Ultimately, I believe that Zimmerman will plead to a Manslaughter charge.
I
seriously doubt he's going to take a plea. Even if it was in his best interests to, he has already shown a predilection for demanding his side be heard when he took the stand in the bond hearing.
He has some areas of jeopardy that were realized by the original detective on the case.
This is true. So how's it going to go over with the jury when the SA that made the decision to overrule that detective's wish to bring charges is brought as a witness for the
defense to counter whatever he has to say? I'd say the SA trumps the detective on that point.
Zimmerman does have a "history" of making unfavorable comments. On Myspace he used profanity laced, aggressive, language to communicate his feelings. His attorney O'Mara coomments as follows: "A statement posted on a Zimmerman defense site run by O’Mara concedes that the comments “will cast Mr. Zimmerman in a less-than-favorable light. O'Mara even concedes it could be used as evidence in the case. His statement says there will be no comment on the MySpace statements for that reason."
Martin has a web-presence history too, and there's at least one source out there that claims to have screen-capped some of his writings before FaceBook and/or his family and/or Corey scrubbed it literally out of existence that purports to show he knew of Zimmerman long before the events that led to his death, and had plans ahead of time to harass him. I can't authenticate the screen-cap, but surely O'Mara can with the help of the Court issuing subpoenas, and if it is authenticated to a jury's satisfaction, that's Check, and Check Mate for the Defense.
Even absent that questionable source though, Martin's social media activities don't put him in a particularly likable light either. That's probably a wash in the jury's eyes.
The case will be decided on Zimmerman leaving his car and his actions up to the altercation with Martin.
Absolutely false. Unless and until someone comes up with a statute that codifies the state viewing simply following someone as a threat to their well-being in and of itself, then only the altercation will be considered, not the decision to leave the car and follow. The only thing that could change that is if an unknown witness shows up at trial who says they saw or heard aggressive actions/words from Zimmerman. If all Corey can do is establish that there was some period of time that Zimmerman followed Martin, but that no interaction took place during that time, I doubt leaving the car or following will be more than an insignificant factoid in the trial. It definitely won't be an element she needs to establish any of the crimes he's charged with, unless some never-before-known statute magically appears from the State Archives basement.
If he had not left the car and waited for LEO's then there is a different ending.
I believe this is true. That doesn't, however, make it illegal to follow at a distance and observe someone you think is acting suspicious.
A jury will be presented the fact that Martin was pursued by an unknown aggressive acting person, in the dark and close to his home.
And where will the
evidence to establish this so-called
fact come from? The only person who we know about that heard the first words spoken between the two men is Martin's girlfriend, who says that
Martin spoke the first words. She reported him saying something to the effect of, "You got a problem?" She also reported hearing the man he was talking to say, "No, I don't have a problem." Sounds real "aggressive" doesn't it though? So far, this young woman is the
only publically-known source for who contacted whom first and in what manner. You really need to be able to distinguish between fact, probability, and pure conjecture.
He had every right to defend himself from bodily harm.
Not unless he was actually threatened with bodily harm he didn't. "No, I don't have a problem" doesn't come anywhere close to establishing such a basic threshold for the legal use of violent action on Martin's part, and does even less to suggest that Zimmerman initiated the violence.
There are poor quality cell phone recordings that depict someone asking for help. These could play a huge role in a jury trial.
Uh, yeah, there are the recordings. But there's also
an eye-witness who puts Zimmerman ("...the guy on the bottom, who I believe had a red sweater on...") on the bottom and Martin, "The person who was on top, beating up the other guy." That witness was only feet away from the fight. He has "moderated" his version of events since the incident, but the "beating up the other guy" by Martin utterance was made less than 24 hours after the fight while it was as fresh as it was ever going to be in his mind.
As I said in a previous post, Martin's own father
excluded Trayvon as the source of the voice screaming for help when the cops played the the tapes they had from different sources for him.
Whatever the outcome, it is not worth destroying your life over.
And let me guess.....Just like the Waffle House shooting, this is going to ruin Zimmerman's life because of the financial costs associated with using a gun, even in a legal case of self-defense, right? SGB posted the statute just a few posts back. I'd check on that if I were you.
Now, if you're past that, and are only referring to the potential for the psychological costs of killing another human being, you might be right. That's between Zimmerman, his doctors, his family support system and God. Some people's lives are ruined by that kind of cost, and some aren't. That's not what any of us need to determine though. We're talking about the legalities involved in this case, not the psychology of the aftermath.
Blues
