PROSECUTION'S CASE
Trayvon martin walked to the store to grab some candy and a drink.
On the way back to his parent's house (or step parents), he was profiled by Zimmerman based solely on his attire and race for simply walking in his neighborhood.
Zimmerman was a "wannabe cop" who had taken criminal justice classes in the past, applied to be a cop, and started the neighborhood watch program.
There had been several recent instances of burglaries and other crimes in the neighborhood. Zimmerman was fed up with the criminals getting away, as evidenced by his statements "fuckin punks" and "assholes" muttered to himself while on the phone with the non-emergency dispatcher.
Fed up with these criminals, Zimmerman profiled Trayvon, and wasn't about to let him get away. Zimmerman followed him in his truck, until he lost sight of him. Then he proceeded to get out of his vehicle and again follow/chase down/stalk Trayvon like a vigilante.
The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following the person (Trayvon). Zimmerman said yes. Dispatcher said "We don't need you to do that". Zimmerman replied "OK", but chose to do so anyway.
Zimmerman chased Trayvon down a walking path between houses.
He caught up with Trayvon and started a confrontation. This ended with Zimmerman shooting Trayvon in cold blood all as a result of him trying to take the law into his own hands, or seek revenge for the past neighborhood crimes on someone he thought was a criminal.
Note about the above point: It's intentionally vague, because the prosecution was extremely vague about it because they didn't have a lot of evidence to support an exact scenario of how the confrontation began. The defense had their (Zimmerman's) version which I will point out below, but without an exact scenario to rely on, the prosecution mainly relied on rhetorical questions like "is that really what happened?" and tried to pick apart Zimmerman's statement. They said unfortunately Trayvon wasn't here to give his side of the story and this is all George's fault (which is true to a degree, but not evidence of anything). They argued that Zimmerman's past behavior on its own was enough to prove he started the confrontation.
Note 2: Also they went back and forth dozens of times in the trial depending on witnesses and evidence trying to prove how the gunshot happened. They argued Zimmerman could have shot him any possible way, then they argued Zimmerman was on top, then they argued Zimmerman was on bottom but wasn't in fear of his life, then they argued Zimmerman was on bottom but Trayvon was in the process of backing off and yelling "help" when he saw the gun. They really didn't have the evidence on their side here, so they just intentionally laid seeds of doubt over every aspect of the evidence and Zimmerman's story instead of arguing one provable or most likely scenario. This also applies to most of the events of the evening since they didn't have a secondary account of the events to rely on beyond Zimmerman's.
When Zimmerman was questioned by police, he used his knowledge of the law to try to pass off his fabricated story about what happened. He knew exactly what to say to not get charged or convicted. Zimmerman was a liar, and thought he was smart enough to trick the police into believing his story. There are discrepancies in his story, and this proves he is a liar and guilty.
DEFENSE'S CASE
Trayvon walking home from store.
Zimmerman is an upstanding member of the neighborhood. History of helping neighbors and reporting crimes as part of neighborhood watch without incident in the past.
Trayvon is acting suspicious. Zimmerman sees him and calls the non-emergency police to report this. Zimmerman says Trayvon is standing/walking through front yards looking through windows; one of which is a house or next to a house that has been recently burgled. It's raining hard which makes Zim more suspicious of Trayvon's stopping and casual wandering.
Zimmerman tells dispatcher "he looks black" (when he was asked about his race), "This guy's up to something" "On drugs or something". (latter 2 quotes are from memory).
Zim proceeds to drive by and then parks at housing clubhouse, then continues toward Trayvon to keep his eyes on him to tell the dispatcher where police should go. Trayvon goes by and "checks him out" looking at him in his truck.
Shortly after, Trayvon starts to run/jog away and disappears down the walkway between houses. Zimmerman gets out of car and goes down walkway to get the address of the next street over to tell police where to go. Zimmerman passes the T intersection Trayvon had turned off down another sidewalk, and continues down path to the next street over. At the next street, Zimmerman ends the police call and begins walking back to his truck.
In the process, Trayvon meets back up with him at the T intersection that he had turned down, having either waited for Zimmerman, or came back to confront him.
Trayvon says "What's your [fucking] problem?" Zimmerman says "I don't got a problem". Trayvon may have said something else, but then immediately punched Zimmerman in the face and knocked him down/back. (Quotes are from memory)
Fight ensues. Trayvon ends up "mounting" Zimmerman and begins to punch him in the face repeatedly, and slam his head on the concrete sidewalk. Zimmerman fears for his life. Screams help multiple times. Zimmerman finally able to get his gun out of his waistband and shoot Trayvon once in the torso in self defense. Most witness testimony backs this up.
Zimmerman calmly awaits police arrival and surrenders himself. (that last part isn't really disputed by prosecution).
Trayvon must have been upset that Zimmerman was following him. Told his female friend on the phone a creepy guy was behind him. When Trayvon ended the call he said he was going to run home, and at that point 4 minutes elapsed between that statement and the time the fight began (based on evidence, give or take a few seconds). Trayvon was less than 100 yards from home at that point. Meaning he had 4 minutes to travel/"run" less than 100 yards, unless he either chose to hide and wait, or turn around and go back to intercept Zimmerman at the intersection, making him the more likely aggressor.
Zimmerman had no ill will, hatred, or spite toward blacks as a whole or Trayvon individually. He was just trying to be a helpful member of the neighborhood watch. Maybe he shouldn't have gotten out of his vehicle that night, but it is not illegal to follow someone. If it wasn't for Trayvon attacking him and not relenting, Zimmerman would not have been put in the position to have to shoot someone to defend himself. Homicide is justifiable and legal when you "perceive" your life is in danger or you are in danger of immediate severe bodily harm. That should apply with Zimmerman getting punched and head slammed on concrete.
Zimmerman is not a criminal mastermind, or shrewd student of the law. He took a couple of classes at a local college a few years ago. He didn't invent an elaborate story to tell police everything they want to hear. The discrepancies in his stories are perfectly normal and not significant enough to take away his credibility entirely.
All police officers who took the stand (as best I can remember) supported Zimmerman's statements, and said they were as consistent as you would expect, and that the minor inconsistencies were normal and not enough to affect Zimmerman's credibility overall. Police say Zimmerman didn't even know Trayvon was dead until they told him at the police station, and he reacted by being upset about this news. He also told police that he prayed a security camera or someone nearby had a video of what happened.
Inadmissible evidence:
Based on texts and social media, Trayvon got in several fights recently, and said he loved fighting (not a direct quote).
Trayvon recently texted a friend about possibly purchasing an illegal firearm.
Trayvon likely sold weed to his friends. May have been a one time thing or maybe a drug dealer. Used marijuana and drug "lean" according to texts. May have sold Codeine as well... an ingredient in "lean". Recently suspended from school for drug possession. Marijuana found in his system at time of death, but not enough to be substantial.
Police never wanted to press charges. State prosecutor's office forced it, likely after public outcry.
Member of the state's prosecutor's office was recently fired in relation to covering up evidence relating to the data taken from Trayvon's phone. (Follow up on this story for yourself for details. What I just wrote is a half-assed headline.)
One of the lead police officers testified that he thought Zimmerman was "truthful" in all his statements. The prosecutor objected and got it stricken from the record, but not until the next day at trial when they realized their mistake overnight by not objecting.
Zimmerman passed a lie detector the night of the incident when asked about his side of the story.
Zimmerman had domestic abuse issues in the past, resulting in restraining orders between him and an ex-fiancee.
Zimmerman may have had a habit of calling 911 emergency or non-emergency numbers quite often to report incidents in the neighborhood.
Zimmerman had a prior assault charge on a police officer from when he intervened when his friend was being confronted by them at a bar. Police were undercover without identification though and Zimmerman didn't realize. The charges were all dropped except a misdemeanor that went away after an alcohol education class or something.
Some notes and personal thoughts about the case:
(Everything up until this point was the prosecution's and defense's arguments, not mine. But since I'm here...)
Prosecution did both a great and horrible job IMO. They didn't have nearly enough to work with for a conviction. The evidence just wasn't there. They did actually do a good job I felt with the emotional appeals and trying to paint a picture for the jury in hope that the jury would use personal feelings above the requirements of the law. They also did a poor job with witnesses, evidence gathering, trial management, and some of their arguments, which as I said were often times not based on the law whatsoever.
Defense did great sowing seeds of reasonable doubt, and pushing the law above all else. They knew they had the evidence on their side. Sometimes they droned on too long, and maybe watered down some of the more important points they were making, but at other times they hit a home run with various demonstrations of evidence.
Judge seemed to favor the prosecution over the defense. Seemed like she didn't appreciate the defense's style. Ruled against them more times than not, but ruled in their favor on some of the most significant issues.
One of the biggest factors IMO was what happened the exact moment of the initial confrontation, which we only have Zimmerman's statement on. Without any other evidence or testimony about what happened at that exact moment, it's hard to not have reasonable doubt. What you can do however is make judgements about Zimmerman as a whole, particularly regarding the credibility of his story. In this regard almost everything of significance that he said was truthful and/or backed up by independent evidence that he didn't have knowledge of at the time he made the police statement. Hypothetically the issue here is that he could have told the truth about everything else, but just lied about the moment of the confrontation, and we would have no way of knowing. Without that knowledge though it's impossible to use it against him.
Zimmerman's statements, despite being the dumbest thing you could do in the eyes of an attorney, may have helped him slightly in the eyes of the jury. If it was an "either/or" scenario, then without a doubt he would have been better off keeping his mouth shut. But considering everything he did wrong from a legal advice perspective, he didn't completely screw himself as bad as he could have. All of the police officers' testimony that they believed him and thought his statements were consistent was helpful, along with their testimony that the inconsistencies weren't enough to matter. Zimmerman's willingness to talk to police repeatedly without an attorney present and give up anything they asked with complete cooperation likely added to his credibility for the jury. It wasn't smart and legally if he had chosen to remain silent the judge specifically instructed the jury that choice couldn't be used against him, but it might have still helped. His other statements like "I pray a camera caught it on tape", and "he's dead?!" the night of the incident may have swayed credibility in his favor as well. I'm not supporting his personal legal choices, but they may have not all been entirely to his detriment.
The defense didn't split hairs like the prosecution, and it lent more credibility to their case. They could have ripped apart Rachel Jeantel's testimony in their closing, or that of the various doctors who completely went back on their statements, or Trayvon using words like "cracker", etc. But all they said was "You look at the testimony yourself and decide" about the expert witnesses, and "kids say stuff like that, they're just kids" about Trayvon, and "She just didn't want to be a part of this trial, and who could blame her" about Rachel and her lying under oath.
Meanwhile the prosecution nitpicked the most insignificant details imaginable: "Why was one of Trayvon's hoodie strings pulled further down than the other? Maybe he was losing the fight?" ... "If Trayvon was punching him, why didn't his flimsy watch fall off?" and so on during their closing arguments as if it was solid evidence. (Quotes are from memory/paraphrased)"
Originally Posted by FoxOnStilts
Reply With Quote
You seem a pretty average person to me.
