Expert Witness: Trayvon Martin was on top of Zimmerman when teen was shot

[EZ22]

Voluntary or involuntary manslaughter?

Clearly it would be voluntary if anything.

 

[Bob Roberts]

I was talking about the last part of your comment.

But speaking of Martin heading to his dad's house, why didn't he run home? Especially since it is known that he actually lost Zimmerman for a bit. If he was so scared of the creepy ass cracka, why not run away and head home, especially since he had gotten away already? Why wait around or circle back to confront?

Some perv is following you and you'd lead him straight to your house? Makes sense.

 

[EZ22]

Some perv is following you and you'd lead him straight to your house? Makes sense.

 

[Smitty]

Some perv is following you and you'd lead him straight to your house? Makes sense.

Interesting... that is what the "Stand Your Ground" addresses.

So you don't have to lead suspected assaulters back to your home. You can pull the gun out in public.

Good to know you are pro Stand Your Ground.

 

[2233boys]

Situation he helped create would be better than instigated.

 

[Smitty]

Situation he helped create would be better than instigated.

Ok, I agree there.

But you can't convict him of murder for that.

He should only be convicted of murder if you believe he threw the first punch or did not believe he was in reasonable fear for his safety.

But all the evidence so far is pretty convincing in his favor.

 

[2233boys]

You don't think it's reasonable to believe your life is in danger when someone who is pummeling you reaches for a gun?



So you think Zimmerman is lying then.

All the evidence that came out at the trial kinda proves the rest of his story, but interesting that you think he's lying.

The prosecution said Zimmerman was lying about Martin reaching for the gun. The prosecution also said Zimmerman was lying when he said Martin was on top.

Then the expert from the article I posted annihilated the prosecution's case. It almost with 100% certainty proves that Martin was on top.

So it corroborates Zimmerman's story.

What is it that you are basing your suspicions on that he is lying, again?


How couldn't he have had the upper hand? The gun wasn't sitting on his chest. It was tucked away. Martin tried to grapple for it and Zimmerman got to it first.



Sure.

And not relevant to a murder or manslaughter conviction if self-defense intervenes.

So it once again goes back to only whether you believe Martin was on top, whether Martin threw the first punch, and whether Martin was reaching for the gun.

We know thanks to this expert that it would have been basically impossible for Martin not to be on top.



Under the law, if you believe his story, and so far the evidence is running away in his favor, he should not be guilty of manslaughter or murder.

It makes no sense that if Martin had the upper hand as you just said, he wouldn't have been able to get the gun Zimmerman said he was reaching for before Zimmerman. It is more believable that he over reacted pulled the gun and shot to get away.

 

[2233boys]

Ok, I agree there.

But you can't convict him of murder for that.

He should only be convicted of murder if you believe he threw the first punch or did not believe he was in reasonable fear for his safety.

But all the evidence so far is pretty convincing in his favor.

Again for at least the fourth time. I'm not advocating he be convicted of murder. I don't believe his fear for his life was reasonable and he should be convicted of man slaughter.

 

[Smitty]

It makes no sense that if Martin had the upper hand as you just said, he wouldn't have been able to get the gun Zimmerman said he was reaching for before Zimmerman.

I don't understand why that doesn't make sense. It makes sense to me.

 

[boozeman]

How is it nonsense? You think you should have to run away before defending yourself?

It's nonsense because of the broad interpretation it allows. This hardly fits what I feel the spirit of the whole idea was to begin with, which from my layman's knowledge, is more to protect yourself in your own surroundings where you can shoot first and ask questions later if someone busts into your house or just jumps you with no reason and starts beating the shit out of you. Zimmerman in essence did provoke the situation to a degree. I haven't paid a lot of attention to the case to be honest, but that's just my two cents.

 

[Smitty]

Again for at least the fourth time. I'm not advocating he be convicted of murder. I don't believe his fear for his life was reasonable and he should be convicted of man slaughter.

You can't convict him of manslaughter for wrongfully helping create the situation either.

To convict him of murder, you'd have to say he intentionally killed Trayvon Martin and did not have self-defense available.

To convict him of manslaughter, you'd have to say he recklessly killed Trayvon Martin and did not have self-defense available.

If you are saying you don't believe he had self-defense available, then why are you saying manslaughter makes more sense than murder? IMO the manslaughter charge makes no sense at all. If I was the judge I wouldn't have allowed the jury to be instructed on it. It doesn't make sense that Zimmerman was "reckless" when he pulled the trigger. No, it was very deliberate. He either has self-defense or he doesn't.

I think the reason you are saying convict him of manslaughter is because you feel he should be punished for helping start the situation. Problem is, legally, that makes no sense.

 

[2233boys]

You can't convict him of manslaughter for wrongfully helping create the situation either.

To convict him of murder, you'd have to say he intentionally killed Trayvon Martin and did not have self-defense available.

To convict him of manslaughter, you'd have to say he recklessly killed Trayvon Martin and did not have self-defense available.

If you are saying you don't believe he had self-defense available, then why are you saying manslaughter makes more sense than murder? IMO the manslaughter charge makes no sense at all. If I was the judge I wouldn't have allowed the jury to be instructed on it. It doesn't make sense that Zimmerman was "reckless" when he pulled the trigger. No, it was very deliberate. He either has self-defense or he doesn't.

I think the reason you are saying convict him of manslaughter is because you feel he should be punished for helping start the situation. Problem is, legally, that makes no sense.

He absolutely was reckless. Reckless in carrying the weapon when it was against the rules for the patrols, reckless in the manner he discharged it, reckless in not heeding the direction of the dispatcher, and reckless in the thought process to bring it out to begin with.

 

[2233boys]

I don't understand why that doesn't make sense. It makes sense to me.

It doesn't make sense have someone sit on your chest and reach for you imaginary gun. Let me know who gets it first.

 

[Smitty]

It's nonsense because of the broad interpretation it allows. This hardly fits what I feel the spirit of the whole idea was to begin with, which from my layman's knowledge, is more to protect yourself in your own surroundings where you can shoot first and ask questions later if someone busts into your house or just jumps you with no reason and starts beating the shit out of you. Zimmerman in essence did provoke the situation to a degree. I haven't paid a lot of attention to the case to be honest, but that's just my two cents.

But the jury is deciding whether Stand Your Ground is going to fit in this case.

The "default" for most states, under Common Law (meaning, judge-made law through rulings on cases, the judge is interpreting the existing law or the lack of a law), a person has the obligation to "retreat" in the face of danger until they are cornered or until retreat is impossible. Only then can they use deadly force.

Florida, among other states, decided that concept was dumb (which it is). If someone tries to attack you, I shouldn't have to run away or retreat until it's impossible before I shoot them. That merely gives the attacker an opening. So Florida passed the Stand Your Ground Law which overrules the common law, saying, if someone attacks you, you don't have to retreat first.

I think that makes sense. Or as Bob so eloquently said, don't have to lead the crazy person back to your house.

As it regards to this case, Zimmerman says "self defense." The jury is going to have to decide if he was entitled to defend himself, but really, this is a credibility issue. If Zimmerman is to be believed that Martin was on top, there certainly was no opportunity for Zimmerman to retreat and the law is not at issue at all.

 

[Kbrown]

I like that the standard is suddenly a "reasonable" fear for one's life. I know that if someone is sitting on top of me pounding his fists into my face, I will be able to take the time to process whether or not he has a legitimate chance at getting my concealed firearm considering the angle of his reach and the relative strength of blah blah blah. Whatever.

 

[Smitty]

He absolutely was reckless.

Reckless in doing things besides killing someone. That's where you are getting tripped up.

Reckless in carrying the weapon when it was against the rules for the patrols

Agreed, but he could have been carrying the weapon and not followed Martin. His recklessness in carrying the weapon is not the same as whether he was reckless in using the weapon.

For the manslaughter conviction, once again, you must say he was reckless in killing Martin, not reckless in carrying the gun. That means the decision to pull the trigger must have been reckless, not the decision to carry the gun.

reckless in the manner he discharged it

How?

reckless in not heeding the direction of the dispatcher

Again, for manslaughter, he must have been reckless in deciding to pull the trigger, not reckless in following Martin.

For example, the recklessness in DUI is recklessness in driving the car, not in getting drunk. You are trying to tie it back to non-causational instances of recklessness.

and reckless in the thought process to bring it out to begin with.

I don't even understand what that means.

 

[Kbrown]

I also don't understand people who have a problem with Stand Your Ground and the castle doctrine. Argue they can be misused, fine. But to claim I have to stick my neck out to make sure a guy in my house in the middle of the night is there to kill my family and not just to steal my TV is absurd to me.

 

[NoDak]

If the jury believes Zimmerman was defending himself than manslaughter is not even appropriate. The wrong of profiling and following Martin doesn't eliminate Zimmerman's deadly force self-defense when (if) Martin jumped him.

Manslaughter is when you recklessly kill someone. Am I to believe that pulling out a gun and shooting someone when you are getting your head bashed in, or when the attacker is reaching for the gun themselves, is reckless? If you are saying that Zimmerman was getting his head smashed in, but is still guilty of manslaughter, you are saying under the law that it is reckless to shoot someone when you are in fear of serious injury. But I don't believe that's reckless, I believe that's justified.

IMO People want to convict Zimmerman for wrongfully setting in motion a chain of events that led to Martin's death, but which Martin himself had a hand in acting wrongfully. They want the "reckless" part to be how Zimmerman was following and profiling Martin, but all that is cut off from the second that Martin jumps him (if he did indeed do that).

Now, the jury can do whatever they damn well please, they don't have to explain how they arrived at their decision. They can convict Zimmerman of manslaughter to "punish" him for following Martin even if they believe Zimmerman's story that he was in fear of his life. The jury doesn't have to explain their actions. But if they followed the law, and they believe Zimmerman's story, he would be acquitted of both charges.

It depends on what you believe happened. I haven't heard any evidence that leads me to believe Zimmerman threw the first punch, or that he was on top in the struggle. All the other stuff is completely irrelevant when it comes to the murder or manslaughter charge.

The Prosecution's argument has been that, Zimmerman is lying. Zimmerman threw the first punch and Zimmerman was on top, it was Martin that was crying out for help.

Their argument for those things, though, has been pretty well disproven. See the original post in this article, there is just no way that Zimmerman was on top.

So if he gets convicted, it's because the jury wants to punish him for following Martin. Which would be wrong to convict him for.

 

[NoDak]

Some perv is following you and you'd lead him straight to your house? Makes sense.

I'm guessing you missed the part where I said he LOST him.

 

[boozeman]

Racist.