that 'we can never know the exact sequence of events,' doesn't it? It's long past time for common sense to prevail instead of making 'angels-dancing-on-a-pinhead' arguments.

LOL



right on cue!!

'divine protection' is gonna work out for ya.

if it was really that dark? Someone is on top of you or you are on top of someone in the dark, can you 'see' that he is armed?

Apparently for Martin and Good, the lighting was adequate. For everyone else, it was bad.

Haven't followed all the witnesses and where they were at the time.

Wait until it's dark. It was raining, apparently, so we can conclude that whatever the phase of the Moon, the night would have been fairly dark. There'd be some light from streetlights, houses, that sort of thing, reflected on the clouds so it wouldn't have been pitch black.

So wait until a reasonably dark night.

Then pull apart the drapes or blinds and look outside. You won't see much. If you stand there and look you'll see a bit more. Still not much.

Now go outside and wait about 5-10 minutes. Don't look at any bright lights. Don't look inside the house. Don't stand in the light shining through any windows.

Those vague shapes you saw before will be a lot clearer as your iris opens and your pupil takes in move light.

For Martin and Good--and presumably Zimmerman--all of whom were outside for a while, the lighting was adequate. For those inside and whose eyes weren't accustomed to the dark, it was bad. Which is precisely right, and says nothing about right and wrong.

Good. Good's testimony was that he put one foot out the door and clearly saw both persons. He clearly claimed Martin was beating Zimmerman MMA style and and Zimmerman was calling for help. He even claims he yelled at them to stop. You are going to contend neither Martin or Zimmerman heard Good? Also Good is going to contend that he saw Zimmerman getting beat to death and yelling for help, while he did nothing to intervene or help? What is even more damming for Good, his voice never appears on any of the other 911 tapes.

You also heard the nature of the scream, which was in desperation would be damming for Good. Put yourself into Good's position, witnessing what he claims. Would you have intervene or go upstairs and call 911? What Good described and did, made little sense. That is why I feel Jenteal is more authentic than Good, who was probably coached more even though he was a prosecution witness. He was not a prosecution witness at first but was interviewd by several investigators. His testimony was probably one of the biggest reasons Zimmerman didn't get charged with murder at first.

what he said to the police about seeing Martin "raining down blows" onto zimmerman, MMA-style?

In court he had to admit only that he saw downward movement. I don't believe Good at all either.

As it turns out, ol' zimmy is the one who took intensive MMA training. He also has been arrested for interfering with a police officer and for a domestic violence incident. An ex-co-worker of his also says that he's got an explosive, Heckle/Hyde temper that he displayed when he body slammed a female party goer while on security job at the party.

IMO zimmerman's temper took over that night and he ended killing Martin.

Just the fact that the screams stopped with the gun shot says it all.

And, Trayvon was on top trying to disarm Zimmerman.

brandished his gun or told Martin he had a gun and threatened to use it.

it could have been avoided if Zimmerman had not been aggressively pursuing TM. There was no justification for this.

I think the part that makes me so made (besides a kid being dead) is how easily it could have been avoided.

version of MacGyver, Batman and Superman all rolled up into one body. You think his spider-sense couldn't tell him exactly where the gun was? You're so naive!

"Punks indeed."

I agree. I strongly suspect why Trayvon not only fought so hard but was the one screaming because

1.) He didn't conclude Zimmerman was the community watch but a possible attacker.

(We know this because he described Zimmerman to his friend as "creepy." If you're up to anything bad like breaking into houses, you're not perplexed about why someone is following you.)

2.) Still not knowing Zimmerman was with the community watch, regardless of who initiated the struggle, at some point Trayvon realized Zimmerman had a gun and was reaching for it.

(Once he realized this, Trayvon must have panicked and possibly concluded he couldn't run but had to forcibly incapacitate or subdue Zimmerman to prevent Zimmerman from shooting him.)

3.) Any unarmed person in a physical struggle with someone they know or suspect is reaching for a gun, will panic and scream for help.

(That isn't conclusive proof it wasn't Zimmerman who was screaming but I don't see why Martin would stay silent during such a moment when he suspects he is close to being shot. In fact, I believe he would be screaming right up until the moment he was shot, as your most observant OP concludes.)

Giving Zimmerman the most benefit of the doubt, what we are left with is two individuals both exercising their right to self-defense based on mutually erroneous conclusions drawn about each others motives.

So in a such a scenario where both sides have a legitimate right to self defense, who is at fault?

It is clearly Zimmerman because, the last description we have of Martin before the confrontation was he was running away from Zimmerman and in disobeying the orders of police not to follow Martin, Zimmerman's actions set up the whole unfortunate scenario. So Zimmerman definitely bares some legal responsibility for Trayvon Martin's death.

Succinct, and very well reasoned. Thank you.

Before I saw your reply. Maybe I should OP it?

i would disagree with the characterization that the cops ordered him not to follow, on two points:

1. 911 dispatch only said "Ok...we don't need you to do that." I believe the dispatcher wanted Z to stop following TM, but it wasn't worded as a directive, because of:

2. Apparently, according to another poster who linked to the relevant citation, 911 dispatchers in Sanford aren't technically LEO's, but civilian volunteers proscribed from issuing those kinds of orders, because of liability concerns. I admit that I'm taking that poster's word for it, but I'll edit to provide the link so you can check it out for yourself.

EDIT: here's the link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3124237

we have an instance of Zimmerman lying because he responded in the affirmative that he would stop trailing Martin. This puts the character, state of mind and motives of Zimmerman into question. If he is not legally bound to obey the 911 operators why did he confirm he would? And if Trayvon was running away fro Zimmerman, how did a confrontation even happen?

Like I said, I think your post could be a good OP.

I will try to draw up a brief outline based on what I've presented here.

Where do we go with that?

Zimmerman. The whole unfortunate scenario would have never played out if he had not followed Martin. If I am correct, Zimmerman didn't even identify himself to Martin, did he?

Both were mistaken as to the motives of each other, but Zimmerman's mistake resulted in Martin's death so I believe Zimmerman is libel.

to initiate contact with Martin but he does not have a right to be immune to the consequences for that contact or to have his actions be misinterpreted. Zimmerman chose wrongly and should pay the price.

Since who initiated the struggle is unconfirmed, we can only go by who put the scenario into motion. Zimmerman. The struggle never would have ensued had Zimmerman let police handle it.

Why would liability attach to a lawful action?

Z was stalking that "fucking punk" so he wouldn't "get away." At a minimum, he verbally expressed intent to make an explicitly unauthorized (911 told him not to) arrest of Martin (i.e. kidnapping). If your kidnapping victim dies, it's murder.

....not after he fired it.

Since it is known that Zimmerman shot Trayvon, if he did so in self defense because Trayvon was about to shoot him AND he was screaming because of the fear of being shot, that screaming would have ended when he got the gun from Trayvon.

Listen to the prosecutor's opening argument.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023081670

any kind of reasoning that Trayvon had taken the gun from Zimmerman and Zimmerman was screaming. It doesn't make sense to me that the scream was coming from anyone but Trayvon who was in fear of his life.

I'm surprised it hasn't come out in the trial (unless I missed it, or it will come out next week with the last few witnesses) the fact that Martin was shot in the chest even though he was supposed to have been on top of Zimmerman. How could that happen?

So far they've said very little about the location of the wound and how it could have happened if it was really "self defense".

the gun, it seems like the location of entry would have been more random -- shoulder, backside, whatever.

in the upcoming week.

You have quite a good imagination. I've followed this case for months and you're the very first one to imagine that Martin took the gun from ol' zimmy, thus zimmy's screams.

I guess zimmy, according to your scenario, must have then composed himself enough to re-take the gun from Martin, still screaming mind you, and then kill Martin and finally be able to stop scream because the screams stopped when the shot was fired?

Are you seriously proposing this is what may have happened.

Pls tell me you're not because I need a good chuckle this morning.

If you read my responses. I said that others have said that was a possibility. Why would I write a possibility as though it's my own idea and then prove how it couldn't possibly work?

I am saying that it is not feasible that the screams were coming from Zimmerman, no matter how people play it like they were. Plus, how can you follow the case for months and know that I'm the first person to imagine anything? Cause I've seen people here on DU propose that.

Lighten up, Francis.

zimmy's gun and then having the screaming zimmerman wrestling to take it back must be from a recent troll invasion. Back when the story broke no such foolishness was ever discussed here. I apologize to you if you were playing devil's advocate, but I must say the whole idea is ludicrous. It's not worthy of DU.

If it had been Zimmerman screaming, he gained his composure as quickly as a light switch turned off. When neighbors addressed Zimmerman to learn what was going on, not one of them mentioned in their statements that he was extremely agitated. I can't fathom anyone who had just screamed continuously for help not continuing to be a complete emotional wreck after the situation had ended. Yet Zimmerman was relatively well composed, other than the pacing, for someone who had just killed someone.

if he were on the bottom and TM was on top? That's the thing I can't fathom.

I hope Zimmerman testifies.

probably would have been screaming from the pain of having someone hit his nose and knock him down. It would have been a scream of pain, maybe a short scream followed by groaning???? Lots of possibilities.

Having fallen myself pretty badly in a dark area when I was all alone in a driveway, I remember that I screamed from pain. At least the beginning of the scream would have been one of pain. I haven't heard the scream, so I have no opinion. The jury will listen to it, and each person will decide on who screamed probably based on the quality of the scream, but it seems to me that is one of the many "facts" that will depend on each juror's subjective decision.

that GZ is on tape saying "these punks always get away with it!" And even more on other tapes. Yes, this has been talked about, and IMO GZ had profiled him from get go. But today, which side is getting more "play" as being the racist? TM says he's a Creepy Ass Cracker, and that's getting so much more attention!!

I could be wrong, but it seems that GZ comments aren't dissected as much as what TM said. I'm white, but feel TM had every right to say what he said. And he didn't even say it ON TAPE to a 911 operator! Kind of looking like GZ can say whatever, but NOT TM!

And again, GZ is using self defense as his reason for shooting. He's here, TM is not. GZ has a LOT of wiggle room and as of today, regardless of what every other witness has testified to, somehow Mr. Good's testimony is being taken as fact! And I don't even think he was absolutely positive!

It's all over the the news coverage... Defense Lands Prosecution BIG BLOW! Nuff said??? Very lopsided, but in the end only specific evidence will be able to be used when the jury deliberates. Can anyone say Casey Anthony???

He was wrong in thinking Martin was one of the burglars, but it seems pretty clear that's what he meant. Hell, I'll even grant you that he's a racist asshole who really meant "these black punks always get away with it" (though I have no idea what race the burglars were).

I'm white, but feel TM had every right to say what he said. And he didn't even say it ON TAPE to a 911 operator! Kind of looking like GZ can say whatever, but NOT TM!


Well, clearly both have a "right" to say what they said, but in both cases I have a right to make judgements about them based on that.

and/or mine. Not sure what your point is. Burglaries or not, judgments made either way, my point is that the media has focused more on "creepy ass crackers" being much more negative than all the other negative statements uttered by GZ. To the extent that what TM said is worse than anything GZ ever said.

Why should TM's comments be looked upon as worse than GZ's? Even listening to the previous tapes of GZ I certainly get the impression that he views himself in a better light than any person of color.

It's almost as if he doesn't acknowledge that they're many white people who have some serious character flaws. I've often used the example that when it comes to serial killers, the overwhelming number of them are white. Then look further at our penal system and the ratio of white vs. people of color.

To me the media is giving more creditability not only to GZ, but also to Mr. Good's testimony. Anyone does have the "right" to their opinion, but for the media or any group to push a biased agenda feels very wrong to me. And at the very least UNFAIR.

Any tell me WHY many feel it's acceptable that GZ pursued TM simply because of previous burglaries, as opposed to doing what the 911 operator said there was no need for him to do? So that now GZ can cry self defense when he himself could have avoided all of this!

I feel the same. Unfortunately I cannot express it as well.

Surprised is all.

I'm with you.

They are not supposed to watch the news.

Is the jury sequestered? I should think so. I haven't been paying attention to the trial that much.

Is the trial on video? How do people know so much about it?

they aren't hearing "media spin." My point is that even though others testified that they felt it was TM who was being beaten, Mr. Good's testimony contradicts previous witnesses. And even he never said he was absolutely positive. Media touts HIS testimony as much more creditable and says "prosecution" witness more helpful to defense. Their inference is that prosecution's case is weakened. And not only the media has drawn this conclusion, many commentators have too.

What are the odds that the jury won't feel the same way? Yeah, media hype is just that, but the dice have been rolled. Seeds planted. Six jurors. Question is, does the jury really dissect and separate fairly? A young black girl who has probably experienced life in a completely different world juxtaposed from the seemingly "confident" well spoken, well dressed WHITE man. The jury does HEAR this.

Perhaps I'm too cynical, but I really worry that some people who don't think they're racist aren't even aware that they are. There have been studies done and subjects who professed no racism actually found out that they actually did harbor racist thoughts. Just sayin'

But who knows what the jury is going to believe?

That is why I am surprised that Zimmerman did not try to plead to manslaughter. But maybe he did and couldn't get what he wanted.

Still, he followed Trayvon Martin although at the least he was advised not to, and then he followed Trayvon Martin knowing he had a deadly weapon. So when he used the deadly weapon, the jury may ascribe to him disregard for human life.

From seeing a black guy with a hoodie, Zimmerman assumed it was OK to carry his gun? That may be considered by the jury, but you never know. Sometimes people walk into courthouse on jury call with their minds already made up based on bias. And sometimes even they don't realize that.

Sorry, forgot to name poster.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0782/Sections/0782.04.html


782.04 (2)
The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.


2nd degree murder requires no intent.

responding. But then when I wanted to change my earlier post, I couldn't find it. Thanks. I will change it.

Many do not seems to recognize Trayvon's right to self defense.

Sorry, but I think it comes down to a subtle racism. Maybe not so subtle in some cases.

with my analogy. I think we've seen this scenario play out too many times. When I first heard that GZ's lawyers weren't going to use the SYG defense, I told my husband by not using it, they took the focus off the controversial law here in Florida! Too many people weren't aware that the law even existed and felt it gave license to "shoot first, ask questions later." However, this law doesn't even give a victim any right to explain their side of an incident. The law rules the day, case closed.

So O'Mara et al knew too much focus on this law was controversial at best. Surprise, surprise it was tricky to use it after hearing that GZ was told "you don't have to do that" and his further pursuit indicated he wasn't actually standing his ground. TM wasn't a threat to him as he had a right to be in the neighborhood. His father lived there, and that was TM's only reason for being where he was.

Given his past encounters and mind set, GZ simply "assumed" he was up to no good, these assholes always get away with it, etc. is what prompted GZ to conclude his "rights" were all that mattered. Pursuit IS NOT standing your ground! So how to explain GZ's actions? A murky self defense that only one person is left standing who really knows the whole truth. GZ probably never thought any questions would be asked and one dead "black" person is just another dead "black" person up to no good.

And we can go on and on. Prosecution has to PROVE murder, defense only has to have one person that has reasonable doubt. Smart move by defense, but they've played this game before. A shell game that forces a person to wonder where the ball is when hardly anyone was looking at the shells. Kind of stinks, and most certainly sucks. Does the gamble work?
JMHO

Maybe you should practice law. We could use more "good guys".

You are making too much sense.

I would OP this but I'm still trying to figure out how also proving self defense for Martin would be enough to help his case.

If you only have two subjects under the false impression the other person was the bad guy in a struggle to incapacitate the other, how does that prove Zimmerman overreacted or brought the scenario on himself? I think he did but I am still struggling to prove this point since Zimmerman claims Martin approached him while he was walking back to his car.

Once I figure out how to deal with the rest of the evidence, I will try to post an OP. But I want it to be short and simple so it is easy to follow. I attempted an OP yesterday but it was getting too long and I abandoned it.

Zimmerman went even further to paint Trayvon as a monster, when he claimed Trayvon saw his gun and was going to commit cold blooded murder. Now that is a big leap from just juvenile pranks and no criminal record, to actually cold blooded murder. It makes no sense at all.

The more logical sense is Trayvon was fighting for his life and Zimmerman just shot him while Trayvon was struggling and hitting Zimmerman in the face and on the back of the head to get away. That is one way to explain the injuries to Zimmeman and the lack of them to someone fighting for their life. There was no evidence of Zimmerman fighting at all, except shooting his gun. He had no injuries on his hands or knuckles. That doesn't appear to be someone fighting for their life. Someone fighting for their life, would have landed blows on the assailant not opposite. There are a number of cases where the victim gave injuries to their murderor.

If Trayvon is punching with his hands and Zimmerman has him on a grip up close, with his gun already loaded and in firing position, That is more logical. Zimmerman could have snuck up on Trayvon and that was when his cell phone hit the grass. Remember Jenteal said Trayvon stopped for a moment to talk to her. Zimmerman could have been still searching for Trayvon and caught him talking to Jenteal on the cell phone. Trayvon probably thought he lost Zimmerman. and did the police recover Martin's cell phone?

a gun on you who you didn't know was community watch, of course you're going to want to punch his lights out.

very well why courts in many states came to the conclusion that, except in dire circumstances, the rule of defending oneself by retreat is preferable to the rule of using a gun for self-defense.

If you are attacked by an intruder in your home, you may not be able to retreat. The same is true in other, rare situations.

But in most situations such as Zimmerman's situation in which he could have stayed in his truck and waited for the police, if you can retreat or otherwise avoid confrontation, that is the best strategy.

Why in the world would a person follow some "punk" he thought might be dangerous?

Because he knew he had a gun and wanted to "win" at all cost. A terrible psychological profile for anyone in law enforcement or anyone who wants to be in law enforcement. Law enforcement takes a lot of patience and a very level head. It's a tough job making those on-the-spot decisions. If you are wrong, you may be dead wrong.

Zimmerman was wrong. The issue is whether he was just carelessly wrong or whether he was intentionally wrong. At what point did Zimmerman realize that Trayvon Martin was unarmed and that retreating would be better than killing? Or did Zimmerman at some point, even just for a second, decide to shoot to kill?

Someone made a good point -- asking why the scream? Usually if people have been hit in the face really hard, they scream from pain, not from fear. There is a moment of shock following a a really hard blow to the body in which you very quickly and without thinking express pain. Usually you express fear before you are hit.

Just think about when you stub your toe.

I had a bad fall some years ago. I screamed for help because no one was around, but my scream was very, very different from a fearful scream.

I haven't heard the scream in this case, and my opinion wouldn't matter because at this point it is up to the jury.

Who was screaming is almost inconsequential at the point when they are struggling with each other physically. The problem is there is no solid evidence or multiple witness testominy of who physically engaged who first. Absent that, I think we can only go by the results:

We know for sure Trayvon was not up to no good that night.

We know for sure Zimmerman thought he was up to no good.

And we know for sure Zimmerman shot and killed Martin, an innocent youth.
That I think is all we need to know.

From that I think we can conclude Zimmerman is libel for the death of Trayvon Martin.

to convict on 2nd degree murder in some cases.

And one other thing, if zimmerman was the one screaming, seems he would have kept screaming after the shot for someone to call the police or 911 or for an ambulance or something.

But from the reports I've read, people on the scene after the shooting say zimmerman was completely detached, almost unconcerned, even while the emergency service tech worked to try to resuscitate Martin, no remorse at all.

That's very telling to me.

I thought that was a very relavent point, as well.

It doesn't hurt the prosecution's case.

But they need to frame it in a way so the jurors are only considering the facts that everybody agrees on.

Both parties agree Martin was running away from Zimmerman at one point.

Both parties, however, DO NOT agree that Martin approached Zimmerman and there is no independent evidence or testimony that he did. So that can be cancelled out.

Both sides agree that Zimmerman was targeting Martin for suspicious activity.

Both sides agree that Zimmerman's initial assessment of Martin's behavior and purpose there was incorrect.

There is independent testimony that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman but there is no evidence who initiated physical contact.

So we can throw out Zimmerman's assertion that Martin attacked him.

We don't know who attacked who for sure.

But we know who was targeting who.

We know for sure who was following who at one point also.

And we know for certain who killed who.

Those are the facts the jury should consider.

A gunshot ended the scream, yes, its obvious. The only thing a jury can surmise is that there was a gun shot and the scream ended. If you think about it, the only thing that means is that the struggle was over and someone was no longer able to attack or needed to defend. Think about it.

I also took part in a "Justice For Trayvon" march in what I call my "white bread" community. I don't know the ratio of white vs, black/latino/ethnic breakdown in numbers, but having lived here since '87, the white population stifles any other group! Probably higher white count than that in Sanford. I think there are more latinos here simply because the affluent population here "want" them, as they hire them and can play lower wages. I can say that without reservation because I've been told that more than once by residents here. It is what it is. This place has a per capita income that ranks in the top 5 in the state.

I'm not one of the affluent, far from it, but live here because my husband got his job here so we've never left.

IMO, had this murder not gained high profile attention, this trial would NEVER have happened. A sad commentary, but one I feel is very true. I doubt the scream is going to be given much consideration by the jury. One might feel it does prove it was TM, I feel so myself, but as in the Anthony case the judge could very well say certain evidence IS NOT admissible for deliberation. The judge has already ruled that no expert can be a witness to give this testimony. At least that's what I understand.

So far, ONE person, Mr. Good has stated it was TM on top, the others have said not sure or they felt it was GZ on top. And already this is the biggest news and the talk of the trail. Some going so far as to state THIS witness is the GAME CHANGER! Mr. Good didn't say he was absolutely positive about this either, but somehow he's more credible. I'm not surprised about this, but I am extremely annoyed and upset. I don't have high hopes that much will happen to Zimmerman and almost feel he's going to walk.

I fervently hope I'm wrong. But using self defense as his reason for shooting TM gives GZ a LOT of wiggle room. They aren't disputing he followed him or that there was a confrontation, just that he felt his life was in danger!

I feel GZ did profile him, feel he was the aggressor, feel he had no need to be carrying a gun and other feelings as well. BUT that's not what GZ is on trial for. SELF DEFENSE, that's it and it SUCKS!

I very much agree with everything you said. My reply was only based on the Jury and what they have to go by.

I myself have served on Jury duty. I think both Rachel Jeante and Mr. Good are both bad witness's. Ms. Jeante appeared to be on some sort of mood altering drug. However I do not know this to be fact, only a personal observation. Mr Good looks like he could be a poster boy for a White supremacist group, I get a bad vibe about him and how his testimony was eerily similar to GZ.

I was not there, I could not discern GZ or TM's voice on the 911 cal,l simply because I do not know either one personally. I do not think any one could including experts.

I can speak of the prevalent racism here in Florida. There is not one race or ethnic group that does not have their racists among them. I have experienced it myself from both sides, and I am white. My belief is that GZ is or was a wannabe cop, I know many like him.

I feel for the jury in this case, it is not going to be a simple matter. Regardless of the outcome, I do believe that this is going to affect the "Stand your Ground " law in this state. A law I never agreed with and believe it should be struck down. This should also be a reminder to those politicians that strip the funding of a professional police force in lew of a volunteer vigilante police force in the name of lower taxes (for the Wealthy). I do hope that out of this tragedy, there will come some good.

reasons as to why so much has gone wrong. Oppression and Suppression are raging out of control, or so it seems to me.

I grew up in a different time, but one that seemed much more fair. And hope isn't a word I use very much these days. Very sad, but true.

PEACE...

That is a big hurdle.

But maybe the prosecution will succeed. Have the forensic and pathology reports been introduced yet?

They may decide the case.

I was surprised by the second degree murder charge. There is almost no doubt in my mind that Zimmerman committed manslaughter, but it may be hard to convict on second degree murder under these facts.

Here is what one law firm says about what must be proved to obtain a conviction on second degree murder:

Second degree murder cases often involve a death that allegedly occurred because of a heat of passion or act that was so dangerous is warrants a criminal action be brought against the Defendant. The classic example is the spouse who finds their partner having an affair with another person and immediately acts to kill either the partner or the partner's lover. In order to convict a defendant in Florida of Second-degree murder, the State of Florida must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

The victim is dead;
The death was caused by the criminal act of the defendant;
There was an unlawful killing of the victim by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life.

Understanding a second degree murder can be more confusing than the more serious first degree murder. The "criminal act" reference in the statute must be a single event or series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant to a single design or purpose of committing the murder or creating the dangerous condition that led to the death. Although second-degree murder can carry a potential incarceration of up to life in prison, the death penalty cannot be imposed on a person found guilty of second-degree murder.

more at
http://www.arnoldlawfirmllc.com/CM/Custom/SecondDegreeMurder.asp

(I don't know anything about the law firm.)

Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought. Manslaughter may be voluntary or involuntary. Essentially, the difference between manslaughter and murder is that manslaughter was the result of an accident, heat of passion, or some other act in which the person does not have the mental state to commit a murder.

. . . .

Voluntary Manslaughter occurs when a person kills another in the heat of passion, without planning beforehand. The classical example is when a person finds their spouse having sex with another person and reacts immediately by killing.

Involuntary Manslaughter, also known as criminally negligent homicide, occurs when a death is an indirect result of recklessness or negligence. This occurs when a person runs a red light and hits another vehicle and a person is killed.

http://www.arnoldlawfirmllc.com/CM/Custom/Manslaughter.asp

But then for the homicide to be excused the defense burden is also very high:

Florida Statutes 782.03 - Excusable homicide
Florida Statutes > Title XLVI > Chapter 782 > § 782.03 - Excusable homicide

Current as of: 2011
. . . .

Homicide is excusable when committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution, and without any unlawful intent, or by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or upon a sudden combat, without any dangerous weapon being used and not done in a cruel or unusual manner.

s. 6, ch. 1637, 1868; RS 2379; GS 3204; RGS 5034; CGL 71

http://www.lawserver.com/law/state/florida/statutes/florida_statutes_782-03

Of course, Zimmerman used a dangerous weapon.

Apparently, it is not necessary to prove intent in order to get a second degree murder conviction in Florida???

and this being Florida, the prosecution has jumped one hurdle. The judge allowed previous tapes to be entered into evidence where Zimmerman's mind set was similar. The tapes depict that GZ seems to possess a vigilante modus operandi. Without having the tapes in evidence it would be very difficult to prove 2nd degree. And this fact might be construed as malice aforethought. Even the initial 911 tape has GZ saying "these assholes always get away with it" and other utterances by him. Don't know.

The jury may know of more tapes, but will only be able to consider the ones in evidence.

Lets hope the prosecution can provide the best evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. I believe that GZ is guilty of killing a human being. I believe that he needs to be punished for what he did. Thanks for the legal interpretation.

....he would no longer have any reason to continue screaming after the gun was drawn and before the shot was fired.

for someone who claimed to be the one screaming desperately for help just moments before the shot. A person screaming for fear of his life would be extremely agitated & a bundle of nerves. He was relatively calm, non-responsive to one of the neighbors who had questioned him, & his adrenalin should have been pumping off the charts.

If zimmerman was the one screaming, seems he would have kept screaming after the shot for someone to call the police or 911 or for an ambulance or something.

But from the reports I've read, people on the scene after the shooting say zimmerman was completely detached, almost unconcerned, even while the emergency service tech worked to try to resuscitate Martin, showing no remorse or agitation at all from being in an alleged life and death struggle.

That's very telling to me as to who was doing the screaming.

this is from fb:

On the matter of the Zimmerman trial, here's a simple question...

You're in a fight. Never mind who started the fight, or why, you're in it. You have a gun. Your opponent is unarmed. Now, do you yell for help, or do you yell a warning? Now, turn the tables. Your opponent has a gun, you don't. Now what do you yell, for help, or a warning?

I mean, let's get real. Nobody yells "stop!" (or you'll shoot), and nobody yells, "help!" (or I'll shoot). In a fight between two guys where one has a gun, and the other doesn't, the one screaming "help" will be the one without a gun. That's just common sense.

But there's a deeper point that's being missed here. And that is, there's no dispute that Zimmerman had a gun, and Trayvon didn't. There's also no disputing that someone is yelling for help. But there's ALSO no disputing that NO ONE IS YELLING A WARNING. And that's pretty important. Because that means that no matter which of them was yelling for help, Zimmerman gave no warning that he would shoot, before he did. And THAT is indefensible! (Ed)

In fact, Maasad Ayoob, noted self defense author, advises that the gun should never be drawn to simply warn or threaten someone. When the gun comes out, it should be indisputable that there was an immediate lethal threat.

In many states brandishing a weapon is a very serious felony that will get you prison time.

On edit: this isn't a defense of Z. He started the whole sequence of events in motion that led to the death of Trayvon. I don't believe that what happened in between the first and last events is too important.

give them these facts to ponder. it should help remove any doubt about who was yelling for help. clearly there was no lethal threat to zimmerman. imo he wanted to kill someone and he did. since it's florida there is too good a chance he'll get away with it. the jury needs to have their assumptions shaken up.

Trayvon's death. Would love to hear his observations.

Ayoob's whole schtick is about avoiding confrontation while armed. Not out of concern for an assailant, but as a sound strategy for keeping one's self out of prison.

Z started circling the drain the moment he decided to step out of his vehicle. And I believe this to be true even in Florida, where SYG holds away.

As I've said from the beginning of this whole sorry affair, SYG doesn't allow you to pick a fight with someone, then shoot them if you start losing.

Just another ass profiting from guns, and promoting more of them in more places.

to jail, and the best way to accomplish this is to never draw your weapon.

Ayoob teaches that if you draw your weapon, you are going to be arrested, placed into custody, lose your job, your freedom and your life savings, and that's the absolute best possible outcome.

But you will be alive.

Have you read his books?

That's not gun safety or truly "responsible" gun ownership - just how to kill legally, or make it look legal.

I know the kind of people who are attracted to his books - - same ones that bushmaster aims their "man card" advertising campaign at.

The friggin gun culture and gun profiteers in this country are sick souls.

second and third sentence is what seals the deal for me. It's murder plain and simple.

between the times that Zimmerman left his truck and Martin was shot. It's almost irrelevant. Zimmerman escalated a non-confrontation into a lethal one.

If he's acquitted, I wouldn't be one bit surprised if there is massive civil unrest. I can't imagine a bigger kick to the head than acquitting Z.

into the sidewalk.

If your head is repeatedly slammed onto hard ass concrete you're concussive and semi-conscious at best. Fact of the matter is, if your head is repeatedly slammed onto concrete, you're probably knocked cold. Concrete is extremely hard and doesn't give. Believe me I know as I fell one and banged my knee on concrete and completely severed my patella tendon from the bone. Surgery and rehad followed.

Hope the prosecutor goes after zimmy on that claim, especially since there was no blood on the sidewalk where he claimed his head was repeatedly bashed.

Last edited Sat Jun 29, 2013, 02:50 PM - Edit history (1)

fiunctional difference between saying “that sounds like Trayvon,” or “I think that’s Trayvon,” or” that is Trayvon.”...

Really???? There is a evident differing degree of assertation of certainty in each of these examples, ascending in certainty and certainly potentially embellishing the testimony offered. Ex:

"Sounds like Trayvon" = could be, might not be
"I think it's Trayvon"= Much more assertive. I could be wrong but I believe (in my mind) that it was Trayvon
"That is Trayvon"= indicates absolute certainty. No doubt whatsoever.

When a witness starts changing his/her testimony on a crucial part of it it is the absolute duty of the opposing attorney to challenge that through rigorous cross examination to determine which, if ANY of those three starements reflects the truth of the situation in question.

I think most of us that were here last year knew then that when this happened that it was Trayvon that was screaming.

even slowed down and enhanced. It was not clear to me that the scream ended the same time as the gunshot.

But IF, since there is not a physical mark on Trayvon, he was on top of Zimmerman beating on him, why would he be yelling for help?

And if somebody was lying on their back getting pounded on, why would they keep yelling for help after they had reached for a gun and fired?

Didn't witnesses describe one person on top of another? If Trayvon was on top, why would he be yelling for help? If Zimmerman was on top, then why would he shoot? And more to the point, if Zimmerman was on top, then how did he get a cut to the back of his head?

I would be screaming for help the moment a threatening man displayed a gun in a situation where I trying to get home after going to the store.

I'd raise my hands and wait for instructions. My survival instinct would tell me to cooperate.

Gun pointed at me? Sure, I'd do what you'd do.

But, if a gun was revealed, brandished (but not pointed at me) in the midst of a "scuffle" the dynamic would change. I suppose my "fight or flight" instincts would take control.

I hope I never have to find out how I'd respond.

I picked it long time ago, and don't know what I was thinking... Archery, maybe? But, definitely not guns.

unless and until it happens to you. i had a gun pulled on me once and i started screaming. but there was someone very close to me to scream at. fortunately the would be robber got scared and ran away.

I'd bet that Zimmerman's cuts occurred after the gunshot, when he realized what he had done. Forgot that he was still holding the gun.

Point is, the two small cuts have no absolute link to the struggle before the gunshot. They can not prove that Martin was "on top"

with Occam's razor.

Which would suggest that the simplest explanation is that the back of his head got cut because he was lying on his back on the cement.

If you can prove that, then yes, that's probably where he got the cuts. Otherwise you have a circular argument, i.e. nothing.

Perhaps even the simplest one. Banging your head on cement could easily cause such a cut.

You have a more complicated explanation (also with no proof).

Your reason for rejecting the simplest explanation is not because there is no proof for it, because there is also no proof for the complicated explanation. And your reason for imagining a complicated explanation is because you are starting with the a priori assumption that Zimmerman is a guilty a$$hole (that is, he was never assaulted) and then looking for a way to explain away the evidence (the cut to the back of his head) which would seem to indicate that he was assaulted.

We don't know if either story is true, but you have provided NO reason for rejecting the simple theory.

My point was that the cuts can not be used as proof that he was on his back on the concrete. Nothing inextricably ties the cuts to a struggle between the two. They could have occurred before, during or after the confrontation. Because of that, the cuts are not proof that Zimmerman was on his back, with Martin on top of him.

rejecting the simplest explanation with something that "I have no proof ..."

It's a little bit like - if I hit a baseball over some trees in my backyard (which I did once) and then find the baseball has gone through my neighbor' s window. I reject the explanation that I hit the ball through the window. Instead I say "I have no proof, but the ball could have landed harmlessly in the grass and then my neighbor's kid, who happened to be outside, picked it up and through it through his own window just because he's a jerk."

With no proof either way, I still think it is more sensible to accept the first explanation and reject the second one, even though there is no solid proof for either explanation.

Especially since there was supposedly a witness on the scene right after Trayvon got shot.

You seem to be having trouble with the concept that I'm not trying to prove any specific conjecture on how the cuts were made. He could have gashed his head on his car door as he left it after being told not to. He could have raked the handgun against his head after he realized he had just killed someone. An eagle could have tried to carry him off. It doesn't matter how he got the cuts, they are not proof of anything other than he got two, bandaid optional, cuts to his scalp.

I am pointing out that there are many ways he could have been cut, therefore the cuts themselves are not proof that he was on his back, on the concrete. It does not matter what you think is the most simple explanation. If the defense can convince the jury of that in the absence of more evidence, the prosecution will have failed on this point.

It has not been reported that Zimmerman's blood was found on the concrete, which could prove that he was on his back and was cut by the concrete. Possibly, in the upcoming forensic testimony, they will report that Zimmerman's blood was found on the concrete in a manner consistent with getting his head slammed against it. On the other hand, if no blood was found, it would undermine Zimmerman's story. Getting one's head repeatedly slammed into concrete hard enough to cut the scalp would result in blood on the concrete. Until such evidence is reported or not reported, everything is idle conjecture, but it is totally valid to say that the cuts alone do not prove that Zimmerman was being held down on the concrete.

If you are strong enough in denial then nothing works as proof. Is there video of his head being slammed on the concrete? Well, that video could be doctored. Are there witnesses? Well, the witnesses could be lying. Is there blood on the sidewalk? Well, it could have just fallen there after Zimmerman bashed himself on his head. Or the racist cops could have just planted it there to help their racist best buddy.

You see how that works? You want to deny the obvious fact that Zimmerman's injuries to the back of his head make it very likely, in fact, PROVE to somebody who is NOT determined to grasp at any straw to continue to believe Zimmerman is guilty, that Trayvon caused those injuries.

I also note that you repeat one of the common errors http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3136120

I'm not in denial of anything. You seem totally convinced that the small cuts MUST have occurred with Martin on top of Zimmerman, on the concrete. I accept that as a possibility, but you are trying to claim that it has to be. The person in denial here is you. You are convinced that he is innocent. All I claim to know is that Zimmerman has said that he followed Martin, confronted him, and then shot him to death. Is he guilty of murder? I don't know, that is for the jury to decide. But you are convinced that he is innocent, and are living in a fantasy land where your version HAD to be the way it happened. That places the burden of proof on you.

I again ask, where is your proof? You have offered nothing other than it would be a simple explanation. The concept that the cuts must have come from concrete, because Zimmerman was on his back, because he had cuts on his head is a circle that does not hold up. Possibly, they did find Zimmerman's blood on the concrete and haven't released that info. Until they do, the cuts mean nothing. Things very well may have occurred they way you want it to be, but unless you have something more that you are holding back, you are just blowing smoke.

zimmy claimed Martin repeatedly bashed his head onto the cement, but showed no signs of concussion, grogginess, or loss of consciouness.

Think about it. If your head is repeatedly BASHED (I capitalized that because if denotes force not light taps) against concrete you're most likely knocked cold and maybe suffering from a serious concussion and quite possibly a skull fracture.

Concrete is hard as hell and does not give.

I think zimmy, in his cya mode, over stated that bit and it should come back to haunt, especially since there was no blood found on the sidewalk where he alleged his head was "repeatedly BASHED."

Mr Good, who had the best view, also places TM on top. This is consistent with Zimmerman's injuries, and a more likely scenario where it was TM that attacked Zimmerman due to Zimmerman's threatening behavior.