[NJblue]

Originally Posted by dillywho

I love good discussions and that is exactly what my intent is here.

I have not said anywhere that GZ deserves to spend the rest of his life in jail. I don't think this rises to the level of Murder 2, but I do think GZ should not be acquitted. I do think that he bears a great responsibility in what happened based on what he did. Reckless endangerment, if nothing else would even work for me. But, the trial isn't over yet.

As to your question as to what it matters which pocket his phone was in, that was my question when GZ said it. My question is not which pocket, but how was TM supposed to know that he was not reaching for a gun? He didn't know who or what GZ was. The law says that you only have to be in reasonable fear that your life or your person might be in grave danger. Given the company indicated that TM kept in Miami, why would he think this thuggy looking guy was not just that...a thug? Some had just suggested that he might have put it in his pocket because of the rain and didn't want it to get wet. Either way, he was expecting the police to call him when they got there so he could tell them where he was.

You're right, TM did have an opportunity to stop when challenged by the neighbor and he should have told that neighbor what was going on. No one at the trial testified that they ever saw GZ getting his head "bashed" into the concrete....just that the scuffle was close to the concrete at one point and that it looked like he was getting hit. Good testified that he couldn't even be sure of that; just that that was what it looked like.

One guy was out there within seconds after the shot and took a picture of TM, but yet did not testify that GZ had TM's arm spread out as he demonstrated. Even those that saw him on top of TM never said they saw that....but then, they were not asked, either. If that were true, then how did the arms get back under him? No one, even GZ standing there looking at him ever said anything about his arms moving back under him. If GZ had seem him put his arms back under him, wouldn't he have done something about that since he already said that he might have been armed? If GZ really thought he was armed, would he not have kept TM's arms spread out until someone else was there to help? Why didn't GZ ask someone to check to see if TM was even still alive? I don't understand why the first officer didn't do that after securing GZ and his firearm. The second officer did and started to do CPR.

If I were on this case in any capacity, those are some of the things I would want to know and am surprised that these same questions have not been asked. I'm not a player in the case, but I still want to know.

The phone is a non-issue. It doesn't indicate anything.

What Good testified was that Martin was doing a "pound and ground" on Zimmerman. When questioned about actually seeing the blows, he said he couldn't - not because they didn't happen but because it was too dark to see anything other than Martin going up and down with his arms - consistent with a "pound and ground". Couple that with the injuries to the back of Zimmerman's head and, given no other logical way for those injuries to occur, a fair person would have to concede that indeed Martin was banging Zimmerman's head against the concrete. When physical evidence alligns with perceptions of eye witnesses (not to mention the statements of the defendant - who was not aware of Good's testimony at the time), it would be extremely unfair to come to the opposite conclusion and say that beyond reasonable doubt Zimmerman was not acting in self defense.

As to the position of the arms, what does that prove? That Zimmerman was lying? Why would he lie about something like that? If he knew that the arms were under Martin, why would he make a statement that he left them stretched out? If he was such a clever murderer as the defense is making him out to be (with the "knowledge of how to respond to police questions", etc.), why would he make a mistake like telling them he had is arms spread out - it adds absolutely nothing to his case of self defense. As has been agreed to by the medical examiner, Martin could have been capable of minor movements such as bringing his hands under his body. Again - there is nothing here that would, beyond a reasonable doubt, justify sending a man to prison.

In fact, the opposite is true. All of Zimmerman's testimony of the actual scuffle can be mated with eye witness testimony and with the physical evidence, with no holes.

[tucson]

The "who was screaming" issue really bothers me and I'm wondering if I've missed something? When someone is screaming, isn't it b/c they're getting beaten? Did GZ beat TM as well as TM beating GZ? If he did , I didn't see or hear of any cuts, bruises, bumps, etc. from the ME report. Also, the statement some ppl make that it proves that it was TM screaming b/c the screaming stopped after the gun shot does not prove it was TM screaming. To me it proves that the GZ screaming stopped b/c TM stopped beating GZ after he was shot.

[NJblue]

Originally Posted by tucson

The "who was screaming" issue really bothers me and I'm wondering if I've missed something? When someone is screaming, isn't it b/c they're getting beaten? Did GZ beat TM as well as TM beating GZ? If he did , I didn't see or hear of any cuts, bruises, bumps, etc. from the ME report. Also, the statement some ppl make that it proves that it was TM screaming b/c the screaming stopped after the gun shot does not prove it was TM screaming. To me it proves that the GZ screaming stopped b/c TM stopped beating GZ after he was shot.

No, I don't think you missed anything. It is extremely illogical for Martin to be the one screaming for help since both Good and the physical evidence supports the notion that Martin was the one on top administering the beating. Good also testified that the person on the ground was the one yelling for help.

The only possible explanation for Martin to be screaming for help (while on top and while administering the blows) would be if he were truly fearful that Zimmerman had a gun. Unfortunately, this theory collapses by the fact that Martin was given the opportunity to call out directly to Good and tell him that Zimmerman had a gun. Instead, he ignored Good and kept on administering blows.

[mickey100]

I leave it to the jury, who sees all the evidence and listens to ALL the testimony to decide "the only possible explanation". I hope they can do it without bias.

[NJblue]

Originally Posted by mickey100

I leave it to the jury, who sees all the evidence and listens to ALL the testimony to decide "the only possible explanation". I hope they can do it without bias.

I hope they do it without bias and with the logical side of their brain and not the emotional side. I also hope they have a good understanding of what the self defense laws are.

[Patty55]

Originally Posted by mickey100

I leave it to the jury, who sees all the evidence and listens to ALL the testimony to decide "the only possible explanation". I hope they can do it without bias.

They really aren't seeing ALL the evidence, they are seeing the admissable evidence.

[Barefoot]

Originally Posted by dillywho

Like I said before, too many questions and not enough answers.

Too many questions and not enough answers equals reasonable doubt.

[CMANN]

Originally Posted by buggyone

IF Zimmerman is convicted of murder or manslaughter, his legal team (if there is any money left) will certainly appeal. However, I believe appeals do take a long time to come up (a few years at least) and in the meantime, the convicted person is in prison. A person never is free on bond until their appeal is heard.

Remember, the O'Mara team is not doing this case pro bono. When there is no more money available, there is no more legal dream team.

(Remembering Albuquerque - there was a large and wonderful restaurant called Sadie's. Is it still there?)

based on all of the testimony I have seen in this case it is inconceivable to me that Zimmerman will be convicted of anything. He should never have been brought to trial. Just my opinion.

[CMANN]

Originally Posted by Monkei

The law is well known in that term. In fact the words are included in the portion of the law.

"(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony"

Zimmerman was not involved in any illegal activity. Martin assaulted Zimmerman. That is an illegal activity

[CMANN]

Originally Posted by Monkei

Did TM have the same right?

using common sense. Of course he did not. He was the attacker.

[Monkei]

Originally Posted by CMANN

Zimmerman was not involved in any illegal activity. Martin assaulted Zimmerman. That is an illegal activity

That is not what the statement was in response to. It was merely a statement to the core of Zimmerman had never heard of the term.

[Monkei]

Originally Posted by Dr Winston O Boogie jr

He certainly would have if he was being physically assaulted.

Lets see a guy is following me around ... There is no evidence or non evidence that I have heard that TM might have seen the weapon at some point before he attacked in fear for his life. This could easily be turned around. GZ is no hero here and no angel. Even if he gets the case dismissed GZ life and safety will be in doubt for years to come.

[Monkei]

Originally Posted by Patty55

Yes and they lifted from his facebook and twitter, not released by the media.

Why should the media release them. Did Fox?

[Monkei]

Originally Posted by ugotme

Are you trying to say the media doesn't play fair?

OMG - I AM SHOCKED !

Not sure I understand your comment. Are you saying there is no pro GZ media out there?

[Monkei]

Originally Posted by CMANN

using common sense. Of course he did not. He was the attacker.

You are wrong then they both had that right. I am sure TM would not have attacked if GZ had not followed him around the complex causing Martin some concern for his safety as witness number 8 mentioned. Martin had no gun or knife he could only attack GZ with his cell phone, his tea can or his skittles. Obviously the only way he could defend HIS RIGHT was to attack Zimmerman, especially if he saw the gun beforehand ... But we will never know.