The evidence continues to roll in on the Zimmerman case. While the new evidence is not entirely bad for the prosecution, it does contain some evidence that will likely bolster the defense of George Zimmerman in the second degree murder trial over the killing of Trayvon Martin. Regardless of the ultimate impact, the evidence again shows (in my opinion) that prosecutor Angela Corey over-charged the case in Florida.
Some of the new evidence shows that Martin had traces of THC (the active ingredient of marijuana) in his blood stream and urine. Martin was suspended from school due to a marijuana offense (though it involved an empty marijuana baggie). Another benefit to the defense is that Martin father is shown denying that the voice calling out for help was his son — though he later changed that view when he says he was given a better recording. Other witnesses have indicated that it Zimmerman who was calling for help.
Generally, the existence of drugs in the system of a victim or defendant is admissible. The suspension would appear inadmissible under standard evidentiary rules.
There is also evidence that some neighbors described Zimmerman as a bully and a racist. That would help bolster the reported hate crimes prosecution being considered by the Obama Administration, though I still have reservations based on the evidence as it currently stands. Also the police viewed the shooting as “avoidable” — if Zimmerman had left the matter to the police.
I am not sure how much of the neighbor’s view of Zimmerman as a bully or racist could come into evidence. Such accounts, however, can have the benefit of further discouraging Zimmerman from taking the stand as a witness — always a benefit to the prosecution because (while they are told that a defendant has a right not to testify (jurors expect to hear from defendants).
On the whole, however, I would view the evidence as more positive to the defense. First, I have previously said that I was most interested in the distance of the shot and forensics. It now appears that Martin was shot from an intermediate range (no more than 18 inches and as little as an inch away). That would support the claim of Zimmerman that they were in a wrestling fight when the gun was fired. The greater the distance the stronger the case for the prosecution. The defense will likely present expert testimony to try to reduce the range further on the stand. Also, the report does have people at the scene saying that Zimmerman’s nose appeared broken — supporting the later medical report of the family doctor (though such injuries could occur from Martin defending himself).
Moreover, at least two witnesses appear to support Zimmerman in describing the man in the hoodie at straddling the other man and throwing punches. The report state that the man in the “‘hoodie’ [was] on top of a white or Hispanic male and throwing punches ‘MMA (mixed martial arts) style.’ He then heard a pop. He stated that after hearing the pop, he observed the person he had previously observed on top of the other person (the male wearing the hoodie) laid out on the grass.” One report also says that Zimmerman can be heard yelling for help 14 times on a 911 call recorded during the fight.
While the reports blame Zimmerman for getting out of his vehicle (he says that he was trying to get a house number for the police), that is not itself a crime. Of course, none of this means that Zimmerman was not the aggressor. Given the presumption of innocence and the need to prove the elements beyond a reasonable doubt, this evidence presents an added problem for the prosecution in my view. I have expressed skepticism over the way the case has developed and how it has been charged from the outset. As a criminal defense attorney, I would view this as a strong defense case even on the manslaughter charge, particularly given the poor police work at the scene.
What do you think?
Here is the police report.
Source: ABC and NY Daily News
Sling
I am just appalled at how anyone can bring themselves to write paragraphs around a single word, No, and whip it up into such a bluster that it transforms into whats debatably the most offensive profanity in the english
No=Eff you???
Its figuratively and literally unbelievable
Why do you have no equally bizarre fantasitcal translation for Martin’s question?
You got a problem, Homie?
Homie? They werent homie’s and if ANYTHING…THAT phrase is initiation of inflammatory/agressive language when stranger to stranger. Having grown up in an inner city, I have seen people killed/attacked for FAR FAR less than that…heck just the staring is enough to warrant physical retaliation
Look, I don’t know where you are in the life, who you have been aroun, what your experience is with people of this nature.
But if a stranger comes up to someone on the street and says “You got a problem, Homie!?”
News Flash – That stranger is extremely likley to strike/push you if not mug you. Look I’m totally serious here…real talk
To insinuate that Martin could have just been concerned about Zimmerman’s problems in life with a harmless exploratory question and altruistically referred to the stranger as his Homie…it’s just beyond the pale. Sure maybe in the carebear cartoon’s
but In the street, and even without the “homey”…just going bombastic and saying “You got a problem” getting up in someones face…those are FIGHTING WORDS.
I mean, you could pay a guy some money to get on a bus, while you hold a video camera on the bus and have him stare hard at a series of 28 year old men and have him go up to them and say “You got a problem, Homie!” and then post the video of what ensues.
I’d recommend these locales for your test. 7-8PM should be a good time frame
1) Compton
2) Detroit
3) Oakland
4) The Bronx
Bosco: My observation is based on the prescription drugs that George was prescribed, no one is disputing that at all- Zimmerman had two conflicting prescriptions- one to speed him up and one to slow him down.
Then I have a friend who has taken this drug saying “It is exactly like speed or meth”.
Adderal is highly addictive, unlike marijuana, which is not addictive and is impossible to abuse to the point of overdose
.. They even have special treatment centers for this drug:
http://www.addictionstreatment.org/adderall-addiction-treatment.html
“As with other drugs of abuse, it is possible for individuals to become dependent upon or addicted to many stimulants. Withdrawal symptoms associated with discontinuing stimulant use include fatigue, depression, and disturbance of sleep patterns. Repeated use of some stimulants over a short period can lead to feelings of hostility or paranoia. Further, taking high doses of a stimulant may result in dangerously high body temperature and an irregular heartbeat. There is also the potential for cardiovascular failure or lethal seizures.
Some additional serious side effects of Adderall can be:
fast or pounding heartbeat, shortness of breath, chest pain, excessive tiredness, slow or difficult speech, dizziness or faintness, weakness or numbness of an arm or leg, seizures, mood changes, motor tics or verbal tics, psychosis (loss of contact with reality), hallucinating (seeing things or hearing voices that do not exist), mania (frenzied or abnormally excited mood), aggressive or hostile behavior, changes in vision or blurred vision, fever blisters or rash, hives, itching swelling of the eyes, face, tongue, or throat, difficulty breathing or swallowing.”
I think Georges symptoms may include: loss of contact with reality, hostility, paranoia, & aggressive and hostile behavior.
Great use of the ‘BOLD’ fonts Tony. It really makes your points that much more valid. “In My Opinion” < means nothing here save for those narrow-minded enough who would PREFER to believe what you say,,being that you are a research scientist and all.
Facts are much different than that of thinking, assuming or conjecture Shano. Now Zimmerman is a ‘speed addict’ too?
Based on what facts?
Hey thanks for the advice BettyKath. I see that for people like you,,its A-OK if others here are energetic in typing out VOLUMES of assumptions when is denigrates Zimmerman and disallowing any possibility of his side maybe having a little glimmer of truth to it.( i.e. The heading of this thread).
. But when someone like me would show that much zeal in pushing for FAIRNESS by way of challenging that ignorance I should
“take a breath, maybe a little camomile tea, a little meditation”.
Thats called ‘discounting’ but it will not negate my point. Not at all.
@Bosco: I think Zimmerman was lying to provoke the police response, so I discount any claims he made about what Martin was doing. That alone does not make Zimmerman guilty of murder, it would make him guilty of a false report to the police.
But I characterized this as “what I think” to make it clear it is my opinion, not a fact. In my opinion, Zimmerman’s statements are consistent with somebody making a false report to provoke a stronger response. In my opinion, Zimmerman’s goal in calling was to essentially impose his own curfew on teens in his neighborhood by using the police to harass them into staying indoors, or getting them arrested by giving police vague false reports that provided grounds for searching them and finding contraband.
That is my opinion. Zimmerman had far more experience and knowledge than the average citizen, and in my opinion he knew he could use the police in this fashion without getting himself in trouble. In my opinion, Zimmerman’s psychology was control-freak, it is why he was reporting kids for playing in the street and getting his neighbors harassed by cops to the point of being irate. In my opinion, Zimmerman’s control-freak psychology spawned this program of harassment and the use of vague false reports he could later deny, if need be, as mis-perceptions.
In my opinion, the reason I do not believe the “waistband” claim in particular is that Zimmerman got out of the car and went following Martin, and I do not think he would have done that if he really thought Martin had a gun.
I do not deny my opinion is speculative, that is why I prefaced it with “I think,” as opposed to a claim of fact, like “This is what happened.”
The jury, like all juries, is also going to have to do what I have done, and determine what THEY THINK is the most likely course of events, and whether THEY THINK Zimmerman is a liar. They have to come to a decision, and the testimony we know of is ALREADY conflicting. They will have to choose, and in the process of choosing, they will come to the conclusion that somebody is lying about what happened. In My Opinion that “somebody” will be George Zimmerman.
Bosco,
Please take a breath, maybe a little camomile tea, a little meditation.
Bosco, it is based on the facts that we know: Trayvon Martin went to the store. He bought some tea and some candy. Walked home talking on the phone to his girlfriend. NOTHING MORE.
No matter how you and that speed addict George Zimmerman want to spin this, those are the FACTS.
Tony,,you must have a masters degree in STUPIDITY
the prof words-“I explained it when I said it: I THINK Zimmerman was lying, and inflating the threat in order to get police to respond more quickly,”
Thats what bothers me ,,’ I THINK Z was lying..”
That is just a small sample of your biased logic at work to try to paint a sordid picture of Zimmerman.
Tony , pull out a dictionary from your library shelving and look up the words SPECULATIVE and CONJECTURE.
Ill ask you,,were YOU THERE Tony?? Do YOU know for fact he is lying??
Tony C-” I THINK Zimmerman was lying,” so he is a murderer hang him high!!
Prommie, from the comments: “Adderal is speed, pure and simple, its identical in effect and operation to meth. I know, I have taken it. I was amazed that you could get yourself a prescription for fucking speed, it didn’t do anything for what it was prescribed for, but I loved the weight loss, its good at that, but I hated the teeth-grinding.”
So George is on a drug that is exactly similar to speed and meth-amphetamines to a person who has taken both.
Still we do not know if this drug was in his system that night. Good job Sanford PD.
Ah prof Tony C!! Tell me something. What motivates you to describe yourself to ‘us’ the way that you do, ?
Do you think sharing your personal accolades and ideals will somehow compel all of us to put more credence into what you have to say?
That we may consider your words above all else’s here?
Maybe for those that will fall for anything it will work. (plenty here)
I could care less what you say you do for a living or what your educational level is. It has no bearing on a thread .
If you were a ‘pygmy tribesman who was a garbageman for a living ‘
Id still find you to be very condescending and biased with prejudicial overtones .
Manny
For example:
“The paths in gated communities are generally well lit all the time.”
Again, you have not researched.
Have a look through the pile of documents referenced in the NPR link above. To save you some time, here’s a direct link to some copies
http://www.scribd.com/eyderp/d/93958382-Martin-Zimmerman
Page 3 of Sorino’s report includes:
“The only ambient lighting was produced by the porch lights of several residences, and overall the location can best be described as dark.”
So
That pathway was dark.
Zimmerman could not see Martin.
He went at least some way down there.
That was reckless.
They encountered one another.
Now the conversation:
Bear in mind that however Zimmerman perceives things, to Martin he is just some weird guy who has been following him in the dark.
———————–
Zimmerman tells it as follows
Martin: “You got a problem, homie?”
Zimmerman: “No”
Martin: “Now you do” – and only then does violence begin.
You say that answering “No” (I don’t have a problem) does not qualify as inflammatory.
But it is …. in the circumstances.
If we were to meet and chat, you might say to me by way of innocent conversation “Do you have a problem Sling?”
I might respond, “Well I do have a slight pain in my left leg, the cat needs to see the vet, and I’m worried about the economy”
Or I might respond “No, I don’t have a problem. Everything is wonderful.”
In Zimmerman’s version, Martin asks “Do you have a problem, homie?”
It is not completely impossible that Zimmerman misunderstood Martin and interpreted this as the ‘punk’ making a general inquiry about Zimmerman’s life and times. Did he have a cat? Any medical worries. How’s work going for you —sort of inquiry.
Zimmerman not having any worries or concerns about his world, and out for a nice stroll for a bit of fresh air, then answered “No” as he felt that everything is his life was wonderful.
Given that the setting was Zimmerman having followed Martin in the dark, it is highly unlikely that Martin was making that sort of polite social chit-chat.
If Zimmerman formed the impression that it was idle chat, he is more stupid than I can believe.
“No” in the context was “F you”.
——————————
Now the girlfriend’s version:
Martin: “Why are you following me?”
Zimmerman: “What are you doing around here?”
—————————-
No matter what the actual words were, the communication was the same.
Shano,,when you say-
“George tried to make this scene sound like more than it was in order to get the cops to respond.”
Ill ask..were YOU THERE WITNESSING it all next to Zimmerman? Did YOU SEE first hand just how Martin was acting?
Were you walking next to Martin??
The answer once again is–NO YOU WERE NOT. Your making an opinionated judgement call.
“(he) tried to make this scene sound like more than it is..” how very one-sided and ignorant a thing to say.
@Bosco: Manny O, you must remember this,, Tony C, is self proclaimed
‘RESEARCH SCIENTIST’. He must know far more than any of us do.
It isn’t about how much I know, it is about how what I know allows me to form an argument and recognize evidence that supports my position. I am a scientist, and as a scientist I firmly believe that all that matters is good reasoning and results; credentials carry zero weight with me. Or I should say, I have seen so many dummies with credentials that I think of credentials like a driver’s license; I know it means somebody was at least able to pass some tests on good driving, I do not take it as evidence they are actually good drivers.
So I will let other readers determine the quality of my reasoning, you clearly are not qualified to judge anybody’s reasoning.
Here is something he said at another thread-
“I actually doubt Trayvon HAD his hand in his waste-band..”
Although you HEAR on the 911 tapes, Zimmerman in real-time describing what he is seeing it is being discounted by Prof Tony C. Why???
I explained it when I said it: I think Zimmerman was lying, and inflating the threat in order to get police to respond more quickly, with greater alarm and therefore greater force, and thereby give them cause to arrest and search Trayvon Martin and perhaps find drugs or a weapon or stolen goods on him.
I base that on Zimmerman’s pyschology and agitation and conviction that Trayvon Martin was a criminal getting away, even though Martin had done nothing a jury (or even the dispatcher) would agree should have aroused Zimmerman’s suspicion, other than being a black teenager on the street at night. When the dispatcher minimized Martin’s actions, I think Zimmerman became concerned his criminal was getting away, and escalated the threat with safely vague allusions to drugs, guns and burglary. That is why.
A “hand in his waistband” is an allusion to a gun and a lethal threat against Zimmerman, while still safely in the zone of unprovable lie. If Martin is questioned and searched and says he did no such thing, Zimmerman can tell the cops “Well that is what I saw, or how it appeared to me,” and it cannot be proved who is lying. But Zimmerman would have gotten the rousting and harassment of Martin he was aiming to get.
The same goes for “He looks like he is on drugs or something,” and “he is looking at all the buildings.” These are allusions to drugs and casing buildings for a burglary. The police must take these vague threats seriously, but it is essentially impossible to prove if they are intentional false reports to the police. It would be unprovable whether Zimmerman was telling the truth about those things even if Martin was alive to deny them. Other than a lucky videotape, how could you prove you did NOT look at the buildings, or you were NOT walking “like you were on drugs”?
I will believe Zimmerman’s assertions when they are backed up by independent sources, such as a videotape. Until then, I see no reason to trust him. “Innocent until proven guilty” does not mean his claims should be believed until proven false. “Innocent until proven guilty” only means that the justice system should not punish people without proof of guilt, it does not mean they have to trust those involved in a crime to be telling the truth, especially those involved that have something to gain or to lose.
Slingblade said–“Zimmerman’s injuries have been known about for some time already.”
ONLY by some, pundits and assholes like Nancy Grace,Bill Maher and threaders here had vehemently DENIED he was injured at all based upon a grainy low resolution tape. Now that there are CLEAR photos which were RELEASED RECENTLY its,, ‘oh we’ve have known about it’ <how very
2- faced and ridiculous
"The case *needs * to go on trial before a jury."NOT HERE which was MY POINT
http://wonkette.com/472833/george-zimmermans-view-to-a-pill
Bosco, the 911 call tells us what Zimmerman witnessed. He saw a gangly teen in a sweatshirt walking on the sidewalk going home while talking on the phone. George tried to make this scene sound like more than it was in order to get the cops to respond.
If he had seen Martin bothering a vehicle or a house, sure. But he didn’t! Martin was just walking and talking. THATS ALL HE WAS DOING. No
matter what fantasy you may want to make up about it.
My assertion is even the initial 911 call was unnecessary. George made up some fantasy about this boy in his own mind that had nothing to do with the reality of a kid walking home talking to his girlfriend. Nothing suspicious about that.
If George was suspicious he had numerous chances to clear up this matter. He passed on all of those opportunities, because he was so sure all his initial assumptions about this kid were right. He was WRONG..
Now for my actively declared opinion ; )
I don’t think Zimmerman did anything reckless in his carrying out his watch duties that deserves any felony conviction
I dont think that anymore than if one of the previous posters that described a guy stealing his neighbors stuff and followed him to see where he was going. That’s natural for a concerned citizen who cares about his neighbors. Heck I hope people are good enough to look out for their neighbors and intervene to stop crime
It used to be that way
Nowadays, a women is getting gang raped on the street and people just walk by cause “they dont want to get involved” or they don’t want to get hurt. THAT should be almost as criminal as the gang rapists. Just like in murder where if someone is present and does nothing they can end up getting penalized almost as bad as the murderer
Its true that all it takes for bad people to do bad things is for good people to opt to do nothing.
Back to our scenario with the poster..
Now if that guy saw he was being followed by poster, ran and dumped the stuff and was pissed this guy foiled his plan an decided to either confront the guy frontally or come around his back from behind to outflank him and a fight ensued and lets say our poster hit the guy and the criminal has a congenital defect in his jaw that resulted in death.
It doesn’t matter to me if the criminal had a gun, a stick, a knife, a rock inside a fist, or just a great fighter with his fists
It also doesn’t matter to me if the poster had a gun, a stick, a knife, a rock inside a fist, or just a great fighter with his fists. They are all weapons in the truest sense and could be deadly when wielded with knowledge
Did the poster act reckless in his concern for his neighbors, I don’t think so. He was courageous, brave, and selfless.
Should he be charged with a felony? I say No!
Last word from me (I hope). I don’t think Z had bad intentions, just absolutely horrible judgement resulting in bad decisions.
Shano – actually we do and the prisons are full of them…DUI, BUI (boating or bicylcing while intoxicated)
Hey I know thats not what you meant, and I know people that are out of control drunk kill people behind a wheel
But its gone to far…its gone to the point if you have literally a single glass of wine in the last 24 hours and you get pulled over and the cops asks if you had anything to drink and you are driven to total honesty and say “I had a drink 6hours ago”
You are F’D!
You are getting arrested for DUI. The Field Sob Tests are a ruse not an avenue for you to proive you are safe to drive…they are taking your ass to jail anyway
And if you test at .01 on the BAC you are getting a DUI!
And if its your second time bieng honest and having a .01 you are going to the penn with murderers and rapists. Seriously
Problem is noone wants to go on record as “being soft on DUI” even if it makes total sense. Plus its a HUGE cash cow
But anyway…
Back to your point. If MJ was legal our prisons would still be full. Take alook and see how many people doing more than 5 years in the penn are there ONLY for MJ posession. Short list there…
It’s not out the question that Z pulled his gun on M to hold him until the cops arrived. That’s speculation though and not based on any evidence.