SYG really doesn't apply except as it regards civil immunity if he's acquitted. SYG refers to your duty to retreat once force is initiated. Following Martin wasn't an SYG thing, and unless (and possibly even if*) Zimmerman initiated the fight, it no longer applied once he was pinned to the ground because he couldn't have retreated in that case.

* Florida statute regarding self defense by aggressor:

Quote :

"776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who: (1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or (2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless: (a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or (b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force."

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html

6/30/2013 9:26:24 AM

In the autopsy it mentions the gunshot was from an "intermediate range". Anyone want to guess what distance is intermediate? Seems like the only route left for the prosecution is to paint a picture that Trayvon had already backed and Zimmerman had no reason to fear for his life by the time he got his pistol out.

6/30/2013 10:21:27 AM

i would guess that it means the muzzle wasn't pressed right up against trayvon's body

but that's just a guess. i haven't been following this trial. have they put the medical examiner on the stand yet?

6/30/2013 10:54:32 AM

I haven't been paying that close attention either but I don't think the examiner has been on the stand yet.



http://www.relentlessdefense.com/forensics/gunshot-wounds/

Quote :

"In near-contact wounds, the muzzle is not in contact with the skin, but is very close. In this case, the powder grains do not have a chance to disperse and leave a powder tattooing. The entrance wound is surrounded by a wide zone of powder soot, and seared, blackened skin. In intermediate-range wounds, the muzzle is held away from the skin but close enough that it still produces powder tattooing. This type of wound is also characterized by numerous reddish-brown to orange-red lesions around the entrance to the wound. Finally, distant gunshot wounds leave no marks other than those produced by the bullet perforating the skin."

To me it seems to suggest that Trayvon could have been standing up to 10 ft away (but probably closer than that). So one way or another there was some separation after the "struggle"

Its a pretty big question to me, but probably not important enough to get a conviction.

6/30/2013 11:46:43 AM

Quote :

"Which is why stand your ground should be reconsidered. The dude went after trouble."

I had thought that this is the reasoned, intelligent, debate that the event would lead to.

Boy was I wrong.

6/30/2013 12:48:44 PM

Quote :

"SYG really doesn't apply except as it regards civil immunity if he's acquitted. SYG refers to your duty to retreat once force is initiated. Following Martin wasn't an SYG thing,"

Exactly. Beat me to it. What matters is who initiated the confrontation.

*I would argue that following Martin could be initiating confrontation, depending on the nature of how he did it, but not what it sounds like he did. It would have to be threatening and harassing.

*Also duty to retreat once threatened



http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/faculty/nute/mtdistance.html

Sounds like the shot was fired from a matter of inches. In other words, it just wasn't a contact shot.

6/30/2013 1:12:03 PM

Quote :

"The dude went after trouble."

There is nothing about following and watching someone on a public street in your neighborhood that is going "after trouble." Not per se, at least (i.e., you could certainly do it to a degree that would constitute it).

As a corollary, the 911 operator telling him that he didn't need to follow Martin is utterly irrelevant.

6/30/2013 1:14:15 PM

^^

You seem way too trusting of zimmermans stated account. Much of his story doesn't match the evidence or what's heard in the calls

6/30/2013 6:41:22 PM

what evidence or calls have you been listening to? seems like zimmerman's story is pretty solid at this point in the trial.

6/30/2013 9:10:43 PM

Powder burns don't appear much farther than 2' away.
Intermediate says still produces powder burns.

6/30/2013 10:41:34 PM

Quote :

"Powder burns don't appear much farther than 2' away. Intermediate says still produces powder burns."

Why all the induction to believe that there were powder burns? Just wait until it's fucking brought up at trial. Sheesh. You people and your preconceptions.

V, awesome.

[Edited on July 1, 2013 at 9:10 AM. Reason : V]

7/1/2013 8:54:39 AM

the autopsy states soot and burns around the entry wound.

7/1/2013 9:01:16 AM

This doesn't interest me. This whole case will be forgotten after the far greater violence of the coming nationwide race riots.

7/1/2013 9:04:51 AM

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/trayvon-martin-trial-quote-police-interview?src=soc_twtr

7/1/2013 12:28:52 PM

.

[Edited on July 1, 2013 at 12:37 PM. Reason : .]

7/1/2013 12:36:15 PM

so is it illegal to follow someone based on profiling?

[Edited on July 1, 2013 at 1:42 PM. Reason : .]

7/1/2013 1:42:15 PM

Profiling or not, this case is about proving 2nd Degree Murder beyond a reasonable doubt. Due to the cuts on Zimmerman's head, and the absence of damage to Martin's head, I think there is enough reasonable doubt to acquit him of that charge.

They might find him guilty of something lower, though, like voluntary Manslaughter, if that's allowed in Florida courts.

7/1/2013 2:24:16 PM

The prosecution has made absolutely no case. No case. And after listening, for the first time, to his direct accounts coupled with the call he made to the police and the other witness testimony, I have to say I am amazed that they even charged him.

It looks more and more like public outcry to 'do something' was the only reason he was charged. Unless there is going to be some huge witness we have yet to see.

[Edited on July 1, 2013 at 3:07 PM. Reason : .]

7/1/2013 3:06:07 PM

And that public outcry "to do something" is going to be the same thing that gets a semi-innocent man convicted of 2nd degree murder.

You don't think those jurors know exactly what will happen if they find him not guilty. Behind those close doors, somebody is going to ask "is it right to let one man go and cause the death of potentially dozens in the riots that ensue?"

7/1/2013 3:23:35 PM

There are probably going to be unruly mobs of black people no matter the outcome.

7/1/2013 3:34:47 PM

wtf is a semi-innocent person? And why do certain people fervently believe there will be riots if there is no conviction?

7/1/2013 3:35:44 PM

I say semi-innocent with a rather tongue-in-cheek slant. I think he should be charged with manslaughter. And the riots? Remember Rodney King? Remember how the media swarmed all over this issue when it first got made public? Remember how divisive it was/still is?

Shit, I half expect Barry Obama to come out and say that the jury was incorrect if they prove Zimmerman innocent. He's already stuck his nose in this issue once already.

[Edited on July 1, 2013 at 3:44 PM. Reason : And he had the balls to call the Supreme Court wrong]

7/1/2013 3:38:54 PM

^^

7/1/2013 3:44:27 PM

The difference being the King verdicts were an egregious miscarriage of justice evident to anyone with functioning eyes. Add in the fact that it was a bunch of cops from the LAPD which already had an atrocious track record with Los Angeles's minority communities...

Other than that, yeah, totally similar. You're right. Black people rioting in the streets is inevitable.

7/1/2013 3:48:49 PM

There was a huge concern about riots for the OJ trail. People were openly saying they were going to riot if he ended up being found guilty. Think that made a difference in the decision in that case? I'm sure it did.

Regardless of what YOU think, there is the idea out there that riots could happen, and that idea is going to sway the decision of the jury.

7/1/2013 3:51:42 PM

This guy is definitely far from the sharpest tool.

He should never had made an original statement to the police without a lawyer. Then he decided to do it multiple times. And then they are going to shred him on the smallest details.

Kids: Don't talk to the police without a lawyer. Period. Even if you think you're innocent. It is not going to help you, ever.

7/1/2013 4:04:57 PM

I guess I give black people a little more credit than you and than what you think the jury does.

7/1/2013 4:05:14 PM

http://poorrichardsnews.com/post/54115108302/trayvon-martin-supporters-tweet-death-threats-if

I got this link from google, and its obvious how it is slanted, however the tweets it references are actual tweets.

7/1/2013 4:10:48 PM

Come on, man. It's twitter. Hell, twitter IS the 21st century's rioting. Young dumbasses espouse their anger there without having to leave their house.

I still think he's found not guilty and no rioting happens.

7/1/2013 4:17:12 PM

I hope he gets manslaughter, and no rioting happens

Spend 5 years in jail, because he did take someones life and that should never be taken lightly.

7/1/2013 4:27:45 PM

Zimmerman will probably not be convicted. The prosecution hasn't done and a damn thing except help Zimmerman. It's mind boggling how little they have to make a case. The only way they convict is if the jury has already decided they want to convict before the trial even started. Based off of what has been presented there's just no way Zimmerman goes to prison.

7/1/2013 4:50:13 PM

Quote :

"Spend 5 years in jail, because he did take someones life and that should never be taken lightly."

that's a dangerously broad stroke there. people are killed in self defense and in the defense of others, which are situations where an individual normally shouldn't ever have to worry about jail time. the burden of proof is on the prosecution. homicide as a result of proven negligence or aggravation/initiation is another matter entirely, but the justice system is intended to rely on innocence until proof of guilt for a reason. (and no, i'm not saying zimmerman is guilty or innocent)

7/1/2013 5:23:39 PM

^ very true.

This case almost didn't even make it to the justice system, which would have been a travesty of justice.

The fact there is even a court case is the best victory the family of Trayvon could have asked for.

7/1/2013 5:34:28 PM

If I'm not mistaken, much of the public outcry was because it took 40 some odd days to even arrest Zimmerman when the events surrounding Martin's death were at best...murky.

7/1/2013 5:43:10 PM

The prosecution was once again today totally fucked. Just when you think they may poke some holes in Zimmerman, O'mara completely dismantles it. Seriously. This dude is about as good as I've seen a lawyer on cross. Not combative. Doesn't speak down to the witnesses. Breaks the witnesses down slowly before they even know what has happened. Seriously bad ass

7/1/2013 8:05:56 PM

Lol. No one is going to riot. Everyone stopped giving a shit about this months ago.

7/1/2013 8:51:31 PM

7/1/2013 9:54:30 PM

The lead investigator talked about how he set up a 'challenge meeting' with Zimmerman to put pressure on him. He told Zimmerman that they might have video of the event, and if there was anything Zimmerman wanted to say or change about his story, that he should.

Zimmerman's response was, "Thank God. I was hoping somebody videotaped it."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJBJild06VU#at=1983

From 29:20-33:30.

7/2/2013 5:57:04 AM

That segment was THE most important segment yesterday, and the defense couldn't have asked for a better moment to end on...

O'Mara: Detective, you have said that Zimmerman was either a pathological liar when he stated 'thank God' to the possibility of there being a videotape showing the entire event. does anything that George told you that was substanciated by facts that George was aware or unaware indicate that he was a pathological liar?
Detective: No.
O'Mara: So, taking that he is a patholological liar off the table, do you think George was telling the truth about being relived this may have been caught on tape?
Detective: Yes. I think he was being truthful

So, there you go. The lead detective stating that he believes George was being truthful with his account.

Game. Set. Match.

7/2/2013 9:16:32 AM

heheh. The very first thing the judge tried to do today is disregard the last comment.

Too late! The jury has had a full night to think about it.

7/2/2013 9:31:19 AM

Wow, now the prosecution is trying to have the testimony of their own witness stricken... and apparently succeeding in having the jury instructed to ignore his previous testimony.

7/2/2013 9:32:07 AM

Yeah, but its something that will taint the entire prosecution's case. They can strike it all they want.

7/2/2013 9:58:04 AM

Why do they want it stricken?

7/2/2013 10:00:30 AM

Well, it is obvious why. it completely undermines their case. You have the lead detective telling the court that he thought Zimmerman was truthful in saying he had hoped the entire thing was videotaped, which would presumably validate his story.

As to the grounds, they mentioned something about this being an 'improper question.'

7/2/2013 10:07:45 AM

The rules are that what you say to the cops can't be used to help you. If it hurts you, it gets admitted to trial, if it would help exonerate you, the jury should never see it.

Even so, that "pathological liar" spin the prosecution attempted is nuts.

Zimmerman said all the right things to police, and the prosecution still tried everything they could to warp the cop's statements (which had nothing to do with what Zimmerman said or did) into something that will hurt him.

It backfires and the jury is told to disregard it. I get it, those are the rules. But man... don't talk to cops.

7/2/2013 10:21:47 AM

in this case it wasnt the cops that fucked him, they only arrested him after pressure from the DA special prosecutor.

7/2/2013 3:29:56 PM

that's still no reason to talk to law enforcement officials

7/2/2013 3:49:06 PM

I think if he didn't talk to the cops other than with his lawyer, he wouldnt have been charged. Just keep your damned mouth shut

We need to post the VA Lawyer youtube video spending an hour to basically tell you, "Never talk to the police"

7/2/2013 3:58:13 PM

as requested

7/2/2013 4:38:16 PM

Unless you're Genovevo Salinas. Keeping your mouth shut means you're guilty.

http://www.salon.com/2013/06/30/scotus_no_right_to_remain_silence_unless_you_speak_up_partner/

Quote :

"In January 1993, Genovevo Salinas was brought in for police questioning about the murder of two brothers. Police found shotgun shell casings at the scene, and Salinas — who was not arrested and not read his Miranda rights — agreed to let police inspect his shotgun. When police asked if the shells would match his shotgun, Salinas did not answer the question. He stayed silent, looked down at the floor, shuffled his feet and bit his bottom lip. Salinas was later arrested on an unrelated traffic warrant, at which time police decided there was enough evidence to charge him with the murders. Salinas did not testify at the trial, but his reaction to police questioning — the fidgeting, lip-biting, etc. — was used as evidence. In other words, Salinas’ silence was used against him, a violation of his Fifth Amendment rights, or so he thought. Salinas was convicted and received a 20-year sentence. On direct appeal, he argued to the Court of Appeals of Texas that the prosecutors’ use of his silence as part of their case was unconstitutional, but the court rejected that argument. The case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court, where in a 5-4 decision last week, the court found that Salinas’ self-incrimination privilege had not been violated, mainly because he never flat-out said, “I’m invoking my right to remain silent.” This despite the fact that Salinas was not under arrest at the time of questioning, and was therefore not read his Miranda rights."

So cops should just go around "not" arresting people so they don't have to read them their miranda rights. So then if you talk you can incriminate yourself, or if you just sit there and don't say anything, you're avoiding incriminating yourself, cause you're guilty.


[Edited on July 2, 2013 at 4:46 PM. Reason : .]

7/2/2013 4:44:17 PM