George Zmmerman trial begins...

[MJS]

After a week of BJJ/Submission Grappling training, it would make a difference. Zimmerman had some "MMA" training. If it was actual MMA training, I am 100% confident he understood the difference and could better protect himself from guard than from under mount. How much better is up in the air, but having trained in BJJ for going on 8 years now, I've seen a LOT of people come through the door. It is IMPOSSIBLE for someone who trains regularly to fail to achieve blue belt level skill within about 2 years. It's just impossible. Even the most physically challenged, uncoordinated person will develop rudimentary proficiency just through exposure and repitition.

And the point remains that to an untrained, lay person observing the fight in the dark, these two very different positions would be indistinguishable, even though we (who train in martial arts) understand that there is a profound difference between mount and guard.

Yes! Furthermore, many grappling courses that're geared towards LEOs, (at least the ones I've seen) focus on weapon retention and getting back to a safe position, where the weapon can be used, if need be.

We had the trial on yesterday at work, and just as I was leaving for the day, they were going to start talking about his MMA training, but I left before I was able to see that segment. Can anyone shed any light on that?

 

[MJS]

makes complete sense...

on the other hand, TM could have also called the cops, let them deal with the 'stalker'

Exactly! Unless it changed, last I knew, TM was talking to a girl, I believe his girlfriend and IIRC, she told him to call the cops, though I could be wrong on that.

But yes, he'd have been better off calling the police.

 

[MJS]

Expected this--he won't testify:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...l?Post+generic=?tid=sm_twitter_washingtonpost

I was reading a discussion on FB about the judge and how everyone feels she's doing some rather shady things.

I'm no legal expert, but I have to wonder....why wouldn't GZ testify? I mean, if he's deemed competent to stand trial, shouldn't the jury hear his side out of his mouth, rather than the mouth of his lawyer?

 

[Steve]

It will be interesting to see whether the judge allows the jury to consider a lesser charge. That the prosecution is expected to ask for this is telling.

 

[billc]

A long article on the trial and the problem with trying to make it a case about race...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/07/president_obama_vs_george_zimmerman_america_loses.html

 

[billc]

The prosecution wants manslaughter and 3rd degree murder as options for the jury. They sprang the 3rd degree murder (child abuse) on the defense at the last minute...

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/breaking-state-moves-to-charge-zimmerman-with-3d-degree-murder-based-on-aggravated-child-abuse/

As expected, the Judge in the George Zimmerman case ruled that in addition to Second Degree Murder, she will instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of Manslaughter, as required by Florida case law.


In a surprise move this morning, the prosecution asked the Judge to drop the Aggravated Assault charge and to instruct the jury on Third Degree Murder, which is murder in the course of committing a felony.



The felony the State wanted as the predicate was Aggravated Child Abuse (Jury Instruction) because Trayvon Martin was 17 at the time of the shooting.
According to Don West, the defense was not notified until 7:30 a.m. this morning.



This surprise is important because the defense did not have time to research the law, while the State presented numerous cases. Generally it is not a defense to child abuse that the perpetrator did not know the age of the victim. This is an unusual circumstance, however, where Zimmerman was punched in the nose and the “child” was on top punching him — to say that excessive use of force in defense of an attack by a “child” is child abuse certainly requires some time to research and argue. I don’t know the answer to that legal question, but the court should give the defense time to research and argue it. (Update 11:35 a.m. — Judge just indicated she will give defense time to research, but didn’t indicate how long until 1 p.m.)

 

[ballen0351]

It will be interesting to see whether the judge allows the jury to consider a lesser charge. That the prosecution is expected to ask for this is telling.

The news this morning they are allowed to consider manslaughter.

 

[arnisador]

It's always seemed unfair to me to give multiple options--charge a person with the crime you claimed he committed.

 

[Steve]

It's always seemed unfair to me to give multiple options--charge a person with the crime you claimed he committed.

I agree to an extent. But at the same time, there are cases (not necessarily this one) where a person is clearly guilty of something. From what I've read, the request to consider lesser charges is typically a defense strategy where the defendant is obviously guilty of wrong doing, but the defense is hoping for a compromise verdict.

 

[ballen0351]

It's always seemed unfair to me to give multiple options--charge a person with the crime you claimed he committed.

According to the Former Chief thats all they wanted to charge him with in the first place. According to him The politicians are the ones that forced the murder charge.

 

[granfire]

According to the Former Chief thats all they wanted to charge him with in the first place. According to him The politicians are the ones that forced the murder charge.

I suppose that's to ensure he will be going away:
Throw the big thing out, have them all go 'hmm, yeah, he did something wrong but not that wrong' so they accept the lesser charge...I could imagine when you start with the lesser one, they might be more inclined to acquit
outright...

Just going by what I know about people...

 

[Steve]

I suppose that's to ensure he will be going away:
Throw the big thing out, have them all go 'hmm, yeah, he did something wrong but not that wrong' so they accept the lesser charge...I could imagine when you start with the lesser one, they might be more inclined to acquit
outright...

Just going by what I know about people...

From what I've read, I don't get the impression that this is the case. Pushing for charges out of proportion to the crime is not just unethical (in my opinion), but also has a very real chance of backfiring. The judge didn't have to allow the consideration of lesser charges, and I think we all agree that the prosecution didn't make a very strong case for 2nd Degree Murder. If lesser charges weren't allowed, the jury would likely have no choice but to acquit. As usual, the involvement of politicians made things worse, not better.

 

[ballen0351]

From what I've read, I don't get the impression that this is the case. Pushing for charges out of proportion to the crime is not just unethical (in my opinion), but also has a very real chance of backfiring. The judge didn't have to allow the consideration of lesser charges, and I think we all agree that the prosecution didn't make a very strong case for 2nd Degree Murder. If lesser charges weren't allowed, the jury would likely have no choice but to acquit. As usual, the involvement of politicians made things worse, not better.

Besides unethical in my opinion charging someone with a crime you know they didn't do just to get them to agree to lesser charge is down right illegal in my opinion.

 

[granfire]

Besides unethical in my opinion charging someone with a crime you know they didn't do just to get them to agree to lesser charge is down right illegal in my opinion.

Throw some against the wall, see what sticks.
Fishing I suppose.

 

[Big Don]

I agree to an extent. But at the same time, there are cases (not necessarily this one) where a person is clearly guilty of something. From what I've read, the request to consider lesser charges is typically a defense strategy where the defendant is obviously guilty of wrong doing, but the defense is hoping for a compromise verdict.

Throw some against the wall, see what sticks.
Fishing I suppose.

What she said.

 

[billc]

Thoughts on why the prosecutors should be disbarred...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/07/why_the_zimmerman_prosecutors_should_be_disbarred.html

One substantial block of evidence that it kept to itself until a whistleblower alerted the defense was the content of Martin's cell phone. On Tuesday night of this week, phone expert Richard Connor made a detailed presentation. Although the jury was not present, the respective attorneys were, as were the media.


For dubious and probably reversible reasons, Judge Debra Nelson disallowed Connor's testimony, but prosecutors have known for many months about the downward spiral of Martin's life. In the course of his close, de la Rionda called Martin an "innocent young boy" and made several other allusions to that effect. He was intentionally deceiving the jury. Martin was neither little nor innocent

.

​

 

[billc]

Part of the Defens's closing arguments was to show the size difference between the Martin and Zimmerman. This is to show that the "child," that the prosecution kept referring to in their close was bigger than Zimmerman and in better shape. They weren't allowed to show the text messages where Martin talked about fighting and how to make a nose bleed with a punch, so this was a way to introduce something that showed the reality of their sizes to the jury...

---

 

[arnisador]

Part of the Defens's closing arguments was to show the size difference between the Martin and Zimmerman. This is to show that the "child," that the prosecution kept referring to in their close was bigger than Zimmerman

Haven't been following all that closely but I didn't realize this.

 

[billc]

Zimmerman is 5' 7" and Martin was 5' 11". Keep in mind That was Martin's height without shoes and without taking into account the extra inches the hoodie gave to his height in the dark. It doesn't surprise me that most people don't know about the size difference, because the only pictures most people are shown are when Martin was a kid.

 

[billc]

One of Zimmerman's attorney's had an interview with CNN now that the jury has the case...he talks about the way the case was brought to trial...

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/0...influence-of-race-politics-in-zimmerman-case/