if it isn't necessarily realityl.

Yet John brains couldn't let him forget at the time the person was screaming the person on top was straddling then and had arm motions towards the head of the person on the bottom. The person on the bottom sustained head wounds consistent with being struck with a fist and head being slammed into concrete. The person on top also never attempted to make eye contact with John and John heard no echos of the voice screaming which would mean the person looking away was not screaming. Based on this it would only make sense that the person being struck and head slammed into the concrete would be screaming.

 

[Attic]

True. For example, the witness Jonathon believes the "screams" were coming from the person on the bottom, not becasue he really could tell but becasue it seems logical to him that the person on the bottom would be the one screaming.

But, its also logical that if the person on the bottom has a gun, which is a fact in this case, and the person on top is trying not to get shot, he could be screaming for help.

An example of how our brain thinks it sees and hears things that it thinks make sense, even if it isn't necessarily realityl.

Excellent point here. The brain fills in missing pieces without calling to our conscious that it is doing so. We perceive the missing pieces as reality.

What matters though is the doubt. It's odd that the prosecution and those siding with it are simply looking to call into doubt whether GZ acting in self defense when their prudent is proof. The defense appears to proving beyond reasonable doubt that it was self defense. It's backwards, but suggests just how weak the case against Zimmerman is.

Example: beyond the fact that the person on bottom was heard to be screaming for help while the person on top punching at him could have been brain tricks... It's common sense that the person on bottom would be calling for help, especially given the injuries he suffered. Saying it was a brain trick comes nowhere close to removing reasonable doubt that it was Trayvon screaming and not GZ.

All the case really is showing me is more proof that people are apt to conclude and then reason rather than reasoning towards a conclusion. Changing their mind, attempting to, is not as simple as providing facts, they will continue to reason back from their immediate conclusion instead of towards one.

 

[Paul98]

Actually what this case proves is one should never assault or attack another person as the said person may be armed.

Specially in states that have "shall issue" concealed weapons permit/license laws.

You also....
You shouldn't try and protect yourself from someone following and chasing after you unless you are armed. You should be armed at all times because if someone tries to fight you you can't defend yourself because if you do they will shoot you.

 

[Paul98]

Yet John brains couldn't let him forget at the time the person was screaming the person on top was straddling then and had arm motions towards the head of the person on the bottom. The person on the bottom sustained head wounds consistent with being struck with a fist and head being slammed into concrete. The person on top also never attempted to make eye contact with John and John heard no echos of the voice screaming which would mean the person looking away was not screaming. Based on this it would only make sense that the person being struck and head slammed into the concrete would be screaming.

so you just assume he remembers all this correctly?

Our brain is not a recording device, people can't remember some of the most basic and what should be obvious things. Whats to say what most of what these people say they saw or heard was even close to what happened?

 

[Paul98]

How about we put together a list of things we know happened and leave all the rest of the crap out?

 

[buckshot24]

He could've scratched, bit his hands while being smothered, there's no bruising on GZ's arms indicating he tried to block any punches, nor did he claim he tried to an any of his statements.

GZ said TM didn't make any move for his gun until the very end of the encounter, he didn't know GZ had a gun until it was too late.

What's your point? That Z provoked him knowing that he was going to shoot him and not defend himself any other way?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

You also....
You shouldn't try and protect yourself from someone following and chasing after you unless you are armed. You should be armed at all times because if someone tries to fight you you can't defend yourself because if you do they will shoot you.

The prosecution can't prove who started the physical altercation nor can it be proved a chase took place. Based on the NEN call GZ lost sight of TM when he first ran and never saw him again during that call. How can you chase what you can't see?

 

[Paul98]

The prosecution can't prove who started the physical altercation nor can it be proved a chase took place. Based on the NEN call GZ lost sight of TM when he first ran and never saw him again during that call. How can you chase what you can't see?

LMAO what the hell are you even responding to?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

so you just assume he remembers all this correctly?

Our brain is not a recording device, people can't remember some of the most basic and what should be obvious things. Whats to say what most of what these people say they saw or heard was even close to what happened?

He told the police within a hour of the incident taking place and several times after with only minor changes to his story. He never wavered in the fact that TM was on top straddling GZ and saw arm movement consistent with someone punching another person. TM has two wounds, an abrasion on his ring finger and the gunshot wound. GZ has wounds consistent with being beaten. The fact TM was on top and the wounds GZ received makes this aggravated assault and battery which is a forcible felony, per the law GZ has the right to use deadly force to prevent a forcible felony.

 

[Darwin333]

Seems pretty simple. Zimmerman started off being the aggressor. All circumstantial evidence points towards Zimmerman as being the instigator of the resulting fight. Zimmerman got his chunky butt handed to him for a fight he started and decided to shot the person.

You bail Zimmerman with "stand your ground" then you give a free pass to every wanna be Batman who can carries a firearm the green light to start provoking fights with people they want to shot.

People who are allowed to carry a concealed weapon needs to be held at a higher standard. Something tells me had Zimmerman approach Trayvon and said "Excuse me son/kid are you lost? May I help you" none of this would have happened.

First of all, stand your ground doesn't apply here due to Zimmermans story. Secondly, I am curious as to your definition of "instigator".

 

[Darwin333]

They have determined that he was on top of Zimmerman when shot. There is direct testimony to that effect and the prosecutor didn't question it.

Shrug, I am still with him. Testimony blows as actual evidence, I would like to see the forensics to back it up.

 

[Darwin333]

I tend to agree with this, of the charge of murder at least. Maybe they could charge him with involuntary manslaughter or something. He really should never have put himself in that position in the first place.

Innocent he is not.

I dunno. Either it was self defense and he is found not guilty or it isn't self defense and he is guilty of murder. I don't see how it could possibly be anything else. Of course we can all point out dumb things that he did but either he was justified in pulling the trigger or he wasn't.

 

[Darwin333]

True. For example, the witness Jonathon believes the "screams" were coming from the person on the bottom, not becasue he really could tell but becasue it seems logical to him that the person on the bottom would be the one screaming.

But, its also logical that if the person on the bottom has a gun, which is a fact in this case, and the person on top is trying not to get shot, he could be screaming for help.

An example of how our brain thinks it sees and hears things that it thinks make sense, even if it isn't necessarily realityl.

That is just one example of why eyewitness testimony is absurdly horrible evidence in general. Hell in the realm of science where evidence is everything eyewitness testimony is basically zero evidence. Unfortunately it seems to be the most sought after evidence in our justice system and sometimes carries more weight than actual physical evidence.

 

[Tom]

Excellent point here. The brain fills in missing pieces without calling to our conscious that it is doing so. We perceive the missing pieces as reality.

What matters though is the doubt. It's odd that the prosecution and those siding with it are simply looking to call into doubt whether GZ acting in self defense when their prudent is proof. The defense appears to proving beyond reasonable doubt that it was self defense. It's backwards, but suggests just how weak the case against Zimmerman is.

Example: beyond the fact that the person on bottom was heard to be screaming for help while the person on top punching at him could have been brain tricks... It's common sense that the person on bottom would be calling for help, especially given the injuries he suffered. Saying it was a brain trick comes nowhere close to removing reasonable doubt that it was Trayvon screaming and not GZ.

All the case really is showing me is more proof that people are apt to conclude and then reason rather than reasoning towards a conclusion. Changing their mind, attempting to, is not as simple as providing facts, they will continue to reason back from their immediate conclusion instead of towards one.

Something I think is true though, the reasonable doubt standard isn't what the jury has to use if they want to conclude who was screaming. They can make whatever conclusion they want about individual pieces as well as assign whatever weight they want to that conclusion. Its only the final verdict that requires beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[Paul98]

He told the police within a hour of the incident taking place and several times after with only minor changes to his story. He never wavered in the fact that TM was on top straddling GZ and saw arm movement consistent with someone punching another person. TM has two wounds, an abrasion on his ring finger and the gunshot wound. GZ has wounds consistent with being beaten. The fact TM was on top and the wounds GZ received makes this aggravated assault and battery which is a forcible felony, per the law GZ has the right to use deadly force to prevent a forcible felony.

They really got you hook line and sinker...

 

[TerryMathews]

Shrug, I am still with him. Testimony blows as actual evidence, I would like to see the forensics to back it up.

Its all out there, look it up. The bullet travel path, their relative heights, and the difference in distance from the hoodie to the body based on stippling leave only one conclusion.

Which I will add the prosecutor agrees with as he is not pushing a different theory of their relative positions.

That was the real weight to my comment. Not solely Johns testimony, but that the prosecution is not challenging the testimony. Clearly they know they're not going to be able to disprove the body positioning.

 

[EagleKeeper]

They have determined that he was on top of Zimmerman when shot. There is direct testimony to that effect and the prosecutor didn't question it.

Shrug, I am still with him. Testimony blows as actual evidence, I would like to see the forensics to back it up.

Not going to happen unless forensics experts can disprove what Zimmerman stated on the positions w/ respect to the shot.

If the state wants to go by the TM crowd theory that TM was getting off of GZ when the shot happened or that they were standing up; then the state will have to present a forensic expert to demonstrate.

Essentially invalidate the ME report.

There has been no indication of a forensic expert on either witness list.

Therefore logic (which is in short supply around here for TM) indicates that the state is not going to try the ridiculous theory of movement by TM to get away from GZ. They can not present multiple theories and tell the jury that each one has holes; so try the next. They have to present one solid story of proving that GZ was not justified in the shoot.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

They really got you hook line and sinker...

No, it looks like you've taken the false narrative hook, line, and sinker.

 

[Paul98]

No, it looks like you've taken the false narrative hook, line, and sinker.

good one...

 

[Londo_Jowo]

good one...

When you can prove that GZ provoked the altercation by legal standards (physical act) and not due to the fact he got out his car and once he saw TM again asked "what are you doing here?" (Rachel's testimony) or "I don't have a problem" (GZ's statement to police). Then I will expect the court/jury to find GZ guilty. Based on what is know now this important information is not available and what is available/testimonies so far tend to corroborate GZ statements to police.

You also understand the criteria that the jury will use to determine if GZ's use of deadly force is justified is as follows:

From Florida's Standard Jury Instruction 3.6(f)

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.

 

[ABC10]

I don't see how that's possible since no witness claims they were looking when the shot was fired.

What witness are you talking about ?

John Good - witness #6. Yesterday, on the stand, under oath in open court stated the guy black was on the top and the guy in red or white was on the bottom.

 

[Jaskalas]

True. For example, the witness Jonathon believes the "screams" were coming from the person on the bottom, not becasue he really could tell but becasue it seems logical to him that the person on the bottom would be the one screaming.

But, its also logical that if the person on the bottom has a gun, which is a fact in this case, and the person on top is trying not to get shot, he could be screaming for help.

An example of how our brain thinks it sees and hears things that it thinks make sense, even if it isn't necessarily realityl.

If there was a struggle for the gun, why is it only apparent on Zimmerman's head?
If Zimmerman had the gun out, why did Martin have time for a Ground and Pound?

It's reasonable to suggest that Martin's Aggravated Assault and Battery against Zimmerman would not have had time to occur during a struggle over the gun. Perhaps Martin would have been focused on the weapon instead of Zimmerman's head.

Second, did you HEAR the tape? Zimmerman's tone is quite clearly his own. It's remarkable that anyone is guessing as to what they're hearing on it, going so far as to question witness testimony as if the screaming is in dispute. Maybe for you it is, if you ignore all the circumstances of this case, and you did not hear and/or ignore the audio recording... but you can't do all that and carry on a reasonable conversation about this case.

Third, if Martin had time to scream, why did he not - IN ANY WAY - move to avoid the gun? He was still on top of Zimmerman during the shot, as ballistics prove. At no point did he retreat from Zimmerman after he began his Aggravated Assault and Battery. At no point did Martin attempt to avoid the Lethal Force which was legal to stop him with.

Well maybe... what if... its possible... NO!
Occam's razor dictates the simple explanation. The one we have evidence for. A lack of evidence does not yield guilt by possible means. You must convict BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. You do not arrive beyond a reasonable doubt by injecting doubt into the circumstances.

It's quite simple. Lethal Force was used to stop Aggravated Assault and Battery. The man screaming was the one getting his !@# kicked. The only man injured during the "fight". Case closed.

 

[EagleKeeper]

I don't see how that's possible since no witness claims they were looking when the shot was fired.

What witness are you talking about ?

Prior to the shot there were witnesses.
Physical evidence aligns with Martin still on top when the shot was fired.


Had there been a chance of anything different; the state would have been all over with the evidence and testimony for forensic experts.

The state has not tried to present an alternative scenario because there is no evidence to support it.

So while the TM crowd may (want to) claim something different; the state will not.
And I suspect that the states ability to review evidence is better than any TM supporters.