State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman

[csmsss]

My point is that if Zimmerman's initial shot hadn't hit Martin's heart, he would have had to shoot again...possibly several more times. Should this then be construed as him being more culpable rather than less? I don't think so. I don't think it should be considered at all.

The number of shots isn't what determines criminal culpability - it's shooting after the threat had ended that does this.

[dakota.potts]

csmsss, you already think that Zimmerman should be acquitted, don't you? Yet the jury is giving him a hard time.

They would give him a harder time if he had to fire more. You know all the "He needed a gun to deal with a 17 year old?" comments? Imagine if he had to fire 5 times to stop the threat. "Zimmerman has to be guilty, nobody needs 5 hollowpoint bullets to stop a 17 year old".

"He was just a vigilante. Look how many times he fired. Nobody needs to shoot more than once" etc. etc.

Regardless of what may or may not be morally or legally right, it doesn't matter if the jury convicts you anyways.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by dakota.potts

csmsss, you already think that Zimmerman should be acquitted, don't you? Yet the jury is giving him a hard time.

How is the jury giving him a hard time? The jury hasn't said a word. They just sit there and watch and listen, they are not in a position to give anyone a bad time.

[dakota.potts]

Because I'm an idiot, that's how. I didn't mean the jury. I meant the prosecution obviously. Freudian slip or doing too many things at once? Who knows?

[magnum777]

I think that George Zimmerman is a disgrace to law abiding gun owners. If Zimmerman had listened to the 911 dispatcher and stopped following the Martin kid, like he said he would. Martin would be alive today, Zimmerman would not be on trail and the anti-gun crowd would not have another weapon the attack our 2nd amendment rights.
As for the story about Zimmerman following Martin, then somehow losing him and then Martin jumps out of some bushes and attacks Zimmerman is ridiculous,this was a small condo community, not the deep woods how could that happen? ( I understand from one news commenter, that in the video Zimmerman used to explain what happened and the area where it happened, did not have any bushes).
I don't think that voice on the tape was Zimmerman's( I heard him talk on Hannity) that was a kid's voice. Zimmerman was also 200 lbs, Martin was about 160LB, Zimmerman was also trained in mix martial arts, Martin was not. I am an NRA member and I can't recall all the years I read the armed citizen column, a story of self defense like this.

[ClydeFrog]

The big problem I have, as the trial & statements(from both sides) evolve is that the state(Florida) needs to show GZ had; "a depraved mind" & intent to cause harm/murder Martin.
Wouldn't Zimmerman pack a HK Mark 23 .45acp or a "race gun" 1911a1 .45acp with a sound surpressor? Or a cheap "Sat Night Special" revolver that had no serial number in .32 Colt or .38spl? Or a Glock 21 .45acp with a green laser aimer? Or a N frame 629 or Ruger Alaskan snub .44magnum?
No, he had a compact, off-brand(Kel-Tec), 9x19mm. In a IWB holster.

Also, why would witnesses like Carter(the college professor & US Army JAG officer) be so + about GZ if he was a bigot?
GZ contacted the PD too. He is recorded saying - remarks but they are not directed at Martin & show his frustration in general.
The all-female jury(06 women) will have a lot to deal with when they get the case, but as time goes by, I think it's looking more & more for GZ.

Id caution any TFLers who think its a slam-dunk or lock.
Many pundits & trial watchers were shocked by the Casey Anthony verdict in 2011(Orange County Florida).

ClydeFrog

[csmsss]

csmsss, you already think that Zimmerman should be acquitted, don't you? Yet the jury is giving him a hard time.

Actually, he would almost certainly be convicted anywhere else, because he would have to prove his case, not the other way around. I'm guessing he will be acquitted, but I'm not cheerleading for him either. This is a bad case that is only going to increase racial tensions if he's acquitted. Who needs that?

They would give him a harder time if he had to fire more. You know all the "He needed a gun to deal with a 17 year old?" comments? Imagine if he had to fire 5 times to stop the threat. "Zimmerman has to be guilty, nobody needs 5 hollowpoint bullets to stop a 17 year old".

Probably so. The prosecution hasn't been very effective on the facts, so they've been trying to play every possible card to try to play on the emotions of the jury. My point, again, is only that there is no magical number of hits that can or should be expected for a shooting to be legitimate. Concentrating on the fact that only one was necessary in THIS case may tend to undermine the defenses of defendants in other cases who may have needed to fire many more. That's what concerns me.

"He was just a vigilante. Look how many times he fired. Nobody needs to shoot more than once" etc. etc.

Well, you'll never hear me say such a silly thing. Yes, it's sad that there are many in this country who are ignorant and fall into this fallacious sort of belief.

Regardless of what may or may not be morally or legally right, it doesn't matter if the jury convicts you anyways.

Well, we do have appellate courts, but there's never a guarantee of a reversal.

It may well be we're all just dancing a semantic/contextual jig here, which I regrettably started.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

As I said before - and I've heard attorneys say this - it will be based on a micro analysis for reasonable doubt or a macro analysis that George started this and an emotional reaction to someone who ended up shooting a young man minding his own business.

Then we will see what the jurors say. They could easily hang and restart this in a year or two.

Assuming the jury will act the way you think they should is a mistake. The OJ jury, now carefully analyzed, ignored Marcia Clark's analysis that women would be negative to a wife beater. The jury experts said that the racial angle (don't start that here) of African-American women not being sympathetic to a white woman who married OJ and the prejudicial aspects of some police utterances would make them a bad jury. She knew better and lost big.

Also, that case is instructive on experts. A well known expert had a theory that wife battering usually led to death. Then she was hired by the OJ team and came up with a new theory - there were two types of batterers. One that kills and one that didn't. And guess what OJ wasn't one who killed - she didn't get called. But the expert lost her professional rep. and might have lost her license.

So that's why you have to be analytic and not accept someone as the truth.

About voice recognition - there is an effect in perceptual psychology that occurs in vision and audition. If faced with an ambiguous stimulus, you construct a hypothesis, then as the stimulus is repeated you start to perceive it as determine by your hypothesis. That's why the voice which sounds like a little girl screaming is not a good stimulus (as the FBI guy stated) and all the folks saying from their heart, it's my boy, the other boy, Georgie, whatever) are worth nothing. It's the visual witness that is more compelling but his testimony doesn't tell us how the fight started.

That will determine if the macro theory carries day.

The gender of the jury can play either way. After the decision, hindsight bias will convince some that they knew it all along.

[rwilson452]

I would like to add a little about analyzing voices from a phone. The telephone service only send from 300 to 3000 htz. Using only that band width it is difficult to get any results from a high pitched scream as a large part of the spectrum is lost. In case your wondering. After my military career was over I worked as a telecommunications analyst for many years. In the Navy I was a SONAR tech. my specialty with in that field was as a physical acoustical analyst. I did spectral analysis.

[dakota.potts]

I have to imagine 300 to 3000hz is within the tonal spectrum of two adult males. Unless I'm using my "bass voice" I typically don't get down below 300 or 400 and I'm a baritone.

I suppose you would lose some higher end harmonics as well as some low fundamentals and undertones but could that really affect the recognition of someone's voice?

I'm tempted to experiment now. Take some well known voices, run high and low pass filters at 300 and 3000 hz respectively and see if you can still tell the voices apart

[Tom Servo]

Posts have been deleted for bringing up race. As mentioned in the original post, we're not doing that.

[SgtLumpy]

Unless I'm using my "bass voice" I typically don't get down below 300 or 400 and I'm a baritone.

Actually, you do. It's getting off topic. But A440 is the equivalent of the 5th fret 1st string on a guitar (A4). 300 Hz is just about D4, the 3rd fret on the 2nd string. Your bari voice likely goes well below an octave below that to perhaps low G2 (about 100 Hz, 3rd fret 6th string) or the textbook classic baritone, low E2 (about 82 Hz, open 6th string)

It's my understanding that even POTS is no longer limited to 300-3k, the old limits of the copper wires imposed due to load managment. Cellular has a higher audio bandwidth.

It is accurate to say that it's not quite as obvious to tell one voice from another in spectral analysis when the bandwidth is limited. But it's certainly not impossible or even very difficult. The freq response of each individual voice (which frequencies are louder or softer than others) is very constant whether we're talking, singing, grunting, screaming. Even with a very poor signal to noise ratio (background noise, hiss, bad phone connection) it's a relatively simple matter to say "This sample voice spec analysis looks like that sample - but it doesn't look like that other sample".


Sgt Lumpy

[dakota.potts]

You are correct. I had all the frequencies per octave doubled meaning I miscounted somewhere.

Anyways, one of the audio experts said that they were not able to identify whose voice it was by spectral analysis

[Brit]

I watched the late night show! Went on till 10PM. The Judge is doing here best to muzzle the defense! She is going to keep the phone that Mr. Martin had in his pocket, out!

"Any one could have used it" A phone you had to go through two passwords to use.

The thing the 6 Lady's will focus on (I think) the pictures of Mr. Zimmerman's Injury's. The very famous Dr. De,Mayo's evidence that Z fired up-wards.
Was being straggled. We will see.

[rwilson452]

The 300-3000 limit is still there. It's the switching equipment. at the switch the signal is made into a PAM sample. It's no longer analog but a digital representation. It stays in this state as your signal goes from Central office to Central office and or different switches. Due to the sample rate that is what you get. Most voices have the most power around 1000 Htz. but the harmonics go significantly above and below the limits. I suspect everyone knows you sound a little different over a phone than you do in person and the freq. limitations is why.

[johnelmore]

Just from seeing Zimmerman in different settings like the interview on Fox News, he didnt seem like an aggressive individual who would approach and fight someone. I could picture him yielding to someone after a few slugs to the face and screaming for help.

I dont at all believe that Martin was simply walking and minding his own business. People approach me on the street for different things like directions or to say how nice my camera looks. I dont turn around and pop them to the chin or "ground and pound".

There are two things I am certain about. If Zimmerman stayed in his car this wouldnt have happened. If Martin simply said hi to Zimmerman and talked friendly..."hi, Im staying over there with my dad, nice to meet you, Im Trayvon" this wouldnt have happened. There is no law stating that its forbidden to approach someone and ask questions, but there are laws against physical violence and you dont have to wait to be beaten half to death before you defend yourself.

[MLeake]

+1 johnelmore, with the caveat:

FWIW, had Martin survived, and somehow killed Zimmerman with Zimmerman's gun, I would probably be defending Martin's actions.

As a 17 year old, if I found myself followed by a strange, older man, I probably would not have reacted favorably. I could very easily see how Martin might have felt a direct confrontation might be the most efficient way of dealing with a perceived threat.

I could see either case being made. I can not see either conviction being achieved.

With regard to Magnum777's comments about Zimmerman's weight and MMA training, I guess he missed the testimony of the owner of the gym where Zimmerman trained. Zimmerman had lost weight, but had gone from very obese to basically soft; he had trained a little in MMA, but had no conditioning and very minimal skills. The gym owner rated him a 1 on a scale of 1-10.

From personal experience, most dojos assume a student will need to train regularly for at least three months before he can use his new skills with any degree of reliability. To be truly competitive, years of training are more the norm, supplemented by physical strength and conditioning training.

In my late 20s (around Zimmerman's age), I used to train four sessions a week, two hours a night, in addition to hitting the gym an hour a day, three days a week, and I was just ok.

Zimmerman's low level of experience, and non-level of conditioning, were non-factors. I'd have put my money on Martin in a straight up fist fight (better shape, some athletic background), and going by the evidence, I'd have been right.

(Edit: a weight advantage can help, if one is good at using leverage, and if one gets on top - it doesn't do so much if one ends up on bottom, or if one has little strength or coordination.)

[MLeake]

Glenn, if your point was simply to play what if? and devil's advocate games, then I misunderstood.

What I took from your posts was more that you felt some character flaw in Zimmerman required you to doubt him.

My point was that in that case, ignore Zimmerman's testimony, and look at physical evidence: the injuries to Martin; the single gunshot wound and the nature of the wound; the injuries to Zimmerman.

Based on those, and disregarding any testimony, this case should never have seen trial.

But the respect (or loss thereof) comment directed at dakota.potts was still uncalled for.

[ClydeFrog]

I completely disagree with the last posted remarks.
If Martin were able or felt "threatened", why didnt he hang up with his phone call with Rachel Jenteel & call 911 himself?
Also, what grounds would Martin have to circle back & engage Zimmerman for any reason?
There is no valid reason why, Martin if he knew Zimmerman was armed or if he considered GZ, "creepy" or "odd" why he'd start a fight with him.

I was 17 once too(a long time ago, ), I didn't see grown adult males & say; "hey Im going to go fight that guy" or see a armed security guard or uniformed deputy & say; "hey, I could take that guy".
I don't want to rail against Martin(the victim) but honestly he could have avoided a violent altercation a # of ways that rainy Sunday night.

CF

[BarryLee]

Lots of debate on whether GZ might be convicted of murder, but I’ve heard little discussion of the lesser charge of manslaughter. I’m not even really sure what the standard is for a conviction on those charges, so no idea if the State has met those standards. Does anyone have any legal expertise or opinion on the manslaughter charge?

[Tom Servo]

My point was that in that case, ignore Zimmerman's testimony, and look at physical evidence

In a debate like we're having, that can be done. However, we're dealing with a court proceeding, in which that can't be done. I'm sure there are all sorts of holes in evidence gathering and witness coaching, but that's the way things like this happen.

If Martin were able or felt "threatened", why didnt he hang up with his phone call with Rachel Jenteel & call 911 himself?

There are cultural biases against the police in some quarters, and there's a great mistrust of law enforcement. Martin may simply have not seen that as a viable option.

I’m not even really sure what the standard is for a conviction on those charges, so no idea if the State has met those standards.

I think they've utterly failed to show malice and intent in Zimmerman's actions, so it would be a huge stretch to get a murder conviction out of this jury.

Zimmerman can be convicted of manslaughter under the doctrine of "imperfect defense." That means he committed homicide with an unreasonable belief of harm. Even if he believed he was in imminent danger, the jury could find that his belief wasn't reasonable.

[csmsss]

Tom, I'm pretty sure there can be no manslaughter conviction, since manslaughter isn't a lesser included offense to Murder 2 (felony).

Read the schedule on page 6: http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/d...bin/91815b.pdf

[Dr Big Bird PhD]

The prosecution hasn't even toyed with the idea of lowering the standard of Murder 2 to Murder 3 or Manslaughter. Can the jury arbitrarily decide to use different standards to get a lesser conviction of the defendant without the prosecution pursuing it??

[OldMarksman]

Judge has to allow it; would likely do so at the request of either party.

[csmsss]

Unless Zimmerman was charged under the "depraved" condition of Murder 2, manslaughter simply is not an allowable lesser included offense available.

Edit: well, Corey did charge Zimmerman under the "depraved mind" paragraph of Florida Law (782.04(2)), so manslaughter IS a lesser included charge and I was wrong.