The Case Against George Zimmerman: A Review

George Zimmerman has been charged with 2nd degree murder in the killing of Trayvon Martin.  A 2nd degree murder charge, in this case,  states that the government must have probable cause – a reasonably cautious person would suspect that a crime had been committed – and that probable cause must be shown in an affidavit and approved by a judge.

2nd degree murder, in Florida and specifically relating to this case, is:

§ 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.

As you can see, a 2nd degree murder charge, in this case,  requires probable cause that the defendant carried out the killing with a depraved mind.  So, just what is a “depraved mind”? Fortunately, the Florida Supreme Court provides jury instructions that further define “depraved mind”. These instructions require three elements be fulfilled and all of them must be:

An act is “imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind” if it is an act or series of acts that:

  1. a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another, and
  2. is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent, and
  3. is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.

The first element is not in dispute. Mr. Zimmerman is asserting an affirmative defense, so the first element has been admitted to.

Skipping to the third element, this one can be seen as possible to a reasonably cautious person, if they are given only one side of the story. The state, in its probable cause affidavit, states that “witnesses heard numerous calls for help” and that the calls for help were determined to be Mr. Martin by his mother, Sybrina Fulton, upon hearing a separate 911 call placed by one of the residents in the complex. I’ll get into this issue a little bit later. Suffice to say, given only that information, the third element appears to have been met, since the state is arguing that Zimmerman killed Martin amid Martin’s pleas for help.

Now, we get to the second element, which is, arguably, the most important one. The second element requires that the act be “done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent.” This element is also up for debate and it also depends on the information given. This is very important, specifically, because of Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense. In the probable cause affidavit, the state has used Zimmerman’s non-emergency call to provide the basis for the second element being satisfied. In it, Zimmerman refers to the person he saw, Martin,  as an “asshole” and “fucking [punk?],” even if it was a general, not specifically directed, accusation, and it also states that Zimmerman “profiled” Martin. The implication with the word “profiled” is that there was a racial motivation to Zimmerman’s subsequent actions.

With just that information, the state has satisfied probable cause for 2nd degree murder. But, that’s not the whole story and the state is required to provide the truth as the facts present it to be. To omit certain facts because they may change the narrative the state would like the public, in general, and the Judge, specifically, to see is, as renowned lawyer and Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, Alan Dershowitz, noted, “a half truth” and “a half truth is regarded by the law as a lie.”

With regard to the third element, the state failed to include the fact that Zimmerman had sustained several injuries in an apparent beating by Martin. It also omitted the fact that Zimmerman’s father stated that the cries for help were, in his opinion, his son, George Zimmerman, creating a he said/she said scenario to that particular aspect. In fact, several voice analyses have been conducted including, most notably, one by the FBI. The FBI determined that they couldn’t conclusively say who was crying for help “due to extreme stress and unsuitable audio quality.” This additional information, had it been presented to the Judge, would have allowed the Judge to make a more informed decision.

Going back to the second element, the state, as mentioned before, should have included the injuries sustained by Zimmerman in it’s affidavit. In addition to that, the state also omitted the medical examiner’s report of Martin. It would have shown that there were injuries to Martin’s knuckles, but no other injuries, other than the gunshot, which was a close-range shot to the chest and consistent with Martin being on top of Zimmerman when the shot was fired. Taken together, these two medical reports show that a struggle did ensue, as the state offered in the affidavit, but that there is a strong probability that Martin was the first to start a physical altercation. In recent developments, in fact, the state has admitted, in the most recent bond hearing, that it does believe Martin did hit Zimmerman first, but it still classifies Zimmerman as the aggressor for getting out of his vehicle, following Martin, and not offering to Martin a valid reason for why he was following him. I’ll get to that in a second. With these additional details, it appears that, while it may be argued that Zimmerman may have “hated” Martin in some general sense, the act of shooting him was in response to a physical altercation that the state admits was now started by Martin. The last nail in the coffin of the second element was the recent revelation that the FBI’s investigation into racial bias and/or a possible hate crime could find no grounding or factual basis for such an allegation.

Lastly, it is the state’s contention, probably because of Fmr. Det. Christopher Serino’s opinion, that Zimmerman should be charged with 2nd degree murder because the killing was “ultimately avoidable”. Serino stated that if Zimmerman had simply “remained in his vehicle” or “identified himself to Martin as a concerned citizen” that the incident would have likely never occurred. While this is true, it can be said of any action, including Martin’s decision to go to the store. There is literally no limit to the amount of actions or the people involved in these actions, if you don’t limit yourself on time, that ultimately led to Zimmerman and Martin meeting. For instance, if the 7-11 clerk had struck up a lengthy conversation with Martin, this incident would have likely never occurred. In addition to that, and more importantly, the state’s argument that Zimmerman should be held accountable for not saying the right thing, goes against everything our liberty provides for us. Our liberty allows for us to have control over our own actions, so long as they don’t encroach on another person’s liberty. If they do, then the law can intervene. It does not require one to make specific statements of intent in some distorted belief that a lack of any given intent is tantamount to a given threat. The fact that the state and this police officer do not know this, is incredibly disturbing.

Advertisements

About justincaselawgic

I could go into my background, but none of that really matters. I like to put out factual analysis, using multiple citations for the basis of the analysis. Dissent is expected and encouraged. Debate is expected and encouraged.
This entry was posted in George Zimmerman, Law, Trayvon Martin and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

97 Responses to The Case Against George Zimmerman: A Review

  1. Tre Anthony says:

    Your analysis fails to mention one very important fact: TM was unarmed, GZ was armed for whatever reason to go to Target. “You can’t bring a gun to a fist fight,” and “You can’t use deadly force when there is no deadly force being used against you.“ That’s the gist of all of this. GZ would have people believed that TM was banging his head in the cement. That’s poppycock. We all know that. No evidence that GZ suffered a concussion, or that he had any other head injuries so severe that it required hospitalization. In fact, according to the EMT GZ was very coherent when they arrived on the scene. Quite frankly, GZ would have an upheld battle trying to convince a trier-of-fact that he acted in self-defense because there is no evidence, other than GZ’s self-serving statements, that supports it. Unless GZ plea this out, this case will go to trial and he will be convicted of second degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

    • Thanks for the reply. You made several points and I’ll attempt to respond to each of them. If I’m off on any point you have made, I’d appreciate the feedback.

      Your analysis fails to mention one very important fact: TM was unarmed …

      Being unarmed it not a required element in the laws governing 2nd degree murder, nor is being armed a required element of the attacker in the laws governing self-defense and “Stand Your Ground”. Simple self-defense laws, in the absence of a weapon, speak of a concept known as the “disparity of force”. This advantage can be present if the attacker is of such sufficient size, that the individual claiming self-defense, the victim, could reasonably be considered the weaker party in an altercation. It is also present, by default, if the attacker is a man and the victim is a woman. Yet another allowance for the advantage of disparity of force to be realized is if the attacker manages to possess the advantage by disorienting the victim and assuming the upper-hand by climbing on top of the victim in a mounted position and continuously beating that individual without the victim being able to respond with equal force. I know you disagree with that characterization, and I’ll discuss it later, but it is an example of an unarmed attacker attaining the advantage of the disparity of force.

      GZ was armed for whatever reason to go to Target.

      This is not only true, it was legal for Zimmerman to be armed and he had complied with all conceal/carry laws. If you have a problem with conceal/carry laws, you’ll have to take that up with the state. The prosecutor, rightly, did not make this an issue, because Zimmerman was simply abiding by the laws of Florida. It would have been prudent for me to mention the gun, if Zimmerman had drawn his gun prior to the altercation. There is no evidence of that.

      “You can’t bring a gun to a fist fight,”

      The quote is “don’t bring a knife to a gunfight.” It means that it would be unwise to give the other party the advantage, if a fight were to ensue.

      and “You can’t use deadly force when there is no deadly force being used against you.“

      Yes, you can. The law states,

      “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.”

      The law clearly states that you can use deadly force to prevent great bodily harm.

      GZ would have people believed that TM was banging his head in the cement. That’s poppycock. We all know that. No evidence that GZ suffered a concussion, or that he had any other head injuries so severe that it required hospitalization.

      First, you do not know that Martin was not banging Zimmerman’s head on the cement. Zimmerman had injuries to the back of his head that indicated it hit something hard enough to break the skin and cause bruising. Second, the body is unpredictable. A hit to the head can cause a concussion, or not; a hit to the nose can break the nose, or not. The evidence indicates that Zimmerman sustained injuries by blows that could cause a concussion or unconsciousness and continued blows could cause great bodily harm. If it is reasonable to believe that Zimmerman acted out of a reasonable fear that the attacks would continue, that is all that is required to exercise the use of deadly force. His contentions that he was the one yelling for help and no one came, that Martin continued to hit him, and that Martin eventually tried to reach for his gun when it became exposed are not refuted by any direct evidence. The direct evidence corroborates his story. The only evidence of 2nd degree murder the state has is testimonial evidence by Dee Dee, Ms. Fulton and Mr. Martin, none of whom were there.

      • Devout Player Hater says:

        GZ was carrying his 9mm with him to Target [snip]

        Moderator: This post was edited, because the additional information contained nothing of any factual basis. This is your first and only warning that such comments will not be tolerated.

      • Devout Player Hater says:

        Other than GZ’s self-serving statements, how do you know that Martin was in fact banging GZ’s head on the cement. Martin is not alive to give his version of the events that night. GZ is facing life in prison for second degree murder and he will say just about anything to save himself from going to prison for life. GZ perpetrated a fraud upon the court and there is no reason anyone should believe any other inconsistent statement that he has made with respect to his encounter with TM.

      • No one, except Zimmerman, can know for certain if Martin banged Zimmerman’s head or if Zimmerman hit his head as he fell or some other variation. All we can tell is what the evidence suggests. The evidence suggests Zimmerman’s head hit something hard enough to break the skin and cause bruising. We know there was a scuffle and that the injuries were caused that night and within a few minutes prior to the EMT showing up.

        I agree with not taking Zimmerman’s story at face value and I don’t think that has been done by most people. Zimmerman could be making things up just to keep himself from going to prison. However, because his story lines up with the evidence, the story either has merit, or he is a genius. Which one do you think is more likely?

        About the fraud, that sequence of events makes no sense to me. Before the hearing, all lawyers and the Judge were aware of this account of Zimmerman’s. The judge had ruled that he wasn’t sure he had jurisdiction on any monies donated to Zimmerman. When Shellie testified, she offered to the court that if they wanted an exact amount of what was donated, they need only ask her brother-in-law. The state decided not to do that and ended that line of questioning with a statement that the defense could get the info on that at a later time or perhaps the Judge could. The only explanation for what happened afterward is that the state purposely decided not to ask the brother-in-law, so they could set a perjury trap. The Judge’s order admonishing Zimmerman for keeping quiet also makes no sense, because a defendant has the right to remain silent. The Judge should be acutely aware of this fact. He should also be aware that a Judge’s job is not to admonish anyone for exercising their Constitutional rights. I’m looking forward to the decision on O’Mara’s Motion to Disqualify Judge Lester.

      • Devout Player Hater says:

        The facts are undisputed: Zimmerman, hereinafter, (“Zman”), called 911 to report a ‘suspicious’ person (because it’s raining outside and the person was just walking). Zman never mentioned that Trayvon Martin, (“TM”), was doing anything improper or illegal. During Zman’s call with the dispatcher, he gets out of his vehicle and start to follow TM. When the dispatch realized that Zman was doing that, the dispatcher asked Zman, “Are you following him”, to which Zman replied, “YES” and dispatch told Zman, “Ok. We don’t need you to do that.” A few minutes after that dialogue, Zman states, “he ran”. That goes to show that Zman continued to pursue TM even after dispatch said, “Ok. We don’t need you to do that”. Zman told investigators that he stopped following TM after the dispatch said, “…we don’t need you to do that” and that he walked up the walkway to find the street number to give to the dispatch. That’s non-sense because he told dispatch to have the police officers call him when they get in the area. Well, any reasonable person would understand that Zman was actually still lookin’ for TM not just looking for a street number because if he actually had been he could have told the dispatcher to hold on while he got the street number. But he didn’t do that because that was not what he was doing. Instead, Zman was scoutting TM, which became a confrontational situtation. In fact, Witness 11 plainly stated in a recorded interview with investigators that she heard Zman yelling, “Ha, Ha, Ha..What are you doing around here?” Indeed, that’s exactly what TM’s friend heard while she was on the phone with TM. She also said that she heard someone push TM and at that moment TM’s cellphone fell and went dead. Clearly, Zman pushed TM and in response TM may have knocked Zman down to the ground as Zman claimed, which resulted in the scuffle. Zman, realizing that he was losing the fist-fight, drew his weapon and shot TM in the chest. That’s more likely than not what happened than TM hiding behind bushes and shit and then jumping out, hitting Zman unprovoked as Zman would have people believe. Perhaps wishing he could turn back time, Zman should have stayed inside of his truck the whole time and waited for the police to show up, and perhaps by that time, TM would have made it back home. But Zman has no regrets of not doing that as he explained in his Hannity interview.

      • Your first fact is not a fact. Zimmerman called a non-emergency number, not 911. The call with the dispatcher lasted only a few minutes, so your contention that, “A few minutes after that dialogue, Zman states, ‘he ran’”, is not correct. It was about 20 seconds. The interview with Dee Dee is a mess for numerous reasons, not least of which, she gave several versions of when the phone call ended. I fully expect Dee Dee to never take the stand, at which point her statement will more than likely be thrown out, since it would violate the Defendant’s right of confrontation if they allowed it. If she does take the stand, her lack of coherency, along with her inability to keep a story straight will allow the Defense to destroy any shred of credibility you think she may have. I think she has none, for reasons outside of just her statement.

        I’m conflicted about going down this path, because, as I stated in the OP, the happenings prior to the altercation by both Zimmerman and Martin are legal actions. The illegal actions begin at the altercation. All else is a distraction and irrelevant.

    • Lisa says:

      Former Det. Serino recommended Manslaughter not Murder of any degree. I also disagree about who caused or made the first physical contact. George can be heard by Trayvon’s gf saying “Hey, hey, hey, what are you doing around here?” which means he stopped Trayvon from leaving with a question. I also think it’s a threatening move to dig in your pocket without saying why you were following somebody, on a rainy dark night now. Was Trayvon supposed to stand there and look at his gun and wait for him to decide what he wanted to do with him? George was not digging for a phone. I believe from his police statement that he already had the gun in hand and Trayvon hit him before he could use it the first time. Also, are we to believe whether Trayvon was 5 feet or 7 feet tall that George could not defend himself with his hands as well? Was he drunk or high himself? How did he get hit in the nose hard enough to break it, supposedly, but fall forward batting at Trayvon as he demonstrates in the reenactment video? In the reenactment video he also makes a slip and says, “He put his hand on his nose, I mean, he put his hand on my nose.” He didn’t seem nervous doing that video and I don’t believe it was a confused slip of the tongue. He did it later in an audio statement to the police where Serino is asking him again what happened and he states, “…he yelled for help and I shot him.” Is that another slip? Strange slips. He stated in many statements that although he was on the phone with non-emergeny, he was headed to the other side to get an address but also mentioned meeting up with a cop he had already called to meet him. He may not have intended to kill Trayvon but he went prepared for the possibility. He was determined to catch this “suspect”.

      OOhhhhhhhhh! A neighbor caught it on video and this may be the proof that the DA has for filing 2nd degree murder instead of manslaughter or setting GZ free???? I am in Heaven with anticipation. I pray it is very clear and shows that GZ either pulled a gun first or otherwise did something that would cause a reasonable person to strike him.

      Ohhhhhhhhhhh, Again…..I am rolling in ecstacy. I hadn’t thought of what he did as interfering in an investigation but can they charge him with anything different if the charge 2nd d manslaughter? On Hannity, he claimed that he was yelling because he knew the police were there and he wanted them to find him. So, if he knew they were there, why did he shoot anyway? He couldn’t hold on one more minute? He’s a LIAR and the truth ain’t in him. He also said in the Hannity interview that he had an officer friend he was meeting. When did he call this friend: before he called 911 or right after he hung up? He also said that one of the officers later told him that Trayvon knew he was on the phone with the police. How would they know he knew that? Curious George says the strangest thing but what I want him to say is I am guilty or at least I was or had an accomplice.

      Ohhhhhhhhhhh, Again…..I am rolling in ecstacy. I hadn’t thought of what he did as interfering in an investigation but can they charge him with anything different if the charge 2nd d manslaughter? On Hannity, he claimed that he was yelling because he knew the police were there and he wanted them to find him. So, if he knew they were there, why did he shoot anyway? He couldn’t hold on one more minute? He’s a LIAR and the truth ain’t in him. He also said in the Hannity interview that he had an officer friend he was meeting. When did he call this friend: before he called 911 or right after he hung up? He also said that one of the officers later told him that Trayvon knew he was on the phone with the police. How would they know he knew that? Curious George says the strangest thing but what I want him to say is I am guilty or at least I was or had an accomplice.

      That’s what doesn’t make sense to anyone who is not determined to be believe the weak-minded George. I want to add to what you wrote. It’s why he was so anxious to hurry the non-EM operator off of the line with no clear location of where to meet. Why not keep the operator on the phone until you get to your vehicle (which you shouldn’t have left in the first place)? I believe with all of my heart that George had or was an accomplice. Someone restrained Trayvon from getting back to his father’s fiance’s house. That’s who DeeDee heard bump Trayvon and then start grunting for the person to get off. What sense does it make for Trayvon to watch him walk by and wait for him to come back and by George’s own words, George had passed the top of the T when Trayvon asks him if he has a problem. That sounds like George. George wanted to know if Trayvon had a problem and George told Trayvon that he “does now.” George is the one who said he’s going to die tonight and made it happen. For all of that fighting he had no defensive wounds. There should have been at least scratches on his hands. I wonder if George was tested for drugs or alcohol that evening.

      No, the rhetoric is that although Blacks are not in charge of anything and Conservatives and Tea Partiers don’t have respect for the office of the president while a Black man is in it; they want to believe that America will sacrifice George to appease the angry Black mob. The favorite group for these people to point out is the NBPP, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. I think that if George goes free, there will be grumbling and protests; but there will not be widespread rioting. Black people that have a job aren’t going to lose it by ending up in jail over this decision. Then, we’ll get to work and start working on the laws that made this possible – for one man to kill another and not have to prove it was self defense or standing their ground.

      Is George retarded or otherwise handicapped? I don’t see how he’s getting his head banged, he can’t defend himself? Where are George’s hands while this is going on? I would imagine attempting to ply Trayvon’s hands off of his head or face, thereby maybe leaving some scratches or bruising (black people bruise). How did he yell, get his head banged, respond to a neighbor who looked out the door and told him he was calling 911, scream some more which isn’t captured on anyone’s 911 call, wiggle with Trayvon on him off of the cement but can’t buck him off. George must have been more impaired than normal. He does strike me as someone who is mentally impaired. After he shot him, why would he get on top and press him down into the ground? I think to make certain he was dead and therefore tell no tales. He said he was talking. Did it occur to him that he wasn’t fighting very well after the gunshot? Did he attempt to administer CPR or some emergency assistance. Why would he do that? Why would he make certain he was dead?

      • Lisa,

        Thanks for taking the time to comment. You’ll probably notice that your comments were combined into one. This was done for a couple reasons. You’re new to this blog and I don’t have any formal rules, but it is clear that you’ve read some of the comments. As such, you should be aware that I will not allow discussion that is not backed up by the facts. Several of your individual comments came very close, in my opinion, of going over that line. Others, again in my opinion, did go over that line. I’ve allowed them to stay, since this is, “technically,” your first post. I have no problem with having a discussion, so long as you stick with the facts and not what you “believe in your heart” to be true. A specific example of something that is not backed up by the facts is the idea that there was a video of the altercation taken. As previously discussed, the witnesses and their statements have been divulged to the Defense and the public. There is no mention of a video in any of the witness statements, which eliminates this idea as a possibility. There are other specific examples I could go into, but this will suffice for now. I look forward to future discussion with you, but just be aware that accusations based on your beliefs and not the facts will not make it into approved comments, so you would be wasting your time in typing them. If you would like to reiterate some of the comments you believe are backed up by the facts and provide support for your assertion, I invite you to do so and we can move forward from there.

        Best,

        Justin

  2. Devout Player Hater says:

    There’s a video recording that captured all of the events that led up to TM’s death, which, is in part, why GZ was charged with Second Degree Murder.

    • Please post a url to the video. The only one I’ve seen, that has multiple videos from within the clubhouse and around the pool, does not provide any clarity. There are, what looks like, car headlights and individuals, but nothing concrete. If you’ve seen something else, I’d be interested in seeing it.

      • Devout Player Hater says:

        The video was taken with a neighbor’s cellphone and it will be introduced into GZ’s trial as evidence. That will be the bombshell that sends GZ to prison for life, among other pieces of material evidence….

      • I’ve followed this case from the beginning and consider myself to be very well-versed in virtually all aspects. I’ve not heard of any cellphone video. I did an extensive search last night and found nothing and no one reporting this. There was an insinuation by Off. Serino, during his questioning of Zimmerman, that maybe someone caught the altercation on video. Zimmerman replied that he hoped someone had. There is no indication that Serino actually has a video, but simply used that line of questioning to trip Zimmerman up. I’m interested in why you feel there definitely is a video. Until you provide something beyond your own words, I’m going to consider this a complete fabrication.

      • Devout Player Hater says:

        You already know that Serino alluded to the fact during his questioning of Zimmerman, that someone had caught the altercation on video. You explain away the fact there’s the cellphone video out there by suggesting that Serino used that line of questioning to trip Zimmerman up. I will tell you with absolute certainty that there IS a cellphone video of the incident. It most likely has been converted over to a DVD by now so that it can be played back in Court on TV as direct evidence in the State’s case-in-chief against Zimmerman. That’s why Angela Corey didn’t hesitate to bring a Second Degree Murder charge against Zimmerman because that’s the smoking gun.There’s tons of evidence against Zimmerman. If you consider this a complete fabrication wait until trial to see for yourself since you’ve been folowing this case from the beginning.

      • As I said, Serino’s questioning of Zimmerman is the only time a video ever came up. Serino never stated that a video did, in fact, exist and the subsequent release of discovery has confirmed that there was no video. All of the witnesses have been accounted for and there is no mention of a video. Throughout all of Serino’s interviews with the FBI there was never a video mentioned. In Serino’s police report there was no video mentioned. It was a simple questioning tactic that gets employed from time to time to slip people up. Apparently, you are the only one I know of that fell for it.

        I mentioned before that this will be treated like a complete fabrication, unless you can come up with something, beyond your own words and that specific line of questioning by Serino, to support it. If you would like to keep going down this path, you can do so if you support it. If you do so without support, your comment will be removed, because it continues to be a distraction at this point.

      • Devout Player Hater says:

        [snip] The prosecutor does NOT have to disclose ALL of the State’s evidence against Zimmerman, if it were required to do so, then there would be no point of having an effective trial on the merits. All the State is required to disclose is ‘exculpatory’ evidence, if any existed, but none exists. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)(holding that suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused who has requested it violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.)


        Moderator: This post has been edited so as to remove previously discussed material without supportive evidence.

      • You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about. Florida’s Rules of Criminal Procedure, specifically Rule 3.220, states:

        (b) Prosecutor’s Discovery Obligation.
        (1) Within 15 days after service of the Notice of Discovery, the prosecutor shall serve a
        written Discovery Exhibit which shall disclose to the defendant and permit the defendant to inspect, copy, test, and photograph the following information and material within the state’s possession or control:

        (A) a list of the names and addresses of all persons known to the prosecutor to have
        information that may be relevant to any offense charged or any defense thereto, or to any similar fact evidence to be presented at trial under section 90.404(2), Florida Statutes. The names and addresses of persons listed shall be clearly designated in the following categories:

        Obviously, there is much more to this procedure, but this will suffice. If there was any video, there would have been a witness and that witness would have to have been disclosed to the Defense. I’ve already destroyed your argument, but just for some icing, if the state was only required to provide exculpatory evidence and, as you believe, there is none, why have they released any evidence to the Defense? Your argument fails on its own, even without me bringing up the Rules of Criminal Procedure.

  3. Devout Player Hater says:

    GZ could be charged with interferring with a Police Investigation. Specifically, when he called 911 to report a suspicious person, he in essence was filing a Police Report. The dispatch was sending officers to the scene to investigate GZ’s suspicious person report. When the dispatch realized that GZ was following TM, the dispatch told GZ, “…we don’t need you to do that”. Despite the dispatch’s instructions, GZ continued to follow TM and by doing so, he interferred with a Police Investigation.

    • Zimmerman called a non-emergency number, not 911. To be charged with interfering with a police investigation, it takes more than what you’re offering.

      The dispatcher gave Zimmerman advice that would keep Zimmerman safe. That is the purpose of the dispatcher’s advice. It could be abided by or ignored. The dispatcher was not allowed to advise Zimmerman to continue an action that could put him in jeopardy.

      • Devout Player Hater says:

        Your contention that Zimmerman called a non-emergency number, not 911, is wholly irrelevant. The fact of the matter is, he was making a suspicious person report and requesting that it be investigated by an officer. Nor is it relevant that as to the length of time when Zimmerman told the dispatcher that Martin “ran”. The fact of the matter is he said that Martin “ran”. More to the heart of the matter though, you contend that, “[t]he interview with Dee Dee is a mess for numerous reasons, not least of which, she gave several versions, …,” and that, “[i]f she does take the stand, her lack of coherency, along with her inability to keep a story straight will allow the Defense to destroy any shred of credibility you (sic) think she may have.” I think that’s far-fetched. Zimmerman has not only given different and inconsistent versions of his account of the events that happened on the night in question; however, he appeared before the presiding Judge at his initial bond hearing and lied to the Court to. Thus, not only is Zimmerman’s credibility destroyed in the underlying case however it is destroyed with the Court, and rightly so, which is but one reason his attorneys saw fit to file a motion for recusal in hopes to restore Zimmerman’s credibility with the Court status quo. Certainly if Zimmerman were to take the stand, and he has to in order to put on a self-defense claim, the prosecutor is going to impeach his credibility ranging from prior bad acts to inconsistent (every so changing) statements, including, but not limited to, the fraud he perpetrated upon the court. All of that is mounted up against Zimmerman but more telling his Hannity interview where he explains that he would not have done anything different the night he shot and killed Martin. That’s damaging out-of-court statements and it will certainly be used against him at trial should he take the stand. That’s why the prosecutor has already given notice of the intent to use the Hannity interview at trial. In sum, this entire case rises or fall on whether a trier of fact believes Zimmerman’s self-defense claim in light of all of the evidence that tend to show consistent with what the prosecutor has alleged: profiling and a pursuit.

      • There is a vast difference between providing potentially inconsistent details in separate interviews spanning several days/weeks, what Zimmerman did, and giving different versions of how the call ended within the same interview that lasted less than 30 minutes. That’s what Dee Dee did.

        The fact that you can’t see that difference is very, very telling.

  4. Devout Player Hater says:

    What people should really understand is that GZ chased TM, and when he caught up to him, he started yelling at TM, “What are you doing around here.?” Not only did DeeDee hear that but Witness 11 also heard the exact same thing. So that puts GZ right in the middle of a lie when he says that TM jumped out and attacked him on his way back to his vehcile. Further, there’s no motive for TM to have jumped out and attacked a ‘total stranger’, when, after all, he was trying to get back home out of the rain.

    • According to Dee Dee, Martin was the first to speak, not Zimmerman. You left that out. You also, and this is where the state also has a problem, keep stating that Zimmerman chased and caught up to Martin. Zimmerman’s phone call to police lasted several minutes. After he relayed that Martin ran, the call lasted for another 90 seconds. If Zimmerman chased and eventually caught up with Martin, please explain how this occurred when Martin had a 90-second head start and was only 70 yards from his home, closer to the north entrance than the south and, more importantly, closer to Zimmerman’s truck, than his home?

      As for Witness #11, her testimony, if this goes to trial and the prosecutor use’s her statement, is going to be shown to provide nothing of substance as to the conversation prior to the altercation for several reasons:

      1) She had her TV up “kinda loud”.
      2) She thought she heard “two or more men talking”.
      3) After muting TV, it sounded like “scuffling”.

      You said, “Witness 11 also heard the exact same thing.”

      When the officer asked, “could you make out anything that was being said?”, Witness 11 answered, “I really couldn’t. It was just kinda loud yelling.”

      Witness 11 also stated to the officer that Zimmerman was the one yelling for help. With this additional information, I can only surmise that you know very little about this case, know very little about the law and continue to make things up as you go. If you wish to have a back and forth about this any longer, you’re going to need to start providing support for all of your statements.

      Witness 11 Statement

      • Devout Player Hater says:

        George Zimmerman claimed that TM jumped out on him as he was walking back to his vehicle. And Witness 11 made absolutely clear that she heard a man yelling “Hey Hey Hey…What are you doing around here?” Listen at her recorded statement at time: 6:10 through 6:40. That’s relevant because it undermines GZ’s statement that he was returning to his vehicle. That witness’s statement makes clear that GZ was yelling at TM and asking him what he was doing around there, and that witness further made clear that after that is when the scuffle started. But skipping all of this exchange, the bottom line is the State has the burden of proof at trial, and I am CONVINCED that the State will be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ is guilty of murder in the second degree if GZ does not cop out and plea for a lesser included offense. And when there is a disposition in the case, I will return and see what your thoughts are at that time when GZ’s found guilty.

      • This is incorrect. Witness 11 stated that she didn’t hear what was being said, but it sounded like someone said something, then someone replied, then there was a third response. In essence, the exchange could have been “HEY, why you following me for,” then “HEY, what are you doing here,” and finally, “HEY, you got a problem.” That is what “Hey, Hey, Hey” means when the investigator states it. If we replace my supposition with the words that Zimmerman said were exchanged, then it went like this:

        Martin: You got a problem?
        Zimmerman: No, I don’t have a problem.
        Martin: You do now!

        With Dee Dee’s version, it goes like this:

        Martin: Why you following me for?
        Zimmerman: What are you doing here?
        Martin/Zimmerman: ???

        Zimmerman’s story is corroborated by Witness 11 in almost every single way. I linked the statement in the last post. You’ll need to listen to it, if you want to have a rational discussion.

        We all have our opinions, but no one has been able to show me the direct evidence that supports 2nd degree murder and doesn’t support self-defense simultaneously.

      • Devout Player Hater says:

        First of all, your suppositions are not evidence in the case at all. Second, why does anyone have to show you any direct evidence that supports 2nd degree murder and doesn’t support self-defense. You’re not the trier of fact. You’re nothing more than one of those ‘jailhouse’ lawyers trying desparately to support George Zimmerman’s self-serving self-defense claim. That’s chutzpah. Quite frankly, the burden of proof is not on anyone other than the State of Florida to prove before a juror, not you, beyond a reasonable doubt that George Michael Zimmerman is guilty of second degree murder. Zimmerman had better hope for his sake that he prevails on his self-serving self-defense claim because if he does not, he will certainly be found guilty of second degree murder since he has already admitted to shooting and killing Trayvon Benjamin Martin.

      • You claim that I’ve intimated that my supposition is evidence when I have not, nor will I ever. You’re constructing a straw-man that can be easily knocked down for no real purpose.

        There is no desperation on my part. You’ve taken it upon yourself to come to by blog and engage in a debate. So far, you’ve produced nothing but falsehoods, outside of the commonly known and accepted evidence, and now you’re trying to marginalize by comments by insinuating I have an ulterior motive.

        Each and every time I show where and why you are wrong, you take another approach or completely fabricate another falsehood. The easier and more honorable thing to do is just admit when you are wrong.

        I am not the Judge, nor will I be on the jury in this case. My calls for evidence have been to the state, in general, and to those who engage in debate, more specifically. You obviously believe 2nd degree murder is the correct charge. I’ve simply asked why and to be shown proof of that contention. If you believe it because the Special Prosecutor says that’s what it is and you believe her, that is your business. If you’re taking, at face value, the testimonial evidence of Ms. Fulton, Mr. Martin and Dee Dee, that is your prerogative. If you are basing it on direct evidence, I’d be interested in understanding what you think supports your position, because I don’t see it.

      • Devout Player Hater says:

        George Zimmerman is facing Second Degree Murder. That’s an undisputed fact. And we all know that if GZ is convicted he faces LIFE IN PRISON. GZ has already convicted himself by continuously giving substantial inconsistent statements. And a former prosecutor points that out. For example, Mark Eiglarsh listened to GZ’s Hannity Interview and compared it with his statements he made to police. Hannity asked GZ “So you did not continue to follow him”, to which GZ replied, “No, Sir.” Yet, those statements contradict what GZ told dispatch in his 911 dialogue: “Are you following him”, to which GZ replied, “Yes”..Dispatch: “Ok. We Don’t need you to do that!” Defense Attorney Eiglarsh pointed out that this was the number one problem with GZ’s interview because he contradicted his statements he made during the 911 call. Mr. Eiglarsh also pointed out that everytime GZ’s telling you detail by detail about what happened, he creates a scenario that could contradict details that he told before and this is what is going to get him into trouble, without question. According to Eiglarsh this is an enormous piece of evidence. And the State prosecutor has already given notice of the intent to use the interview as evidence. There’s no doubt that GZ is his own worst enemy because the more he talks, the more his lies surface. In all, GZ has given more than 12 different versions about the details leading up to his shooting of TM. Clearly, GZ’s credibility is destroyed. He wouldn’t dare to the stand in his defense because if he does the version that he gives in court is almost certain to be inconsistent with his other out-of-court statements he has made before and after the incident. http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-parents-website-decries-threats-son-racist/story?id=16866964.

        Apparently realizing that he is going to be convicted, GZ now wants to change the terms of his probation that require him to live in Seminole County while he awaits trial and his attorneys are now “preparing to file a motion to modify George’s bond to allow him to move out of Seminole County,” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48428391.

        GZ is planning to abscond the jurisdiction of the Court. Judge Lester plans on ruling on his motion for recusal this Friday, which will be denied on the merits because it is patently frivolous.

      • I completely agree with the sentiments regarding the Hannity interview. Zimmerman is his own worst enemy. His inability to come up with the right words in an attempt to paint his actions in the most favorable light will be his ultimate undoing, if that occurs. He’s fallen prey to the incorrect narrative that following Martin is an act of aggression, sufficient enough to justify Martin’s preemptive attack. It is not. His attempts to explain away following Martin make him look like someone that will say anything and that hurts his credibility. The facts at the time DA Wolfinger looked at the case do not appear to be different in any substantial way and it was known then that Zimmerman followed Martin. If this ever gets to trial, the Prosecution will argue that Zimmerman chased Martin down and confronted him, making him the aggressor. The two problems they’ve always had with this theory is: 1) It posits that it is reasonable to believe a 28 year-old can catch up to a 17 year-old when that 17 year-old had a 90-second head start, and 2) the use of deadly force can still be used by an aggressor which still allows for the protection of self-defense. It requires that the aggressor “exhaust every reasonable means of escape” and in the likely possibility that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, that is fulfilled. The state has a very tough uphill battle, made even more so because of the 2nd degree murder charge and the weak affidavit.

  5. Devout Player Hater says:

    If George Zimmerman [snip]

    Moderator: I’ve edited the bulk of this question, because you’ve failed to ask a question, or construct a scenario, that is supported by the direct evidence in this case. There is no direct evidence of a chase. Frame your question properly.

  6. Devout Player Hater says:

    You state that there is no direct evidence of a chase. You’re loss in the mid of the ocean somewhere. One witness made absolutely clear that she would someone chasing someone and another saw ‘figures’ of persons running. That’s direct evidence. Go review the written and recorded statements. It is apparent that you are a GEORGE ZIMMERMAN supporter because you’re trying desparately to come up with all types of scenarios in hopes to believe that GZ will go free from his crime. GZ will have his day in court and when he goes on trial and get convicted, lets see what excuse you come up with then. I suppose if GZ is found guilty you will be back on here claiming that the judge or jurors were biased against GZ. Wouldn’t you?

    • The “direct evidence” or physical evidence that I’m asking about is tangible and is as close to a fact as we can get in the law. Examples of physical evidence would be Zimmerman’s non-emergency call to police, the bullet hole in Martin’s chest, the abrasion on Martin’s hand, the injuries to Zimmerman’s face and head, etc.

      The evidence you provided are witness statements that will become testimonial evidence at a trial.

      I will try to make this as clear as I can. I do not “support” Zimmerman. I am holding the state accountable for its actions and asking people, who seem to have their mind made up, to provide support for their contentions.

      • Donna Flores says:

        The 90 second gap, that is going by Zimmerman’s word since we don’t really know where he parked and where he got out. If he was over by the mailboxes which he claims to in several interviews/reenactments there is plenty of time to catch up with Travyon. Now he is saying he didn’t run, he skipped, he can’t seem to figure things out.

      • Donna,

        Thanks for the comment. We do know where he parked and where he got out. Get up to speed and I’d be happy to discuss the facts.

  7. stormreaper says:

    Couldn’t find a way to send you a private message [snip]

    Moderator: Edited per request from sender.

    • I could use the gmail you have listed, if you have an interest in “off-blog” discussions. Just let me know if that is, in fact, a good one and you’re interested. All comments, by the way, require Moderator approval, so no one has seen anything you typed previously.

    • I should inform you that all comments, now, do not require moderator approval, just the first one. I’m sure you’ve already noticed that your comments have been posting without requiring approval

  8. Devout Player Hater says:

    George Zimmerman’s (“Zimmerman”) self-serving self-defense claim is not only without merit but it is patently frivolous on its face. Here are some other facts that explains WHY Zimmerman is guilty of second degree murder: As we all know, Zimmerman claims that he shot Trayvon Martin (“Martin”) while Martin was banging his head in the cement or in Zimmerman’s other version, while Martin was trying to take his gun from him. Well, first, as we all know, you can’t do both of those acts at the same time. You can’t bang somebody’s head in the cement while at the same time trying to take their gun from them. It just doesn’t make logical sense. Second, there’s absolutely no way that Martin could have been on top of Zimmerman at the time he shot Martin in the chest because of the position of Martin’s body after he was shot by Zimmerman. As we all are aware, the police reports stated that Martin’s hands were underneath him. Well, quite frankly that means that Zimmerman had to have rolled Martin over into that position because if Martin was on top of Zimmerman, as he would have you believe, then plainly Martin would have fell and came to rest directly on top of Zimmerman after he was shot and Zimmerman obviously would have had to lift himself from under Martin by forcing himself up by rolling Martin onto his BACK; not onto his stomach. As demonstrative, if you lay yourself on your back and roll from either the right or left with your hands at length at your side, and depending upon which way you roll, either your right or left hand will end up under your body as Martin’s hands were. There is no doubt that Zimmerman was on TOP of Martin when he deliberately shot Martin in the chest and that’s how Zimmerman was able to roll Martin from his back onto his stomach with his hands underneath him. In fact, one witness stated that she observed Zimmerman straddling on top of Martin after he shot him. Zimmerman’s inconsistent statements make any concievable self-defense claim palpably false.

    At the end of the day, and at the end of the case, there is no question whatsoever that Zimmerman is guilty of second degree murder beyond any possible doubt because he shot and killed Martin with a depraved mind, and as he stated to the nation in his Sean Hannity interview, he has ‘no regrets’ of his actions nor would he have done anything different on the night that he shot and killed Martin. If that doesn’t evince a person with a depraved mind, then I don’t know what does.

    • Your facts are interpretations, which allows the possibility that other people, jurors maybe, will interpret things differently. For instance, if we’re talking about two-armed, two-handed people, one hand can be on the face, while the other goes for a gun that has become visible. You’ll need to watch Zimmerman’s gestures as he reenacted the event. He used both hands to describe his head being banged. Then, he said that he was trying to wriggle free from the cement and his gun became exposed. From that point, he described that Martin had one hand trying to cover his mouth to stop the yelling for help, while the other hand reached for the gun. You may not believe him and he may be lying, but this description is possible.

      As for the Hannity interview, there was a lot that was wrong with that interview and he didn’t do himself any favors by granting it, in my opinion. I suspect the State will use his statement that he has no regrets as you’ve outlined and the Defense will counter that his meaning was in relation to not questioning what happened according to his belief in God. If it comes to that point, the jury will have to weigh those words and decide if that is evidence of a depraved mind or of a person that is reconciled to the fact that he can’t change anything. In my mind, I understand the meaning to be the latter. They’re the same ridiculous type of comments from those that talk of God’s will in relation to a tornado, for instance, ripping through their town but sparing their lives, while others die.

      • Devout Player Hater says:

        You point out that during Zimmerman’s re-enactment, he described that Martin had one hand trying to cover his mouth to stop the yelling for help, while the other hand reached for the gun. While there is a disagreement about who was yelling for help; however, assuming that it was Zimmerman there are a few things wrong with his contention that Martin covered his mouth to stop the yelling for help. First, one witness called 911 and you can hear the yelling for help crystal clear and at no time during that 911 call did it ever appear that the person’s mouth was ever covered at any time prior to the time Martin was shot. Second, the yelling for help was consistent and did not sound like a person who was having his head repeatedly banged into the cement. And third, one witness said that when he came outside to walk his dog he saw someone on the ground yelling help but that there was ‘no one’ else around when he heard the person laying on the ground yelling help. Nor did he see anyone around when he heard the gun go off.

        One thing you didn’t explain is how did Martin’s hands end up underneath him after he was shot. The only explanation for it as I see it is Zimmerman shot Martin while he was facing him; Martin fell on his back and Zimmerman rolled him onto his stomach after he shot him causing his hands to end up underneath him; otherwise, there is no way Martin’s hand would have ended up underneath him after Zimmerman shot him.

      • I pointed out that I was giving Zimmerman’s version through his reenactment and, as such, he described himself as the one yelling. There was no need to clarify that there is a dispute about who was yelling. Incidentally, the mere fact that there is a dispute actually favors the Defendant automatically.

        Second, you remarked that it didn’t sound like the yelling came from someone that had their mouth covered. I agree. The yelling doesn’t occur as a constant, or as you say consistent, sound; there are pauses, or breaks, between each yell for help. Could it be possible that the yelling occurred when Martin’s hand was wriggled free from the mouth?

        Zimmerman’s account of the body position is that Martin raised up a bit and then he either pushed him off or he fell off. I haven’ focused on this aspect too much, considering it was after the shot took place. There were also witnesses to some of the happenings before and appear to corroborate Zimmerman’s version at those times and there were witnesses to what took place after the shot and they appear to corroborate Zimmerman’s story at those specific times.

        The one thing that sticks out in my mind is Zimmerman’s claim that he had Martin’s hands pushed out from his body, which was lying face down. The police reports, as you noted, indicate the hands were underneath the body. It’s a discrepancy, but not huge, as either way Martin was already dead.

  9. Devout Player Hater says:

    I have listened to Zimmerman’s February 26, 2012 911-call over and over again, and it is clear that while the Dispatcher was trying to ask Zimmerman what address he was parked in front of, you can hear, starting at time 3:18 on the 911-call, Zimmerman saying, either to the dispatcher or to somebody, that “he’s running down that street”. Those statements mean that Zimmerman was still pursuing Martin. It could also be possible that Zimmerman was with someone else at the time he shot Martin. But the background noises in Zimmerman’s 911-call; particularily his statement that “he’s running down that street”, is part of the key to those events and those very statements bolsters the fact that Zimmerman pursued, chased and confronted Martin and is absolutley guilty of second degree murder.

    • I have seen discussion of the, almost under the breath, comment by Zimmerman at 3:18 into his call. I’ve not seen the claim, “he’s running down that street,” before. Listen to it again. The discussion about this has been focused on what sounds like, and I’ve listened to it and think so as well, “the keys are in my truck.” Could it have been said to someone else. It’s possible, so one would need to talk with other eye witnesses, like the boy walking his dog, or the people that saw the individuals at certain points in the timeline. There is one witness that describes hearing what sounds like 3-4 people talking, but she couldn’t be sure. No other witness described more than two people. The whereabouts of each person of interest have become known, or at least as known as they could become. So, it appears there was no other individual involved. With that in mind, the words, “the keys are in my truck,” are said as almost a recollection to himself as he was telling the dispatcher where his truck was.

      • I have seen it posted elsewhere that this statement about the keys is what you brought up here. I just listened to it AGAIN and he says “you’ll see my truck” not “the keys are in my truck.” He also never says he’s running down that street. I have a tendency to double and triple check the claims made by others in reference to his NEN call because I have listened to it so many times I know it almost by memory but I always have to make sure my memory heard it right. Neither of the above statements are anywhere in the call. I cannot fathom how soem people have gotten it SOOO wrong unless they are not listening to it themselves and just taking someone elses word for it that it is there.

      • Deborah,

        Thanks for the comment. The part that is being discussed is the “under the breath comment” that Zimmerman said. “You’ll see my truck,” is right at the 3:18 mark and that is easily heard and shouldn’t be in dispute. Just after and not as discernible, he mutters something that sounds like “the keys are in my truck.” As I said to Devout, it could have been to someone else, but there is no solid evidence that another party was involved, so I’m inclined, at this point, to think it was just an utterance to himself.

      • I hear what you are saying now about the “keys are in my truck”. Although I am not sure that is what he is saying as an absolute. Now that I have relistened to it several times in a row, I believe he may have been searching his pockets for those keys knowing he had the small flashlight on them as he had been tapping his larger flashlight to try to get it to work and failing. He was probably searching for them and couldn’t find them at that time. With his ADHD he sure does mutter to himself alot, because he also mutters something @ 2:43 that starts with SH$t again, while taps on that flashlight though I can’t make that out either.

      • Deborah,

        There is still some speculation about it, so I agree it is not an absolute.

    • Devout Player Hater says:

      For what it is worth, I have PERSONNALLY retained a voice expert to analyze that part of the tape to determine exactly what it is GZ uttered. I am convinced though that he said, “he’s running down that street”; but just so that there is no speculation about what he actually said, the voice expert will analyze that part of the recording in depth to decipher exactly what was said. I will post the findings on here and every where else once I hear something. I should also point out that while GZ appeared to have been uttering those words to the dispatcher or to someone else in his presence; however, the moderator here seems to dismiss the suggestion that someone else was with GZ by stating, “[w]ith his ADHD he sure does mutter to himself, …” I doubt very seriously that GZ was muttering anything to himself. He appear to have been part insane at the time he shot and killed TM. We would have to believe that everything he said to the dispatcher was an utterance to himself and we would have to then ask ourselves why is GZ talking to himself? Was he delusional? If GZ was in fact delusional as the moderator apparently seem to suggest by stating that GZ “mutter to himself” alot; however, that would also explain why he shot and killed TM. http://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/guide/delusional-disorder.

      • I will answer you once and only once, The moderator did NOT say ” “[w]ith his ADHD he sure does mutter to himself, …” or ” ” moderator apparently seem to suggest by stating that GZ “mutter to himself” alot;” I did. I am not the moderator. This is the first time I came here and just had to say something because I had not noticed the part about the “keys are in the truck”. I addressed the moderator and The moderator answered me. I am sorry that you apparently can’t read who is commenting. I would like to add that the moderator of this blog has shown extreme patience concerning you and the insistent way that you are insinuating that THEY are the ignorant one when it comes to this case and the case law surrounding it.

      • I am not the moderator so I feel free to tell you I have read all of the comments you have posted here and I believe you are the one that needs professional help regarding your sanity. You have gone round and round and off track from the posts and from the case incident and what is really applicable in this case. I salute the moderator of this blog for the patience they have shown. I would have told you where to get off long ago, but the moderator never did. Salutations to the moderator. Please see a professional for your infirmity.

      • Devout,

        Good for you, for taking the initiative. However, as has been pointed out, I did not say what you attributed to me. Be more careful next time. Incidentally, I dismiss the notion of an additional party being involved, because of the eye witness accounts and the fact that all of the known parties involved, in one way or another, would have had to disclose their whereabouts and law enforcement would have followed up on that information. The SPD, FDLE, FBI, and Special Prosecutor don’t seem to think there was someone else involved. That should tell you something.

      • Devout Player Hater says:

        Deborah Cutchins, [snip]

        Moderator: This is the second time you’ve tried to use intimidation tactics. No more warnings. Farewell.

      • I have gone through the possibilities in my mind about what George says under his breath and what he was talked over.and put them here before. I now have to reject them all. What he says is “a Honda Ridgeline truck”. I am sure of it. I am also sure that after the point the wind stops, at 2:40 into the call after he says his last name and he is tapping the flashlight he says “shit, stupid flashlight”. Just an FYI since I have addressed them both to you justincaselawgic.

  10. Devout Player Hater says:

    George Zimmerman continues to believe that his action of profiling, pursuing, shooting and killing Trayvon Martin was a justified self-defense. That’s poppycock. We all know that.

    O’Mara posted on his website, http://www.gzlegalcase.com, today, August 9, 2012, that “Now that the State has released the majority of their discovery, the defense asserts that there is clear support for a strong claim of self-defense. Consistent with this claim of self-defense, there will be a “Stand Your Ground” hearing.”

    Such a claim however would be patently frivolous for at least three reasons.

    First, the authors of Florida’s controversial “stand your ground” self-defense law say “He has no protection under my law,” It is the fact that GZ ignored the 911 operator’s advice not to follow Martin that disqualified him from claiming self-defense under the law. GZ lost his defense right then when he said ‘I’m following him. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57401619-504083/author-of-stand-your-ground-law-george-zimmerman-should-probably-be-arrested-for-killing-trayvon-martin/

    Second, O’Mara raised the issue of a purported self-defense claim at GZ’s second bond hearing and Judge Lester plainly rejected such a claim. Specifically, the Court noted that the “Defendant spent a substantial portion of the hearing presenting evidence relating to self-defense in an effort to counter the State’s case, …,”. Judge Lester in his July 5, 2012 Order ruled that “The Defendant certainly indicated through cross-examination that he acted in self-defense, but he put forward no evidence of such.” See July 5, 2012 Order Setting Bail.

    The doctrine of collateral estoppel also known as issue preclusion now bar any purported self-defense claim or attempt to rehash the exact same issue at a “Stand Your Ground” hearing.

    Issue preclusion operates narrowly to prevent the re-litigation of issues that have already been decided between the parties in an earlier lawsuit. See Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v. Badra, 991 So. 2d 1037, 1039 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (stating that issue preclusion “precludes re-litigating an issue where same issue has been fully litigated by the same parties or their privies, and a final decision has been rendered by a court”); State Dep’t of Revenue v. Ferguson, 673 So. 2d 920, 922 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (“The doctrine of collateral estoppel prevents identical parties from relitigating issues that have previously been decided between them.”); Rohan v. Trakker Maps, Inc., 633 So. 2d 1176, 1177 Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (“The application of collateral estoppel prevents the parties in second suit from litigating those points in question which were actually adjudicated in the first suit.”); Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Jozwick, 204 So. 2d 216, 218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967) (“Estoppel by judgment [or issue preclusion] prevents parties from litigating in a second suit common issues which were actually adjudicated in a prior action.”).

    The “essential elements” of issue preclusion under Florida law are “that parties and issues be identical, and that the particular matter be fully litigated determined in a contest which results in a final decision of a court of competent jurisdiction.” Dadeland Depot, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 945 1216, 1235 (Fla. 2006) (quotation marks omitted); see also Dep’t of Health Rehabilitative Servs. v. B.J.M., 656 So. 2d 906, 910 (Fla. 1995) (same); Mobil Corp. v. Shevin, 354 So. 2d 372, 374 (Fla. 1977) (same); Holt v. Brown’s Repair Serv., Inc., 780 So. 2d 180, 182 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (“[F]or the doctrine of collateral estoppel to apply, an identical issue must be presented in a prior proceeding; the issue must have been a critical and necessary part of the prior determination; there must have been a full and fair opportunity to litigate that issue; the parties in the two proceedings must be identical; and the issues must have been actually litigated.”). When those elements are present, issue preclusion can be applied offensively or defensively. See E.C. v. Katz, 731 So. 2d 1268, 1269 (Fla. 1999) (recognizing that Florida law requires mutuality of parties for both defensive and offensive use of issue preclusion); Massey v. David, 831 So. 2d 226, 233 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (same); Zeidwig v. Ward, 548 So. 2d 209, 212 (Fla. 1989) (offensive use occurs when a plaintiff seeks to prevent a defendant from re-litigating an identical issue previously decided against that defendant); see also Katz, 731 So. 2d at 1269–70 (defensive use occurs when a defendant seeks to prevent a plaintiff from re-litigating an identical issue previously decided against that plaintiff).

    There is no question that the doctrine of collateral estoppel equally applies in the criminal context. See State v. Short, 513 So. 2d 679, 681 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (citing Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (1970)).

    Here, the essential elements of issue preclusion are present and would bar the relitigation of the issue of a purported self-defense claim. GZ has already had his day in Court on that issue and it was decided against him and was a final decision. He may not now rehash that issue.

    Second, even if the issue was not barred by virtue of the doctrine of collateral estoppel; however, the proposition that GZ acted in self-defense is preposterous to say the least but more importantly fails as a matter of law.

    Under Florida law, GZ would have to show that pursuant to Section 776.012 of the Florida Code, he was justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believed that such conduct was necessary to defend himself against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, GZ would be justified in the use of deadly force and did not have a duty to retreat if, and only if: he reasonably believed that such force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself. The problem for Zimmerman however is that pursuant to section 776.041 of the Florida statute, the justification described above is not available to a person who: (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.

    From the known facts, GZ actively pursued Martin even after he told the dispatcher in his 911-call that, “he ran”. Well, if Martin ran as GZ contended, then the only possible way that GZ would have again came into contact with Martin was that he continuously pursued Martin, and by doing so, GZ “initially” provoked any purported use of force against himself; such that he lost any conceivable ‘self-defense’ claim under the statute. Moreover, the moment GZ got out of his truck against the dispatcher’s instructions to follow Martin, he brought any imminent danger of death or great bodily harm upon himself, and cannot be heard to complain that he was justified in using force against another; such an argument would sound no different than the plea of the boy who murdered his parents and then sought leniency because he was orphan.

    “Stand your ground” governs U.S. federal case law in which self-defense is asserted against a charge of criminal homicide. The Supreme Court ruled in Beard v. U.S., 158 U.S. 550 (1895) that a man who was “on his premises” when he came under attack and “…did not provoke the assault, and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life, or do him great bodily harm…was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground.” In a Minnesota case, State v. Gardner, 96 Minn. 318, 327, 104 N.W. 971, 975 (1905), where a man was acquitted for killing another man who attempted to kill him with a rifle, Judge Jaggard stated:

    “The doctrine of “retreat to the wall” had its origin [in Medieval England] before the general introduction of guns. Justice demands that its application have due regard to the general use of and to the type of firearms. It would be good sense for the law to require, in many cases, an attempt to escape from a hand to hand encounter with fists, clubs and even knives as a justification for killing in self-defense; while it would be rank folly to require [an attempt to escape] when experienced persons, armed with repeating rifles, face each other in an open space, removed from shelter, with intent to kill or cause great bodily harm.”

    Applying these precedents to the facts of this case would dictate that Zimmerman would not in any event be entitled to ‘self-defense’ as a matter of law because as the evidence plainly show Martin was unarmed. All Martin had was a bag of skittles and a can of ice-tea. In fact, there has been no evidence that Martin had a deadly weapon upon which he was using or threatened to use against GZ. Nor has there been any suggestion or evidence that GZ either exhausted other reasonable means to escape other than use of force or attempted to withdraw from any purported physical contact with Martin.

    In short, GZ initiated any confrontation with Martin the moment he chose to follow Martin against specific instructions not to, and by doing so, he knowingly and willfully put himself in the position of sustaining imminent death or great bodily harm and cannot now complain that he was either in fear of Martin or defended himself to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.

    In sum, GZ’s self-serving self-defense claim would not only be barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel and/or issue preclusion; however, it also fails as a matter of law under §776.041 of the Florida Code.

    • The authors of the “Stand Your Ground” portion of the justifiable homicide statutes made it very clear in the original article by the Miami Herald that they, “didn’t know all the facts of the case, so their interpretations of what happened could change if new information arises during the investigation.”

      For some reason, the CBS article that quotes the Miami Herald article left that part out and, of course, everyone likes using the inadequate CBS article.

      Issue preclusion is brought up improperly here. The Judge’s comments were in regard to procedure, not a “valid final decision” as case law requires.

      It is not a known fact that Zimmerman continued to pursue Martin. It is the scenario suggested by the State, which is relying on the statement of Dee Dee. The physical evidence seems to suggest that the more likely scenario is that Martin either doubled back or hid, as the altercation took place closer to Zimmerman’s truck and the “T,” than by Martin’s home. In fact, Dee Dee stated that she believed Martin’s headphones were knocked out of his ears when the scuffle started. Martin’s headphones were found in his pockets, not on the ground or connected to his phone. This would appear to indicate that Martin was either not on his phone when the confrontation occurred or that he wasn’t using his headphones. We are left to try and figure out the more likely possibility of those two scenarios.

      As for losing protection of the justifiable homicide statutes, you rightly quoted the wording of the statutes, but then you completely ignored what it said. Even if Zimmerman initially provoked the altercation, if he could not reasonably escape, which doesn’t require that you escape if it could cause additional harm, and he feared death or great bodily harm, then he is still protected under the law.

      The law has never stated that self-defense can only be claimed by someone that was facing an armed attacker. It has also never stated that one cannot use a firearm, in self-defense, against an unarmed attacker.

      As a side note, your arguments are better, now that they have some basis in law and the evidence.

  11. Devout Player Hater says:

    Anaylzing GZ’s actions from an objective commonsense point of view, would dictate that self-defense does not apply. For example, a person entering a buring dwelling against a Firefighters instructions not to is then badly burned, can not then turn around and sue the owner of that dwelling. The logic behind that is that the person assumed the risk by entering the buring dwelling against the Firefighter’s instructions not to. As further example, a person gets out of his car to follow a lion against an Animal control’s advice is then brutally attacked by the lion, can not turn around and complain that the lion attacked. The same logics applies here. GZ got out of his truck to follow TM against the dispatcher’s instructions. GZ now complains that TM attacked him and that he shot and killed TM in self defense. GZ however can not be heard to say that he shot TM in self defense simply because he put himself in the position of having to use deadly force against TM the very moment he decided to follow TM against the dispatcher’s instructions. The Florida self-defense statute was never intended to immune a person from criminal liability where their very own actions is the root cause for the use of the deadly force. Nor would it make logical sense. In the civil context, a person who knows that there is potential danger if he persists upon a course of action would be barred from recovering based on the doctrine of assumption of risk. GZ assumed the risk of imminent danger or deadly body harm the moment he got out of his Truck to follow TM. The unclean hands doctrine should also apply to bar GZ a self-defense immunity.

    • You’ve provided a false analogy. If someone goes into a burning building, they have exercised their own liberty to do so and they cannot hold anyone else accountable. In Zimmerman’s scenario, his liberty was intruded upon by Martin. The State is arguing that it was the other way around.

      Your interpretation of what our laws were intended to provide is one thing, but the law, itself, clearly states that an aggressor does legally have a right to self-defense if certain prerequisites are met, as we’ve already discussed.

      Unclean hands, by the way, is really in regards to civil suits and it is usually the Defendant that requests the court to consider it. In a criminal case, sense Zimmerman is facing charges by the State, and not a “Plaintiff,” if he were to raise an issue comparable to that of “unclean hands” it would be against the Prosecution or law enforcement, insinuating that his/her/their misconduct renders any evidence associated with him/her/them inadmissible.

    • Devout Player Hater says:

      You state that Zimmerman’s liberty was intruded upon by Martin. But you fail to realize that GZ put his own liberty into any purported intrustion by profiling and following Martin. Had GZ not profiled or followed Martin, he would not have put his liberty at peril. If I follow the path of a lion and that lion turns around and attack me, I can not then complain that the lion attacked me because by following the lion, I not only agitated the lion but I also invited the opportunity to a confrontation with the lion. The same holds true with GZ. GZ followed the path of TM and GZ claims that TM turned around and attacked him. GZ can not complain that TM attacked him because by following TM, as GZ admitted he was doing, he not only agitated TM, thus, putting TM on the defense; however, GZ also invited the opportunity to a confronation with TM.

      But as the authors of the Florida Stand Your Ground law stated, GZ loss his protection under the statue when he started following TM. It does not matter what happened after that because GZ had already aggravated an incident. As Detective Serino stated in his interview with GZ, any reasonable person would have been defensive if someone is following them on a late rainy night. It is difficult to phantom that TM back tracked and attacked GZ. That simply does not make any logical sense; particularily since GZ was a complete stranger to TM and TM was, no doubt, scared because GZ was following him. Objectively TM would have been trying to get away from GZ; not back tracking to attack him. It just doesn’t make sense.

      • You could save yourself some time if you read what I type more clearly. I stated that Zimmerman’s scenario posits that his liberty was intruded upon. I further stated that the State is arguing it is the opposite. As such, I’ve not failed to realize anything, but have, instead, laid out the two possible scenarios we are left with, which goes to why your analogy failed.

        In the specific case of following, in order to be justified in using force against Zimmerman, Martin’s fear of Zimmerman must have been reasonable at the time. We can’t use facts that we know after the incident to establish Martin’s emotional state before the altercation. This means that you cannot take Zimmerman’s action of shooting Martin as an element to consider to establish the reasonableness of Martin’s attack prior to the shooting. The facts that we can say for certain, as Martin knew them that night, were that Zimmerman was in his vehicle watching Martin, Martin ran and Zimmerman followed, the active pursuit of Martin was impeded by the dispatcher as the sounds of pursuit eased after he advised Zimmerman that they didn’t need him to follow Martin, and Zimmerman remained on his call with the dispatcher for another 90 seconds after he agreed not to follow Martin.

        The circumstantial evidence, after that call ended, shows us two possible scenarios. In one of those scenarios, Martin is tracked down by Zimmerman. In Dee Dee’s statement, Martin attempted to understand why he’d been followed. Zimmerman responded with his own question, attempting to understand why Martin was there. There is no evidence of any continued threat, only a desire to understand each other. These two questions, for some reason, caused a struggle. We are left with our own questions to determine why.

        In the second scenario, Zimmerman is confronted by Martin. Martin asked if Zimmerman had a problem. Zimmerman responded that he didn’t. Martin stated that he did now and a struggle ensues. Again, we are left with our own questions to determine why.

        The physical evidence, after the altercation took place, places the beginning of the altercation at the “T”. That location is roughly 120′ from Zimmerman’s truck. It is 200’+ from Brandy Greene’s condo. An active pursuit would reasonably move at a speed that is faster than walking speed. From the time that Zimmerman started following Martin, to the estimated time that the altercation began, 2 mins and 30 seconds elapse. In this amount of time, at walking speed, the average person can walk 675′. According to Dee Dee, Martin knew where he was, did not hide, and continued toward Greene’s condo after he lost Zimmerman. If we take Dee Dee’s statement at face value, but still line it up with the physical evidence, we are left with only one possibility, which is that Martin ran in a circle around the condos to try to get away from Zimmerman and the chase ended where it began. This possibility also needs us to believe that Zimmerman was faster than Martin. In my estimation, this is an unlikely scenario.

        For what it’s worth, Zimmerman’s scenario also has issues. The problem that many people do not understand is that Zimmerman’s story having issues is not as important as the State’s version having issues. In a criminal trial, the burden is on the State and if their scenario seems unlikely, Zimmerman is supposed to be found not guilty.

        Lastly, I wanted to address the issue with the authors of the Stand Your Ground portion of Florida’s justifiable homicide statutes. As I stated before, the authors specifically stated that they did not yet know the facts and their determination could change. So far as I know, no one has followed up with them to see if it has. In essence, we don’t really know what the authors think and to insinuate that we do is reckless. In addition to that, according to the Tampa Bay Times, their initial thoughts were wrong. Here is what the paper stated:

        Since its passage in 2005, the “stand your ground” law has protected people who have pursued another, initiated a confrontation and then used deadly force to defend themselves. Citing the law, judges have granted immunity to killers who put themselves in danger, so long as their pursuit was not criminal, so long as the person using force had a right to be there, and so long as he could convince the judge he was in fear of great danger or death.

  12. Devout Player Hater says:

    We have heard you play devil’s advocate against TM. Now let’s hear you play devil’s advocate against GZ.

    • If I am the Prosecutor, I would not paint a picture with Dee Dee’s full statement. I would use it to establish that Martin was afraid, but that is about it. I would use Zimmerman’s statement about bushes and Martin coming out of nowhere to posit that Martin was hiding out of fear. I would use the flashlights that Zimmerman had on him to posit that he used one of them to find Martin hiding. I would use the witness that heard yelling to establish that Zimmerman yelled at Martin and frightened him even more. I would argue that Martin struck out of fear, just as the State has. Most of it is circumstantial, but a lot of cases are decided on circumstantial evidence and the lawyer selling it. I also would not have charged 2nd degree murder. I would have charged with Manslaughter, which would have been more likely to get a plea deal, in my opinion.

  13. Devout Player Hater says:

    Consider this: GZ said that he shot TM because TM was banging his head in the cement. Then GZ said that he shot TM because TM was trying to take his gun from him. Now, we all know you can’t bang somebody’s head in the cement while at the same time trying to take their gun from them or covering their mouth while banging their head into the cement. However, if we believe what GZ said is true, then we have to also believe that he shot at TM, not once, but twice. In fact, one of the witnesses #6, did state in one of his statements that he heard TWO gunshots. Logically that would make sense because GZ gave two separate reasons why he shot at TM: One was because TM was banging his head into the cement, and Two because TM was trying to take his gun from him.

    Now, under GZ’s very own statements, he in essence shot at TM twice. Indeed, he said that he didn’t think that he had shot TM. Apparently one of the two shots GZ fired at TM did hit TM and killed him.

    With all of this in mind, the question then becomes, since GZ gave two separate and distinct reasons for shooting TM, then why didn’t GZ attempt to escape such danger other than the use of force the first time he fired at TM? Pursuant to section 776.041 of the Florida statute, the self-defense justification is not available to a person who: (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..

    Because GZ has admitted to essentially shooting at TM twice, then plainly he is not entitled to self-defense pursuant to section 776.041 of the Florida statute.

    • The description of the altercation is more fluid than you are letting on. From every interview I’ve read or listened to, Zimmerman said he forgot about his firearm until he maneuvered from the sidewalk to stop his head from getting banged. This may be untrue, but that is the description.

      We already know for a fact that there was only one shot. The SPD recovered one spent casing and only one round missing from the 9mm. The witness that describes hearing two shots is describing their interpretation of the sound as it travels in all directions and the reverberating sound from the buildings. There were other witnesses that described hearing just one shot, as well.

      I’m assuming that your ignorance on the number of shots is just that. If you don’t want to take my word for it, please look at the discovery that has been released to the public. This is your warning about this particular line of discussion.

      • Devout Player Hater says:

        First of all, I am not assuming anything. I know what the facts of the case are. In addition thereto, I am very well diversed in the law and have substantial understanding of Florida law; particularily as it applies to the facts of this case. GZ is the one that gave the two different versions of WHY he shot TM. And as I explained, they do not make logical sense because you CAN NOT bang somebody’s head into the cement while at the same time trying to take their gun from them. Either you are ignorant to those facts, or you’re just simply stuck on stupid. Putting that aside for a second, it very well may be that the SPD recovered only one spent casing and only one round missing from the 9mm. The fact of the matter is GZ most likely tampered with evidence by adding a round to the 9mm before it was confiscated. Witness #6 made clear that he hear TWO, not ONE shot. And certainly his statement is more credibile because he said it ALL happen right outside of his patio door. Moreover, as I listened to the tape, I too heard what sounded like two shots just a few moments before the shot that ended TM’s cries for help.

        We all can understand that you want to play Perry Mason or Ben Matlock,and that’s probably why you started this blog about the Zimmerman litigation.

        It’s very likely that you will be too shame to post this discussion because when the truth starts coming out, you and the other GZ supporters fear it and flee. At the end of the case and at the end of the day, no matter what your opinion may or may not be, GZ will be found guilty of Second Degree Murder or at a bare minimum Manslaughter and sent to prison for a very long time. And once that judgment is announced, we all would be interested to see your reaction to it. Perhaps then you can act as GZ’s jailhouse lawyer.

        Now, this is your warning about your particular line of discussion

      • I simply don’t believe you. “Diversed” is not a word. You can be “versed” or “well-versed”, but not “well diversed”. You misapply common doctrine in the law and you misinterpret the laws as they are written.

        I’ve left your comment about the two gunshots, so others can see where your fault lies. What you are arguing is that Zimmerman had another bullet that he carried on him and he put that bullet into the magazine so that it would appear that he only fired once. Of course, he knew to carry just the one bullet, just for this occasion. You’re further arguing that the SPD was too inept to find a second casing in a small area. This reasoning makes no sense.

        You’re hearing reverberation on the tape you listened to. I’ve listened to it, as well. The fact that we hear two different things is typical, but favors the Defendant. The investigators have determined that there was only one shot fired. There is only one bullet hole in the victim, one bullet missing, one casing found and witness statements detailing one shot.

      • Devout Player Hater says:

        OMG..You have got to be kidding me. Diversed or Diverse is too a word depending upon the context you use it in..Lord, help him for he know not what he speak. The word simply means:

        1: differing from one another : unlike

        2: composed of distinct or unlike elements or qualities

      • I’m sorry, but “diversed” is not a word. I know what “diverse” means. The context in which you wished to use the word(s) “versed” or “well versed” was to state that you know the law, its ins and outs. Saying that you are “well diversed,” which is not a word, in the law, first, implies that your grasp of the English language is lacking and, second, that you separate yourself within the law, which makes absolutely no sense. Your last two posts have nothing to do with the subject of the OP, but I left them so that others may see your opinions and see that when you cannot logically argue a point, instead of conceding that you may be wrong, you attack or use illogical statements. They have served a purpose, but future, comparable posts will not.

  14. Devout Player Hater says:

    While we agree to disagree about whether ‘diversed’ is properly used; however, I am not going to get into a pissing contest with you over a simple word, as it is a distraction from applying the facts to the law regarding the Zimmerman litigation. So, putting that aside, Zimmerman’s very own statements make his purported self-defense claim unrealistic. Thus, there is nothing illogical about any of the prior opinions that I have posted here. Zimmerman made abundantly clear in statements to law enforcement and in his Sean Hannity interview that he “did not know that he had shot” Trayvon Martin. Well, if we take that statement at face value, then it makes any self-defense claim ludicrous because what he is essentially saying is that he did not intend to shoot Trayvon Martin, and acting recklessly without caution puts an individual at risk of either injury or death and can properly be a basis for Second Degree Murder. Every citizen has the responsibility to hold themselves to a standard and act in a reasonable manner towards one another. If that responsibility is violated and there is a conscious intention to harm or hurt another citizen then the violation is considered negligence. In this case, Zimmerman cannot claim self-defense while at the same time essentially saying that he did not intend to shoot Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman’s statement that he did not know he shot Trayvon Martin is laughable because, according to medical records, Trayvon Martin was shot at close range in the chest and Zimmerman claims that Trayvon Martin was on top of him at the time he shot him. How can you shoot someone at close range or a person on top of you and not know that you shot them? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. What does make sense is that Trayvon Martin could not have possibly been on top of Zimmerman as he claims if he did not know that he had shot Trayvon Martin. Certainly if Trayvon Martin was on top of him when he pulled that trigger he would have undoubtedly known that he had shot him and it makes no sense to say otherwise. Thus, Zimmerman’s self-serving statements cannot support a self-defense claim because by his own admission, he did not know he had shot Trayvon Martin which plainly suggests that he shot Trayvon Martin by accident and not because he believed that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm as required to support a self-defense claim.

    Bottom line is: Zimmerman placed his own self into the circumstances that led to the shooting and killing of Trayvon Martin the very the moment he decided to get out of his vehicle and follow Trayvon Martin against the advice of the dispatcher, and under those circumstances, it would be fool-hearty to claim self-defense; particularly when it was him that put the chain of events into motion that led to the ultimate shooting and killing of Trayvon Martin. Thus, Zimmerman must be held criminally accountable for the course of action he chose to take.

    The laws are written by lawmakers, and the people such as judges and lawyers that interpret their laws will almost always have different interpretation of the law. Law Professors tell law students all the time that if the facts are against you, you ponder the law, but if the law is against you, you ponder the facts. In this case, there is a lot of debate of whether the Florida so-called Stand Your Ground statute applies to the facts of this case. The lawmakers of the Florida Stand Your Ground statute however have plainly stated that Zimmerman is not entitled to immunity under that law. They reasoned that Zimmerman lost his immunity under that law the moment he got out of his vehicle to pursue Trayvon Martin against the advice of the dispatcher. That has been my interpretation of that statute all along.

    Whatever the outcome of Zimmerman’s Stand Your Ground defense, there is always the right to appeal and an arguement can be made that the Stand Your Ground statute is ambiguous and therefore unconstitutional on its face. Clearly, applying the statute to the facts of this case would dictate that Zimmerman is not entitled to immunity under the Stand Your Ground statute.

    • We’ve covered pretty much everything you posted here before, except for this statement:

      “Zimmerman lost his immunity under that law the moment he got out of his vehicle to pursue Trayvon Martin against the advice of the dispatcher.”

      If the dispatcher had said, prior to Zimmerman getting out of the vehicle, “we don’t need you to follow him” and Zimmerman did it anyway, your statement would be factual. It is not, however, the case, so your statement is not factual. According to the non-emergency call, when Zimmerman was advised that “we don’t need you” to follow Martin, he was already out of his vehicle and, yet, he complied with, “Okay.” The sounds of pursuit, that are previously heard, begin to die down. indicating that his acknowledgement was then followed up by an action to stop his pursuit. There is no evidence that a chase continued after that point, other than Dee Dee’s statement. The witness that originally said she thought it was two men running recanted her statement and said she really only thinks she saw one man. There is no physical evidence that Zimmerman disregarded the dispatcher. He may have lingered, he may have started walking back to his vehicle, or he may have started looking for Martin again. We really don’t know. The physical evidence suggests there was not a chase, because of the location(s) of the altercation and body.

      Assuming that an average person can walk 675′ in 2 mins and 30 seconds, describe how Martin made it only 120′ from Zimmerman’s truck. Remember that the 2 mins and 30 seconds time frame was when Zimmerman was on his phone with the dispatcher, so Martin was not stopped at 120′ by Zimmerman within that time frame.

      • Devout Player Hater says:

        Apparently you must have not heard the pertinent that of the 911-call that plainly suggests that Zimmerman did in fact continue to follow TM AFTER the dispatcher told him not to.

        At time: 2:23 on the 911 call, dispatch asks Zimmerman, “Are you following him” and Zimmerman replies, “yes”, and at time 2:25 on the 911 call, dispatch plainly states to Zimmerman, “Ok, we don’t need you to do that” and Zimmerman replies, “Ok” but yet he continued to do so. In fact, at time 2:38 on the 911 call ,Zimmerman (after the he suggested to the dispatcher that he was not following Martin), stated “He ran”, clearly indicating that he was still following behind Martin and continued to do so even after dispatch told him not to.

        What is most important is that the voice heard crying for help on the 911 call just before Trayvon Martin was shot to death was not that of George Zimmerman, according to two forensic voice identification experts, one of whom told MSNBC on Sunday that he believes the evidence is strong enough to use in court. “The tests concluded that it’s not the voice of Mr. Zimmerman,” Tom Owen, of Owen Forensic Services LLC and chair emeritus for the American Board of Recorded Evidence, told MSNBC.

        Owen told the Sentinel that he could say with reasonable scientific certainty that it’s not Zimmerman yelling ‘help’ on the 911-call. That’s VERY important because it discredit everything that George Zimmerman has EVER uttered out of his mouth.

        http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/04/01/10963191-trayvon-martin-case-911-call-screams-not-george-zimmermans-2-experts-say?preview=true

      • It is important to note that the dispatch call went on for more than 4 minutes. After the sounds of pursuit die down and Zimmerman says, “he ran” at 2:38, like you said, there is another 90 seconds that goes by. Where is the evidence of a pursuit within those 90 seconds? This is what is needed to corroborate Dee Dee’s version of a continued pursuit.

        Using the now discredited voice “experts” is a reach. The FBI is considered the expert(s) here and they could not determine who the voice belonged to.

    • Lisa says:

      Blinking in awe and adoration of Devout Player Hater.

      • …and I was reading this thinking how much he reminds me of the Energizer bunny run amok. He goes one way, shuffling his feet, banging his little drum crazily and when gently, but firmly turned in the right direction, he runs straight into another obstacle. The author of this blog has the patience of Job, but that’s what is so great about knowledge – the power it affords. GREAT blog Justin my friend.

  15. Devout Player Hater says:

    Zimmerman now wishes to appeal Judge Lester’s denial of his motion for recusal. I am conviced that Mark O’Mara is MONEY hungry. He knows that it costs a WHOLE lot of money to file an appeal because there is a lot involved in appellate work. First, you have to file a timely notice of appeal, then you have to wait months before the appellate court issue a briefing schedule; then after the briefs from both sides are filed and any reply, it will take months before the appellate court render a decision on the sole issue: whether or not Judge Lester abused his discretion in denying Zimmerman’s motion for recusal. Under the fats of the case, it can hardly be said that Judge Lester abused his discretion in denying Zimmerman’s motion because not only was it legally insufficient but it also was wholly without merit. Zimmerman is the one that perpetrated a fraud upon the court and that issue was squarely before Judge Lester at his second bond hearing. O’Mara chose, for whatever reason to argue that Zimmerman acted in self-defense during that hearing but he put forth no evidence whatsoever to support such. Judge Lester acted within the bounds of the law when he addressed the issues Zimmerman raised at the second bond hearing, and the fact that he did so very sternly, does not entitle Zimmerman to ask for a recusal. In fact, this was Zimmerman’s SECOND such motion for recusal and it was in essence a SUCCESSIVE motion, and Judge Lester could have also denied the motion on that basis although he reserved ruling on that issue. Bottom line is a Defendant does not have a constitutional right to request a new trial judge simply because he do not like the way a Judge ruled on a particular issue or the way a Judge wrote his opinion on the issue. If that were the case all criminal defendants would use the recusal mechanism as a vehicle to manipulate the judicial system just as Zimmerman has done from the inception of his criminal prosecution.

    Because Judge Lester DID NOT abuse his discretion in denying Zimmerman’s motion for recusal, the appellate court will affirm Judge Lester’s ruling, and so, Zimmerman will be stuck with Judge Lester. Ironically, Zimmerman did not have a complaint about Judge Lester when he granted him bail his first go around, and in fact, gave him so many extra perks with his bail that normally other criminal defendants do not enjoy. For example, Judge Lester gave Zimmerman a $150,000 bond when Zimmerman was not otherwise entitled to it because of his financial status he deliberately withheld from the Court. And misled the Judege about having only one valid passport. Judge Lester allowed Zimmerman to go into hiding out of the State of Florida pending trial and a whole bunch of other perks.

    Now that Zimmerman’s fraud has been exposed, he wishes to have a new judge preside of his case. That’s non-sense. Zimmerman chose to perpetrate a fraud on the Court and cannot be heard to complain about impartiality. There has been nothing shown, other than Zimmerman’s self-serving statements that raises questions about impartiality.

    • I disagree. As held in Deauville Realty Co v. Tobin and later affirmed in Brown v. St. George Ltd, “A statement by a trial judge that he feels a party has lied in the case is generally regarded as indicating a bias against such party.” Such statements have previously been sufficient grounds for disqualification.

      From the July 5th Bond Order:

      “The Defendant has tried to manipulate the system when he has been presented the opportunity to do so.”

      Manipulation is a form of deceit. To deceive someone is to lie to them.

      If you wish to disagree with this characterization, that is your choice, but it is undeniable that the Judge’s remarks can be seen as a declaration that he believes the Defendant has lied.

      • Devout Player Hater says:

        Judge Lester was within bonds when he wrote that in his July 5, 2012 Order setting Zimmerman’s bond a SECOND time. The sole issue before the Court was whether the Court should set bond in light of the fact that Zimmerman deliberately withheld material facts with the Court, or sat idle and permitted material facts to be mispresented to the Court with regards to his financial status. Judge Lester simply stated that Zimmerman tried to manipulate the system when he has been presented the opportunity to do so. In fact, Zimmerman did manipulate the system because he led Judge Lester to believe that he had no money to post a significant bond, and so his first bond was set at $150,000 when in fact and in truth as Zimmerman then well knew, he had collected over $130,000 in donations, so paying 10% of a $150,000 bond would have made little to no difference and he held on to an active passport. Now, any reasonable Judge would have concerns that the Defendant was preparing to flee the jurisdiction of the Court. For example, Zimmerman is charged with Second Degree Murder which carries life in prison if he is convicted. Zimmerman turned in only one of the two of his passports. He gave the Court the one that had expired but apparently held onto the one that had not expired. Consider that, while at the same time he is continuously getting hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations through the website. Zimmerman could have paid off the entire $150,000 and absconded the jurisdiction of the Court without question, and that is one of the main concerns of Judge Lester and rightly so, because he must be able to see to it that Zimmerman not only gets a fair trial but also remains under the authority or jurisdiction of the Court. There was nothing improper about what Judge Lester wrote in his written Order. It may have sound to stern to Zimmerman and his lawyers as the readers; however, Judge Lester still gave Zimmerman a break and granted him bond a SECOND time. Quite frankly, Zimmerman is lucky that Judge Lester did not impose a criminal contempt and sent him back to jail under a no-bond status. Zimmerman just don’t know when to leave well enough alone. By filing motions and other pleadings try to oust the trial judge allege bias, seems to be an act of barking up the wrong tree.

  16. Devout Player Hater says:

    You stated that “[u]sing the now discredited voice “experts” is a reach. The FBI is considered the expert(s) here and they could not determine who the voice belonged to.”

    There has been nothing whatsoever that discredits what the TWO separate voice “experts” have unequivocally stated, that the voice yelling “help” is not Zimmerman. Moreover, the fact that the FBI could NOTsay that the voice was Zimmerman is important because if the FBI believe that it was Zimmerman’s voice yelling “help”, then clearly they would have said so, but they did not.

    • You haven’t been paying attention then. One of the voice experts simply used his own ears, which I shouldn’t have to tell you is problematic. The other violated standards he espoused in previous interviews as necessary to provide a reliable comparison.

      • I would also like to point out (though) I can no longer provide the links) that Mr. Owens has debunked himself. In the article Devout linked above Mr. Owens states that he used his software in a case this previous January. This case was the Davallo case. If you look it up it will tell you that he only received a 68% match for her. This match was made using a telephone both call made by her so there was no interference and reverberations or other people talking over the subject voice so in my opinion there should have been a greater chance of him making that 90% plus match he mentioned in the interview with the Orlando Sentinel. Mr. Primeau the other expert quoted in the article has retracted his statement also. You can go to his fairly new website and see it. It may still be there, I have not checked it recently though.

  17. Devout Player Hater says:

    As I have been saying and advocating all along, the Stand Your Ground statute simply does not apply to the facts of Zimmerman’s case. In fact, just today, August 13, 2012, George Zimmerman’s very own attorney O’Mara conceded as much in his interview with reporters. According to Mr. O’Mara, in his very own words, “Facts do not seem to support a stand your ground case,” O’Mara said. “I think the facts suggest in this case that what probably happened was my client was reacting to having his nose broken.” See, http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/13/13261830-george-zimmermans-attorney-appeals-judges-decision-to-stay-on-case.

    With regards to O’Mara’s statement that Zimmerman was probably reacting to having his nose broken, there has been NO evidence that Zimmerman’s noise was in fact broken. A careful review of the actual medical report does not even reveal that Zimmerman’s nose was broken. In fact, the only mentioning of a broken nose is Zimmerman telling the Physician Assistant that “he was told he had a broken nose”. The Physiciain Assistant however only noted bruising and swelling.

    The EMS report stated that Zimmerman had “abrasions to his forehead and bleeding/tenderness to his nose, and small laceration to the back of his head. All injuries have minor bleeding.” Thus, Zimmerman’s contention that his nose was broken is unsupported by not only the EMS report but also by the Physician Assistant’s report. The small larceration to the back of Zimmerman’s head could have come from him falling to the ground and hitting his head. Certainly if Trayvon Martin was banging his head into the cement as Zimmerman claimed, there would not just be simply “small lacerations to the back of his head”.

    Bottom line is O’Mara has candidly admitted that the facts DO NOT seem to support a stand your ground case. And if Zimmerman only shot Trayvon Martin on the belief that his nose was broken, then clearly he could not have been justified in shooting and killing Trayvon Martin. What Zimmerman should have done was got up and walked away but rather he found the time to draw his weapon and shoot and kill Trayvon Martin.

    We the Jury, find the Defendant, George Michael Zimmerman, guilty of Second Degree Murder and fix punishment to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

  18. stormreaper says:

    hehe, nice work. [snip]

    • I’m working on a post right now that addresses the Leatherman issue. He may have more followers, but the internet still allows the other side to come through. I edited your comment a bit. I’m sure you don’t mind.

      • This might help in your research http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-supreme-court/1276967.html [snip]

        Moderator: This was sent to spam originally. Not sure why yet. I edited the last part. It is too off-topic.

      • @rnsone says:

        All your posts about Mr.Leatherman are false.I read them and even followed the “links”.BTW, his client in that horrible multiple homicide case at Fort Lewis was the getaway driver,not the murderer as you declare.Still a crime and still complicit in murder but not the actual slasher/stabbed/hacker.

      • The posts regarding Mr. Leatherman are in relation to the discussion we had back and forth on his own blog. I referenced a case he worked on regarding Mr. Darold Stenson. That case has nothing to do with Fort Lewis, nor was there any getaway driver in that case. You’re reviewing the wrong information, which means you didn’t click on any links I provided.

  19. @rnsone says:

    Really you are going to blame the victim TM for going to 7/11? And you actually compare that decision with GZ’s decision not to listen to the police dispatcher? Other than Dershowitz(and who has since backed off,due to tge fact his reasoning was wring),no other prominent legal mind is taking GZ’s side or writing anything in his favor.

    • I have not blamed TM for going to 7/11. In fact, I’ve maintained that the actions prior to the altercation were all legal and to focus on them and not the altercation, as the Prosecution has, is very telling.

      Dershowitz has actually challenged Ms. Corey to a debate regarding her actions after this case is over. He has not backed off in any way. There are many more legal minds that see this as an uphill battle for the State.

      • Devout Player Hater says:

        People are failing to realize one important fact about the GZ case; and that is no matter what the outcome of this case, there are people out there somewhere that has GZ on their radar and their mindset is that if there’s not justice in the judicary system, there’s most certain going to be such justice in the street. In fact, GZ’s own lawyer candidly admitted that there’s public rewards being offered for investigators to locate GZ. GZ,no doubt, is living in fear and that is how he will have to live his life in the United States. As I have said time and time again, GZ should except responsibility and plea guilty at least to manslaughter, down the time and move on with his life. Otherwise, he will never live a normal life without fear that somebody somewhere will be looking for him. But at the same time, there may be some people out there that would rather see him in the exact same circumstances as TM; dead and perhaps this is the reason that GZ’s attorneys fear for his safety and as well as they should be.

      • I can’t speak for others, but I have not failed to realize this possibility. I believe members of the community that are outraged by whatever verdict will think of their own lives and family before doing something criminal. Those that do decide to act criminally would have probably done so anyways and they just wanted this as an excuse. Regardless of the public’s reaction, the justice system has a duty to those before it to ignore the cries of some in the public.

  20. I guess there was a response to me that I didn’t see and I guess I am glad I didn’t LOL. Iwas thinking of soemthing else pertaining to that phone call with the NEN when I decided to check my email and read the edited response to me. What I was thinking about was how my cell phone has a tendency to echo sometimes when I am on the phone. I don’t know if that would come up and be recorded on a conversation with them. I am aware that sometimes, not always, that the party I am talking to also hears it until I move to another area. I haven’t been able to figure out why it does this and haven’t really been too concerned with it, but I thought it may be a reason it sounds like my keys are in my truck as an under the breath type of thing. the keys are in my truck could have been an echo of you’ll see my truck. IDK but I thought it may be a possibility, and I wonder if that could be proven in anyway.

    • Okay I have stated the thing here that have run through my mind as to what George says when you stated the possibility of it being “the keys are in my truck” or “he’s running down that street” or if it was just an echo. To my mind none of them fit and here is why. I also kept listening to the part where after he stopped running and right after he says his last name and the tapping sound first starts. He says “Sh$t, stupid flashlight.” He continues with the dispatcher and the “You’ll see my truck” part occurs. Then Sean interrupts him again, and it is an interruption because George Isn’t muttering when he says it. He is saying “a Honda Ridgline truck” He stated that he described his truck remember and I was wondering why no one ever addressed that as an inconsistency before. If you get an expert try that one on for size. It fits. That I sound kept bothering me and it wouldn’t reconcile in my mind so I kept trying and trying until I could make it reconcile. Same amount of syllables and actually fits the sounds better. This is my opinion and it is the ONLY thing that makes sense fully in my mind.

      • Deborah,

        I would say there are many possibilities. I also think that they all end up being irrelevant to the case and I don’t expect the Prosecution to focus any kind of time on this part of the call.

        The biggest inconsistency with Zimmerman’s call and his reenactments is the circling of his truck by Martin. From the dispatch call, you get the impression that Martin started walking from the clubhouse and walked toward Zimmerman, while Zimmerman was stationary in his truck. In the reenactment, you learn that Zimmerman says he wasn’t stationary and eventually drove to the corner of Twin Trees and stopped. Martin allegedly came back from the “T” and circled Zimmerman’s truck before heading back down to the “T” again. There is a part in the call, where the dispatcher asks if Martin is near the clubhouse and Zimmerman says, “yeah”. This may not have been the case. If you listen to the call, the dispatcher actually asks a compound question and it is not exactly clear which one Zimmerman answers:

        Dispatcher: Ok–you said it’s 1111 Retreat View? or 111?

        Zimmerman: That’s the clubhouse…

        Dispatcher: That’s the clubhouse, do you know what the–he’s near the clubhouse right now?

        Zimmerman: Yeah, now he’s coming towards me.

        It sounds like Zimmerman answered the “he’s near the clubhouse right now” part, but I think it could be argued that he was actually answering the “that’s the clubhouse” part, which could eliminate the inconsistency about Martin returning, but there would still be an inconsistency about the description of circling the truck, since Zimmerman never described that occurring on the dispatch call.

      • I can agree with that, about the inconsistency and the answers to the questions. I just had to post it here because I had mentioned them before. To my mind and a few others when I brought it to them that this is what he said, or very near. Ridgeline truck was most consistent to the 5 people I took it to and all agreed with the flashlight part. The worst part is that the dispatcher talks considerably faster than Georges brain works and he interrupts George several times. This is unfortunate. Serino was also known for this IMO.

  21. Shower Time says:

    Liking the recent changes you’ve made mate!!

  22. Thanks for another informative web site. Where else could I am getting that type of information written in such an ideal means? I have a undertaking that I am just now running on, and I have been at the glance out for such info.

  23. sportsbet says:

    I don’t even know the way I stopped up right here, but I believed this post was great. I do not understand who you might be however definitely you are going to a famous blogger in the event you are not already. Cheers!

  24. vitamin says:

    This is just the kind of thing I’ve been rummaging for! Excellent and thanks very much!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s