The trial of George Zimmerman

[Firefighterchen]

Until the power goes out. I'm probably what you'd consider an older generation, but I'm quite familiar with technology. I make my living working with it. But unlike the newest generation, I also make my living by knowing what to do when the technology stops working. So keep relying solely on all that new technology, and we'll see who's blind when the lights go out.

I dunno, how old are you?

I would consider myself part of the newest generation. I too am quite familiar with technology and how to make it work when the power goes out. Unlike the older generation, when the technology does work and evolves, we can naturally figure it out, but I don't mind teaching the older generation how to check their Facebook. So keep relying on the newest generation to help the lost...That is until Facebook shuts down.

 

[BluesStringer]

The FL state firearms expert that just got done testifying should have the jurors thoroughly confused about the Kel-Tec PF9 by now. Both Guy (prosecutor) and O'Mara are partially responsible for that, but O'Mara especially asked a series of questions about "trigger pull" as it relates to amount of force in lbs. it takes to fire the weapon, and interchanged those questions with "length of travel" questions in relation to how a double-action-only weapon needs to have the trigger pulled for it's full length of travel for each shot fired. So the point he was trying to make was that the PF9 requires a full-pull for every shot, as opposed to a SA whose trigger break is much shorter. He never made that point though, and the "expert" never corrected him when he said that, instead of the length of pull being significantly different in SA configuration, the force required to fire a SA is significantly lower. That simply isn't true, at least not unless the weapon has had a trigger job performed on it.

I have no clue why this "expert" was even necessary. Both sides should've been able to stipulate to how the weapon operates and that it was indeed the weapon that blew the holes in the pieces of clothing she tested. All her testimony could conceivably do is confuse the jury on how a DA-only vs. SA trigger mechanism works, and that confusion could lead to the jury thinking that it takes less effort to fire the PF9 than it does, say, a 1911 or whatever.

Bottom line: At least with this witness, every person in the court room involved in any discussions while she was on the stand, including the "expert" herself, to the judge to the prosecutor to the defense attorney, are total idiots when it comes to DA-only firearms. Everybody would have appeared much smarter to people who know about firearms if they'd have just stipulated to what she was there to testify about. That being, the gun was a PF9, it was in good working order, it fired the bullet that made the holes in the two garments she tested and was in contact with the top layer, and that's it, thank you and have a nice life. You're excused!

Blues

 

[BC1]

He wasn't trying to approach Martin. He wasn't trying to follow him, at least not in the sense of going to the same location Martin was going.
.
Zimmerman wasn't carrying a gun as part of his watch program, so it's disingenious to try and tie that in where there is no connection.
.
And identifying yourself is not part of any neighborhood watch program. I used to run a neighborhood watch. We were supposed to make no contact with those observed at all, so identification would never be an issue.
.
Are you serious? You actually think Zimmerman was trying to defend someone's property when he shot Martin? Or do you think it wasn't worth it for him to save his own life?
.
When my head is getting bashed in? You're da&n right! Maybe your head is hard enough that you'd just ignore the attack. I'm not that stupid.

Points, in order:
.
No one knows why he walked about that area. No one will ever know. I find it hard to believe he didn't know the name of the street in a gated community with five streets, where he lives and runs the watch program. I already stated it's not illegal to follow someone in or about a public or private place unless the intent is to cause alarm, annoyance or threat. Following, shadowing, observing... a turd by any other name still smells bad. While not illegal, also not prudent behavior. Let LE find him. If these "punks" always get away that's not your problem, it's LE's.
.
He wasn't carrying a gun specifically for his watch program. But he was carrying a gun during this particular watch-related incident, thus the lawsuit against the HOA was settled.
.
ID? Well, what's legal isn't always smart. There should be an ID if the HOA supports the program in a gated community. Anything that deters an incident is beneficial. Was it worth the $2 cost of an ID? Was it not prudent to de-escalate an enraged Martin by identifying one's self? Isn't that why we teach these topics... to prevent an incident from getting out of hand? The ID isn't only for the perp, it's also so the residents know who you are.
.
Regarding his purpose, he was acting in a manner that promotes neighborhood safety and security. He was very engaged in his program. Is it wise to do this without proper training and licensing? In some states even a bar bouncer needs a security license.
.
Banging your head? Already too late to argue about proper self-defense. In such a situation if the perp got that close you already failed regarding the primary defensive actions. We're talking about this particular incident, not every incident. There could be times when a random, unprovoked attack puts one in that situation. But this isn't one of them.
.
.
Personally, I think Martin ran and looped around the block, popping-up with intent to surprise GZ from behind the condos. Thus GZ was likely the victim.

 

[BluesStringer]

All the media outlets I've heard today (Fox, HLN and CNN) have said they expect Trayvon's mom to testify today. The prosecution said a little bit ago that they intended to wrap up their case in chief today, so logically, I guess if the media has it right, Ms. Fulton will be their last witness.

My question for any lawyers or LEOs or anyone else with a lot of first-hand knowledge of the inner workings of the courts, what could Ms. Fulton possibly contribute to the guilt-phase of this trial? She wasn't there in Sanford that night. She has zero first-hand knowledge of the events that night. I guess the purpose for her being called that the prosecution is planning is that she will ostensibly identify the voice on the 911 tape yelling for help as that of Trayvon's, but, among other problems with that assertion, the prosecution's own expert voice analysis witness said that it would be impossible to identify that voice to any level of reliable certainty. Aside from that, the only eye and ear-witness to the fight itself, already identified Zimmerman as the one pleading for help. So with all the mistakes the prosecution has made so far, they're now going to call the kid's mom to get her emotional testimony in that will contradict another one of their own witnesses who saw and heard actual facts of the case being tried? Does this make any sense to anybody? And if it doesn't, and if you were on the jury, would you not question what the heck is going on with calling the kid's mom who has no first-hand knowledge of anything? If I were a juror, though I would maintain the deepest empathy for the mom's loss, I would see such a move as bringing her to the stand as an act of desperation for a prosecution that knows they have blown a case that never should've been brought.

Blues

 

[gejoslin]

All the media outlets I've heard today (Fox, HLN and CNN) have said they expect Trayvon's mom to testify today. The prosecution said a little bit ago that they intended to wrap up their case in chief today, so logically, I guess if the media has it right, Ms. Fulton will be their last witness.

My question for any lawyers or LEOs or anyone else with a lot of first-hand knowledge of the inner workings of the courts, what could Ms. Fulton possibly contribute to the guilt-phase of this trial? She wasn't there in Sanford that night. She has zero first-hand knowledge of the events that night. I guess the purpose for her being called that the prosecution is planning is that she will ostensibly identify the voice on the 911 tape yelling for help as that of Trayvon's, but, among other problems with that assertion, the prosecution's own expert voice analysis witness said that it would be impossible to identify that voice to any level of reliable certainty. Aside from that, the only eye and ear-witness to the fight itself, already identified Zimmerman as the one pleading for help. So with all the mistakes the prosecution has made so far, they're now going to call the kid's mom to get her emotional testimony in that will contradict another one of their own witnesses who saw and heard actual facts of the case being tried? Does this make any sense to anybody? And if it doesn't, and if you were on the jury, would you not question what the heck is going on with calling the kid's mom who has no first-hand knowledge of anything? If I were a juror, though I would maintain the deepest empathy for the mom's loss, I would see such a move as bringing her to the stand as an act of desperation for a prosecution that knows they have blown a case that never should've been brought.

Blues

Well you know, he was SUCH a GOOD BOY! He was good to his mommy and he was just getting his life together.:sarcastic::bad: You know all the same crap they always say about these kids who bite off more that they can chew and ended up dead for their troubles. :drag:
I'm truly sorry for his mom and dad, they're the victims in this whole thing. :sad: That is if GZ gets off.

 

[BC1]

All the media outlets I've heard today (Fox, HLN and CNN) have said they expect Trayvon's mom to testify today. The prosecution said a little bit ago that they intended to wrap up their case in chief today, so logically, I guess if the media has it right, Ms. Fulton will be their last witness.

My question for any lawyers or LEOs or anyone else with a lot of first-hand knowledge of the inner workings of the courts, what could Ms. Fulton possibly contribute to the guilt-phase of this trial? She wasn't there in Sanford that night. She has zero first-hand knowledge of the events that night. I guess the purpose for her being called that the prosecution is planning is that she will ostensibly identify the voice on the 911 tape yelling for help as that of Trayvon's, but, among other problems with that assertion, the prosecution's own expert voice analysis witness said that it would be impossible to identify that voice to any level of reliable certainty. Aside from that, the only eye and ear-witness to the fight itself, already identified Zimmerman as the one pleading for help. So with all the mistakes the prosecution has made so far, they're now going to call the kid's mom to get her emotional testimony in that will contradict another one of their own witnesses who saw and heard actual facts of the case being tried? Does this make any sense to anybody? And if it doesn't, and if you were on the jury, would you not question what the heck is going on with calling the kid's mom who has no first-hand knowledge of anything? If I were a juror, though I would maintain the deepest empathy for the mom's loss, I would see such a move as bringing her to the stand as an act of desperation for a prosecution that knows they have blown a case that never should've been brought.

Blues

Thinking the exact same thing Blues. She'll want to testify that it's her son screaming on the 911 tape. But... if her son is on top (according to witness Mr. Cook) and hitting GZ why would he be screaming so emotionally for help? I think the prosecutor is looking for the sympathy factor from an all-female jury. Perhaps appealing to motherly instinct. While I started this case with an open mind I'm now convinced this was a teen punk with no understanding of the real-world options available to the rest of us when attacked. His bravado and inexperience got him killed. Perhaps he didn't know delivering such a beating could invoke a deadly force reaction from his victim.

 

[BC1]

The FL state firearms expert that just got done testifying should have the jurors thoroughly confused about the Kel-Tec PF9 by now. Both Guy (prosecutor) and O'Mara are partially responsible for that, but O'Mara especially asked a series of questions about "trigger pull" as it relates to amount of force in lbs. it takes to fire the weapon, and interchanged those questions with "length of travel" questions in relation to how a double-action-only weapon needs to have the trigger pulled for it's full length of travel for each shot fired. So the point he was trying to make was that the PF9 requires a full-pull for every shot, as opposed to a SA whose trigger break is much shorter. He never made that point though, and the "expert" never corrected him when he said that, instead of the length of pull being significantly different in SA configuration, the force required to fire a SA is significantly lower. That simply isn't true, at least not unless the weapon has had a trigger job performed on it.

I have no clue why this "expert" was even necessary. Both sides should've been able to stipulate to how the weapon operates and that it was indeed the weapon that blew the holes in the pieces of clothing she tested. All her testimony could conceivably do is confuse the jury on how a DA-only vs. SA trigger mechanism works, and that confusion could lead to the jury thinking that it takes less effort to fire the PF9 than it does, say, a 1911 or whatever.

Bottom line: At least with this witness, every person in the court room involved in any discussions while she was on the stand, including the "expert" herself, to the judge to the prosecutor to the defense attorney, are total idiots when it comes to DA-only firearms. Everybody would have appeared much smarter to people who know about firearms if they'd have just stipulated to what she was there to testify about. That being, the gun was a PF9, it was in good working order, it fired the bullet that made the holes in the two garments she tested and was in contact with the top layer, and that's it, thank you and have a nice life. You're excused!

Blues

Basically what's the difference what the trigger pull is. I pulled it sufficiently to fire and stop the attack. I loved the part when she said "may I point it in a safe direction and show you?" She points at the wall behind her and pulls the trigger. My wife, who's sitting there with this confused look says "meanwhile, Gladys is having her lunch behind the wall." I spit out my coffee.

 

[BluesStringer]

Basically what's the difference what the trigger pull is.

It will come out in closing arguments that he chose the PF9 because it had no external safety and kept a round in the chamber so it took the least amount of effort possible to fire it. In other words, "Ladies of the jury, this murderous maniac just couldn't wait to pull the trigger on one of those a-holes who always gets away! He couldn't even wait as long as it took to disengage a safety!"

At least that's where I think they were going with that, though I think it's weak as all get-out. My wife, if she were on that jury, could explain exactly why that's so weak. It would only take one juror who had the rudimentary knowledge of carrying to umm....shoot holes in that theory!

Earlier in the trial, the HOA Prez got off on a tangent about how Zimmerman didn't have the external safety on his gun engaged. Nobody objected! Who the heck was he to be testifying about the workings of weapons??? He didn't have the first clue of what he was talking about.

I pulled it sufficiently to fire and stop the attack. I loved the part when she said "may I point it in a safe direction and show you?" She points at the wall behind her and pulls the trigger. My wife, who's sitting there with this confused look says "meanwhile, Gladys is having her lunch behind the wall." I spit out my coffee.

Yep, as the judge was telling her Bailiff to make sure the weapon was safe, I wondered if she'd ever seen that FBI agent who blew a hole in his foot while giving a firearms safety class to high school students (I think - it might have been college kids, whatever). I don't remember ever seeing or hearing of a firearms expert (or any other kind of witness for that matter) pulling a trigger and dropping the hammer in open court before. How "expert" can an expert witness be if they can't explain for the jury how the weapon functions with words and/or exhibits? Has that "firearms expert" never heard of the Four Cardinal Rules of Firearms Safety?

Really strange goings-on down there in Sanford, FL.

Blues

 

[jcreek]

All the media outlets I've heard today (Fox, HLN and CNN) have said they expect Trayvon's mom to testify today. The prosecution said a little bit ago that they intended to wrap up their case in chief today, so logically, I guess if the media has it right, Ms. Fulton will be their last witness.

My question for any lawyers or LEOs or anyone else with a lot of first-hand knowledge of the inner workings of the courts, what could Ms. Fulton possibly contribute to the guilt-phase of this trial? She wasn't there in Sanford that night. She has zero first-hand knowledge of the events that night. I guess the purpose for her being called that the prosecution is planning is that she will ostensibly identify the voice on the 911 tape yelling for help as that of Trayvon's, but, among other problems with that assertion, the prosecution's own expert voice analysis witness said that it would be impossible to identify that voice to any level of reliable certainty. Aside from that, the only eye and ear-witness to the fight itself, already identified Zimmerman as the one pleading for help. So with all the mistakes the prosecution has made so far, they're now going to call the kid's mom to get her emotional testimony in that will contradict another one of their own witnesses who saw and heard actual facts of the case being tried? Does this make any sense to anybody? And if it doesn't, and if you were on the jury, would you not question what the heck is going on with calling the kid's mom who has no first-hand knowledge of anything? If I were a juror, though I would maintain the deepest empathy for the mom's loss, I would see such a move as bringing her to the stand as an act of desperation for a prosecution that knows they have blown a case that never should've been brought.

Blues

The prosecution has blown it at every possible turn in this case, and the only thing they are succeeding at is proving that charges should have never been filed. The only reason they ever were is because somebody was playing politics and caved to minority pressure screaming hate crime.

 

[jcreek]

Yep, as the judge was telling her Bailiff to make sure the weapon was safe, I wondered if she'd ever seen that FBI agent who blew a hole in his foot while giving a firearms safety class to high school students (I think - it might have been college kids, whatever). I don't remember ever seeing or hearing of a firearms expert (or any other kind of witness for that matter) pulling a trigger and dropping the hammer in open court before. How "expert" can an expert witness be if they can't explain for the jury how the weapon functions with words and/or exhibits? Has that "firearms expert" never heard of the Four Cardinal Rules of Firearms Safety?

Really strange goings-on down there in Sanford, FL.

Blues

It was actually DEA agent and I'm pretty sure they were elementary school kids. It went something like "People accidentally shoot themselves everyday. I am the only one in this class responsible enough to be handling this gun!" BANG!! Arrogance got the better of the fool. I'd be willing to be there were at least two or three kids in that classroom that had better firearms handling skills than he did.

 

[Stengun]

Howdy,

Personally, I think Martin ran and looped around the block, popping-up with intent to surprise GZ from behind the condos. Thus GZ was likely the victim.

George "claims" he got out of his vehicle to find a street sign because he didn't know where he was in a small gated community with only 5 streets where he had lived for years, was the Sheriff of the community, went on patrols several times a day and could see his townhouse from where he was but he didn't know what street he was on at the time.

But Martin,a 17yo boy without any type of training, who had only been there a couple of days knew the "lay of the land" well enough that he was able to circle around and ambush George in the dark, with it drizzling rain.

If you truly believe this send a PM my way because I want to talk to you about a real estate deal that involves ocean front property in Flagstaff, AZ.

Paul

 

[Stengun]

Howdy,

So then how do they write a check or sign their name?

The same way they did before cursive writing. A lot of people do not use cursive writing, especially outside the USA.

I myself use it very little and in fact I use all capital print for all the handwriting that I do. It's just one of the many things that are left over from writing logs and reports while in the military.

Paul

 

[BluesStringer]

Howdy,



George "claims" he got out of his vehicle to find a street sign because he didn't know where he was in a small gated community with only 5 streets where he had lived for years, was the Sheriff of the community, went on patrols several times a day and could see his townhouse from where he was but he didn't know what street he was on at the time.

But Martin,a 17yo boy without any type of training, who had only been there a couple of days knew the "lay of the land" well enough that he was able to circle around and ambush George in the dark, with it drizzling rain.

If you truly believe this send a PM my way because I want to talk to you about a real estate deal that involves ocean front property in Flagstaff, AZ.

Paul

I don't do PMs in relation to discussions going on in public. That said, I have questions about Zimmerman's actions that night, but here's the deal: Unless one can prove to a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was the aggressor (not just someone following and/or observing), he gets the benefit of the doubt and walks. This thread is about the trial, and that is the #1 consideration of any trial in America, or at least it's supposed to be. Can the state meet its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and if it can't, can the jury leave emotion and conjecture out of it, apply the law and give the defendant the benefit of that reasonable doubt? If the answer to either one of those questions is "No," then this trial is a sham, and since reasonable doubt is literally screaming out of the nation's televisions on a daily basis, that's exactly what this trial is.

Blues

 

[Kramer1113]

Getting a little off subject but...
Lesson #1, Mr. Zimmerman might have had his brains bashed in and weapon stolen if he had not kept a round in the chamber.
Lesson #2, the gun never went off until Mr. Zimmerman wanted it to. (For all those who worry about premature discharge).

 

[BC1]

It will come out in closing arguments that he chose the PF9 because it had no external safety and kept a round in the chamber so it took the least amount of effort possible to fire it. In other words, "Ladies of the jury, this murderous maniac just couldn't wait to pull the trigger on one of those a-holes who always gets away! He couldn't even wait as long as it took to disengage a safety!"

Blues

A good argument for the defense would be to compare the Keltec to LEO carrying Glocks with no external safety. Or even revolvers. When they asked the firearm expert to explain "semi-auto" she said "when you pull the trigger it fires once." What? Isn't that also a revolver?

 

[BC1]

Howdy,



George "claims" he got out of his vehicle to find a street sign because he didn't know where he was in a small gated community with only 5 streets where he had lived for years, was the Sheriff of the community, went on patrols several times a day and could see his townhouse from where he was but he didn't know what street he was on at the time.

But Martin,a 17yo boy without any type of training, who had only been there a couple of days knew the "lay of the land" well enough that he was able to circle around and ambush George in the dark, with it drizzling rain.

If you truly believe this send a PM my way because I want to talk to you about a real estate deal that involves ocean front property in Flagstaff, AZ.

Paul

If you look back you'll see I posted the same questions. How could GZ not know where he was? Watching the testimony of the two investigators regarding GZ's interview, he lost sight of TM who ran. When he returned he claims TM popped out on him. Looking at te map and the notes written on it by investigators, the only way TM got back there was to go around the building.
.
No sir, don't want real-estate in Arizona (hot place). Already have a beachside vacation condo in FL (hot, wet place).

 

[BluesStringer]

If you look back you'll see I posted the same questions. How could GZ not know where he was? Watching the testimony of the two investigators regarding GZ's interview, he lost sight of TM who ran. When he returned he claims TM popped out on him. Looking at te map and the notes written on it by investigators, the only way TM got back there was to go around the building.

I don't agree that was the "only" way TM could've concealed himself for two reasons. One, if he had gone around the building, he would've had to pass the apartment he was staying in, where his dad and his fiance and her son were waiting for him to come back and watch the NBA All-Star Game. It's actually a pretty far hike to go that way. I don't know if there's a GZ account about how far behind TM he actually was, but I do think that TM wasn't so far ahead that he wouldn't have to run pretty hard to get back to GZ in the much shorter time it would've taken him to get back to the "T" in the sidewalk. Take a look at Link Removed where the fiance's apartment is marked to see how far Martin would've had to go to get all the way around the building.

Two, neither Zimmerman nor the friend-girl that TM was talking on the phone with said anything about TM being out of breath when they first met up and the short exchange before the fight started. The girl said that supposedly TM was headed back to the fiance's apartment at her urging, which obviously isn't true because of where the initial meet-up is proven to have happened.

I think it's most likely that Martin either hid in some nearby bushes as GZ perceived all along, or he just blended into the darkness against a wall or behind a pillar on a porch or patio or whatever. He likely watched GZ go to the far street, turn around and head back towards his truck, and maybe he thought he would be seen with GZ facing that direction and decided to expose himself rather than be backed against a wall or otherwise in limited space from which to move, fight or run or whatever.

I have never discounted the possibility that Martin felt threatened by being followed, nor do I think that would be an unreasonable feeling to have, anymore than someone coming out of the darkness and demanding to know why you're following me MF'er might cause GZ to immediately take a defensive attitude. As I've said before, both of these guys just grossly misunderstood each other, and neither had the wherewithal to discern how their own actions might appear threatening to the other. That's the anatomy of a justifiable, self-defense killing to me, though nonetheless sad and tragic, and I sincerely hope everybody takes to heart the many lessons available to them from it.

Blues

 

[K7lvo]

Howdy,



George "claims" he got out of his vehicle to find a street sign because he didn't know where he was in a small gated community with only 5 streets where he had lived for years, was the Sheriff of the community, went on patrols several times a day and could see his townhouse from where he was but he didn't know what street he was on at the time.

But Martin,a 17yo boy without any type of training, who had only been there a couple of days knew the "lay of the land" well enough that he was able to circle around and ambush George in the dark, with it drizzling rain.

If you truly believe this send a PM my way because I want to talk to you about a real estate deal that involves ocean front property in Flagstaff, AZ.

Paul

You can know where you're at, and not be able to tell someone else where you're at. We think in pictures, not words, so, In fact, the more familiar we are with an area, the less apt we are to remember street names and the like.

 

[Gallstones]

A good argument for the defense would be to compare the Keltec to LEO carrying Glocks with no external safety. Or even revolvers. When they asked the firearm expert to explain "semi-auto" she said "when you pull the trigger it fires once." What? Isn't that also a revolver?

True of every non-auto firearm--yes?. :tongue:

 

[r1derbike]

You can know where you're at, and not be able to tell someone else where you're at. We think in pictures, not words, so, In fact, the more familiar we are with an area, the less apt we are to remember street names and the like.

Ironically, this happens to me a lot. I know my area, my address, and I may go a block over or wherever, and can't remember the names of the streets just a few blocks away, and travel them constantly.

I have very little trouble remembering the names of streets and areas I visit rarely.

It's almost like actors when they over rehearse their lines, and when it's time, they are "up", as they call it. Not able to remember the lines.

Not sure if this has any relevance to the discussion at hand, but not remembering too common names or areas does happen to me.

It's almost like the brain blocks this info, because it is so repetitive in nature; a brain fart.

I'm sure a brain specialist could explain the mechanism. Old age in my case.