Do you think part of the problem was the prosecution did not offer a clear counter scenario?

[RBInMaine]

If you've seen my other posts, I've said that the prosecution's main error was not pushing the MANSLAUGHTER charge as their main charge and main NARRATIVE. I strongly believe that. Even the interviewed juror says Zimmerman "used bad judgement" and she, who obviously went for acquittal from the start, agreed he was following Trayvon. They should have pushed manslaughter.

But here is where it gets slippery. The defense offered of course Zimmerman's story of what happened as their scenario of what happened. I think the prosecution did a great job blowing TONS of holes in his story with all the obvious LIES they clearly showed.
HOWEVER, I did not hear the prosecution offer a clear enough COUNTER SCENARIO based on the evidence; a strong enough COUNTER THEORY. Where it gets very fuzzy is over just who started the fight, how the fight progressed, and how Zimmerman was able to get his gun out and shoot him.

The state IMPLIED that Zimmerman MAY have already had the gun out, OR that Trayvon was backing away after there was a closer contact situation and Zimmerman was able to get the gun out. Zimmerman said Trayvon "saw my gun and reached for my gun". Unplausible given the darkness and with Trayvon up on his chest. Also, it actually is quite plausible Zimmerman was yelling. There is no doubt there was a fight and both were on the ground. That was witnessed.

I think they should have pushed the COUNTER SCENARIO that: Zimmerman followed Trayvon, confronted him, incited a verbal confrontation that became physical. Trayvon was pulling away, Zimmerman takes his gun out and shoots him. There HAD TO BE SOME DISTANCE between them for Zimmerman to get his gun out.

There was a fight on the ground. Was it a fight for the gun? Would Trayvon have attacked a guy with a gun in his hand? Could Zimmerman have had the gun in his hand from the start and Trayvon just didn't see it? If Zimmerman had his gun in his hand from the start, why didn't he shoot Trayvon sooner?

I will say this. Zimmerman told A MASSIVE WEB OF LIES to put himself in an innocent light and to put Trayvon in a bad light, and I just can't believe the jury placed any credibility in that guy. The LIES WERE MASSIVE AND OBVIOUS.

Please give me your thoughts.

What do you think?

[hack89]

1. They had no hard evidence to support any scenario

no one saw how the fight started and no one saw the actual shooting.

The state has to prove things, not just provide a plausible narrative.

It also doesn't help when prosecution witnesses collaborate parts of the defendant's story - another indication that good witnesses were hard to find and they had to go with what they had.

[Anansi1171]

3. Trayvon was dead and with this Jury it wouldnt matter-nt

[RBInMaine]

5. Yes, but they do get to suggest in opening and closing what they think the evidence shows.

[LisaL]

7. And what does the evidence show, exactly?

What alternative scenario could they have offered, that is supported by the evidence?

[RBInMaine]

12. I give you that in the OP and in my other posts. What do you think happened? Just asking.

[hack89]

19. Suggestions are meaningless without proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

that's the way our system works.

[RBInMaine]

28. OK but remember, convictions are gotten all the time based on circumstantial evidence and

there was a lot of very good circumstantial evidence here, especially on manslaughter. Remember half the jurors wanted to convict on the first vote. Remember that other juries may well have convicted. Remember that if they had pushed manslaughter from the start with a clearer suggestion of a scenario of what they thought happened based on the evidence there may well have been a different outcome. What do you think happened?

[hack89]

31. When you have prosecution witnesses collaborating the defendant's story

you have a huge mess on your hands.

I agree that a different time and place the out come might be different.

I think Z provoked a fight and shot TM. He was guilty of manslaughter.

[RBInMaine]

42. I agree with your basic assessment of what happened completely.

[RBInMaine]

8. What do you think happened in this? Gun already out or not? Just asking.

[hack89]

17. If the gun was out, Z would have shot TM before letting him get too close

I don't see Z having the courage to risk a physical confrontation.

[Blue_Tires]

20. Please...*I* could have prosecuted that fuckin' case better...

and if it was a 17-year-old white girl shot dead in the exact same circumstance, I'm betting 90% of the prosecution's "obstacles" instantly vanish since Zim is arrested THAT NIGHT and the cops do a full, thorough, legit investigation (of course if the victim was white, then the RW gun nutters don't bankroll a propaganda campaign and funnel a half-million dollars to Zim's defense, either)

But it's all moot because based on at least one juror's interview; "hard evidence" apparently didn't matter since she CLEARLY and ADMITTEDLY had her decision made before even being selected...

[hack89]

21. I agree that the prosecution was hamstrung by a shitty police investigation

I am sure there was critical evidence that was missed.

[clffrdjk]

2. Exactly

But for one thing they needed more than a counter scenario, they needed to prove their scenario was what actually happened.

[RBInMaine]

9. Just asking, what do you believe in your gut happened here? Gun already out or not? Elaborate.

[clffrdjk]

37. My gut says

The gun was in the holster until just prior to firing. As to how the fight started and the rest of what happened other than what is on the recorded calls I have no idea. I am not going to make up a story with no evidence to back it up. The prosecution failed because of just that.

[RBInMaine]

43. Not asking you to "make up" something, just offer a theory based on the facts. It's not a sin to

offer a theory.

[clffrdjk]

46. Yes, you are asking me to make up something.

The prosecution had a year and a half to come up with a story that was supported by evidence and made more sense than the story Zimmerman came up with in 10 min. They couldn't do it. I am not going to do a better job with less information and a hell of a lot less time.

[RBInMaine]

51. There is circumstantial evidence to suggest Z started it by virtue of his attitude and that HE was

the one who went after Trayvon with the clear goal of stopping him and detaining him. That is plausible. You have evidence to back up a plausible scenario. That is not "merely making something up." If you don't want to try, fine. Just asking. They COULD have offered a clearer counter scenario but just didn't want to go there and relied on the straight elements and Z's lies. THAT plus not pushing manslaughter, I think, were their big mistakes.

[LisaL]

4. They couldn't offer something they didn't have.

[RBInMaine]

6. They can suggest what they think the evidence points to for a scenario.

[RBInMaine]

10. What do you think actually happened in that confrontation? How do you think it went down?

[Blue_Tires]

26. Because the Sanford PD tried to cover-up the shooting...

[northoftheborder]

11. Well, is the defense supposed to allow "scenarios" as to what exactly happened? Because they...

....sure did, and were not refuted or questioned by prosecution. The fight with the mannekin, the sidewalk stunt? Other things they offered as "evidence" such as the neighbor who was burglarized by a black man, that had nothing to do with this case, should not have been allowed by the judge, or should have been objected to by prosecution. A nationally famous lawyer, can't remember his name, said the prosecutors should have been dismissed from their jobs and disbarred for their terrible job of prosecuting this crime. The district attorney is also criminally negligent for her behind the scenes maneuvers. Florida's justice system is "F.......ed up."

[RBInMaine]

15. Yes, you offer a theory, a scenario, of what happened based on what you think the facts say.

Absolutely. In a circumstantial case each side can offer a suggestion of what they think the evidence shows as to a scenario of what happened. The jury then decides what THEY think happened. But yes, each side in a criminal case gets to suggest what they think the facts show.

[Lee-Lee]

13. That is the whole problem

You can't prove somebody committed a crime beyond a reasonable doubt without a good, solid narrative of how it went down.

You just can't. Just creating reasonable doubt in your defendants story isn't enough to convict.

You need a plausible explanation about why and how the crime was committed. Backed by evidence.

They didn't have the evidence, they never offered the story. Certainly not for Murder 2.

I think even manslaughter was a stretch, but possible had they told the story right.

But every time I debate it, I wonder more and more if bringing charges they simply couldn't win on was a mistake. Are the ramifications worse now, with all the publicity this case has received, then they would have been had the prosecutors office simply said "look, we think he did it, but unless something new comes up as evidence we can't prove it"? Because now he is immune from a civil suit, but had they not brought charges he wouldn't be.

Before you knee jerk "of course he should have been charged" keep in mind guilty people go uncharged all day because prosecutors know they don't have a good enough case to win. So that wouldn't be anything new.

[RBInMaine]

18. So what do you think actually happened here? Just asking.

Also, gotta remember they don't HAVE to provide a clear scenario, but it is VERY helpful if they can decide on a plausible scenario to push, reasonably supported by the facts. Juries want that. Also remember, there have been MANY criminal convictions based on circumstantial evidence. It doesn't just have to be direct evidence.

[Lee-Lee]

27. I don't know.

Only one person truly knows.

You can win on circumstantial evidence if it supports the story you tell.

You won't win if you say "he are some odds and ends we think proves out case, we are not sure how it went down"

Beyond A Reasonable Doubt. That means something. You never reach that standard leaving what happened to the jurors imagination.

[RBInMaine]

38. Very much the point I'm trying to make. Need to push a clear narrative. Just asking, what do you

think happened here? I think Zimmerman followed him with the intent to detain him and hopefully show that he stopped a criminal and prevented a crime because he is a cop wannabe. I think he did not identify himself to Trayvon nor asked Trayvon "Can I help you?" or anything like that. I think he just said something like, "What are you doing here? What are you up to?" I think Trayvon reacted defensively due to this creepy guy following him and his rude attitude toward him because he had profiled him as an "asshole fucking punk". Their verbal argument escalated. They grapple. It is essentially mutual, though Trayvon probably shoved or grabbed Zimmerman first because Trayvon was defending HIMSELF. The fight was MUTUAL. It goes to the ground. Trayvon is on top. Zimmerman yells. Trayvon backs up enough for Zimmerman to get the gun out and fire. Zimmerman INCITED the incident causing a MUTUAL fight and uses excessive force. He knows this and launches into a MASSIVE STRING OF LIES to self serve and justify what he did knowing he probably did not have enough cause and used horrid judgement. THE LIES ARE HUGE, MANY, AND OBVIOUS.

This is MANSLAUGHTER. Strong case with the right arguments and the right jury.

[Lee-Lee]

41. Your case is plausible

But under the law as you laid it out it wouldn't be manslaughter.

If, as your theory says, Trayvon hit, shoved or otherwise used force against Zimmerman first then he is considered the aggressor and a self defense claim stands.

It wouldn't matter what Zimmerman said, the law says in every state you can't assault somebody because of words.

For manslaughter to stand they would have to argue Zimmerman followed him and grabbed him, maybe on the shoulder to turn him around and confront him, and Trayvon defended himself. I kept waiting for the prosecution to lay something like that out.

[RBInMaine]

44. Trayvon can defend himself from Z as much as Z can from T. A mutual fistfight doesn't give you the

right to shoot and kill someone, especially one he INITIATED from the start with following, rudeness, failing to identify, etc. Z went after T. Not the other way around. It BECAME a mutual fight once it started is what I am saying, but Z's actions LED to it in the first place.

[Lee-Lee]

45. Under the law

The first person who throws a blow is the aggressor, except in some limited cases.

It sucks- but Zimmerman could follow him, creep him out, and say ugly things to him. If he tried to egg him into a fight that would be disorderly conduct in most states- but that still wouldn't justify use of force.

Words, no matter how distasteful, do not justify a use of force against the person who uttered them. That is a principle of comman law in almost all states.That is how the Westboro bastards make all their money- they egg on and instigate people into attacking them with words, then sue them.

In the eyes of the law there is no such thing as a "mutual" fight unless both parties agree they wish to fight before it begins, like two parties stepping outside a bar to settle a score. The person who first uses force is the aggressor.

[RBInMaine]

47. Words can justify force depending on what they are. And if Z tried to detain him, he could use force

Unless FL is so totally screwed up. There are so many scenarios where words can justify force there are too many to name. You continually verbally berate someone, it can justify force. Insults, threats, saying "You aren't going anywhere and trying to stop them," constant following, etc. There are MANY fact patterns that allow for force based on verbal actions or other forms of physical actions like stalking, blocking, etc.

Again, yes, the prosecution needed to push the scenario that in totality Z "started the fight" and then used very excessive and unjustified force when it didn't go his way. How do we know? Because HE went after Trayvon, not the other way around. And because of the LIES upon LIES he so obviously used to try to justify his actions. Yes, that Z "started the fight" did need to be part of their narrative. But there are different ways to start fights.

[Lee-Lee]

48. No

Insults, berating a person, racial insults, none of that justifies a response of physical force.

I would challenge you to show me one state that allows insults to be countered with force.

I can tell you in NC that if you punch somebody for insults, even continued insults, you are guilty of assault. The other party may not be innocent and may be citing for disorderly conduct or a similar charge, but insults do not justify assault. Ever.

Saying "you are not going anywhere" without also some move to prevent a person from leaving would not justify physical force. Saying that along with grabbing them would.

Saying 'I am going to beat your ass" may be enough, depending on other actions. Along with following somebody, maybe. That is a gray area at best.

If a person makes hostile words and displays a weapon or starts to throw a blow, then certainly force is justified. If he attempted to detain him with more than just words, certainly use of force in self defense is justified.

But no, your assertion that a person is justified using force if another party insults or berates them is completely wrong.

[RBInMaine]

52. Yes. At least in my state.

If you insult repeatedly, berate, make racially disparaging remarks, etc. that COULD warrant a physical response.

Say someone's best friend or close relative just died, and you knew they just died, and you say that the person is an "asshole" etc. That justifies a physical response and you will also be charged with disorderly conduct and no jury would ever think of convicting the other person who just punched you in the face. Those remarks, under those circumstances, would be a strong defense. You might be charged with assault but it would be a TOUGH climb and the verbal remarks could most definitely be a defense here. DOUBTFUL you would be charged. As always, it does depend on the circumstances, but you must have strict laws on this down there.

Say someone is following you down the street saying "fuck you fuck you fuck you" over and over again. You confront the person and tell them to knock it off. They continue.
You finally finally punch the person. If they tried to charge you with assault, you will most definitely use the endless insults as a defense and will most likely get off. There are MANY such scenarios. Not allowing such a defense defies all common sense. What's wrong with NC??

[Lee-Lee]

54. I would love to see you cite the exact law in Maine

That allows assault in response to words.

I just spent 20 minutes looking, and did not find anything of the sort, so help me out. Case law or the statute would work.

The basic premise of common law in the USA is this:

"Words alone, no matter how insulting or provocative, do not justify an assault or battery against the person who utters the words."

I would suggest you Google that phrase- it shows up in virtually ever basic course or lesson on laws dealing with assault and battery.

I can find zero indication that the law in Maine deviates from this common standard of law.

[RBInMaine]

23. May I ask what you think happened here? How do you think it went down? What scenario do you think

the prosecution should have pushed?

[Lee-Lee]

30. I am going to be honest and say

I don't know what went down.

They should have pushed whatever scenario they believed that led them to pursue the charges. Since they never did, I don't know what scenario that was.

If they, the prosecution, didn't have a scenario they believed beyond a reasonable doubt was how it went down, I question if they should have ever taken it to trial.

[Blue_Tires]

24. Irrelevant, since at least one juror had her mind pre-made to already acquit

and I'm betting any amount of money that she isn't the only one...

[DeadLetterOffice]

33. Why is he immune ffrom a civil suit?

I thought it was not uncommon for a wrongful death suit to be brought even after an individual was acquitted on murder or manslaughter charges?

[Lee-Lee]

34. Florida law

Grants immunity if you claim self defense and are acquitted by the courts.

[DeadLetterOffice]

49. Thanks for the clarification

That sucks.

[GeorgeGist]

14. The Fix was in.

[KurtNYC]

16. Prosecution lost this trial during jury selection

Perhaps they thought that women would identify with Trayvon's mother or as mothers of any child trying to walk home from the store.That was a mistake. 5 of the jurors believed that Zimmerman was doing the screaming for help which I find quite leap because the screaming stops with the gun shot but it was easier for these 5 women to think of a person scared of an unarmed black child than to think that the black kid might be scared to death of the creepy Hispanic guy with a gun.

I agree that the Prosecution should have made a strong case for the struggle beginning when Zimmerman pulls out his gun. What other reason could Trayvon have for hitting him? or screaming for help? They should have been outraged by any suggestion that Zimmerman was the one screaming or that a man with a gun running after a scared kid in the dark was in some way defending himself. All of Zimmerman's prior should have come in also -- domestic violence, assault on a cop, everything -- to be compared with Trayvon's priors: none whatsoever.

Perhaps they also should have moved for a change of venue. Just keep rejecting jurors and then move for a change of venue. Get some men on the jury too.

These jurors were scared of Trayvon Martin and they sentenced him to death.

[RBInMaine]

22. Remember, Trayvon's father said at first it was NOT Trayvon. THAT was POWERFUL.

[NOLALady]

36. He did not say it was not Trayvon screaming.

[4 more years]

25. Half the jury had already made up their mind before the trial.

That trial should never had been held in that part of fla. No way no how was a fair trial going to be conducted.

[Punkingal]

29. I thought the PA's were good.

I understood what they were saying: He profiled Trayvon, followed him, and confronted him. That is what I think happened...Z should have kept his dumb butt in his truck. NO EXCUSE for getting out.

Also, he lied multiple times. I agee with PA...why was it necessary to tell so many lies?

[abbeyco]

32. I think the prosecution was inept and therefore, complicit in doughboy's acquittal

These guys were totally lame and I feel they helped put Trayvon on trial without a jury of his peers. They didn't rebut a number of things and with the last defense witness helped introduce race and that went by without a blink by the prosecution.

Trayvon, his family and the people of Sanford deserved better and there should be shame in the prosecutor's office today.

[treestar]

35. Partly

They did not have good crime scene evidence. The cops just believed Zimmerman and let him go.

Zimmerman's physical condition was not well established. Given Trayvon had no Zimmerman DNA on him, at most he managed to bang Zimmerman's head on something, once and somehow wrestle him to the ground.

There should have been some evidence about how far away the bullet was shot from. Powder burns on the body. Trayvon must have gotten up or backed away.

The only reason Zimmerman makes up the "trying to get my gun story" is he knew that he used too much force by shooting a kid in a deadly manner. That was his only "excuse" for using the gun rather than his fists.

[Demo_Chris]

39. Yes...

The prosecution needed to present a scenario and then provide evidence supporting that scenario.

First, that Z's 911 call did not match Martin's actions. Zimmerman was reporting behavior that Martin simply did not do. The same applies to the walk-through and follow up interviews.

Second, that Zimmerman prusued Martin past the T and confronted him in the darkness there. The physical evidence supports this and should have been presented in this way.

Third, that in doing so Zimmerman placed Martin in a position in which he was justified in defending himself. This is subjective, obviously, but REPEATEDLY following someone at some point becomes threatening.

Fourth, that Zimmerman had drawn his weapon before the fight reached the ground. This could and should have been demonstrated.

Every effort should have been made, early, to counter and offset the goofy police investigation and testimony.

[RBInMaine]

40. I tend to think Trayvon backed away far enough on the ground to allow him to

get it out. Had to have been one or the other. I tend to think if he had the gun out from the very start he would have pulled the gun on Trayvon much sooner and fired much sooner. I think Trayvon was backing off on the ground and he was able to get his gun out and shoot. Then realized he pushed the whole incident, incited it, so lied like hell to justify it.

[msanthrope]

50. They prosecution should have offered 'the scenario' in such a way that ANYTHING the defense offered

was the 'counter scenario.'

[moondust]

53. Debatable.

If you create a counter scenario you hand the jury a clear binary choice of which of two stories to believe: black or white. Some jurors conditioned to football games and two-party politics and a "dual ethnic culture" might simply take the easy way out and pick one side or the other without keeping an open mind toward the evidence and the arguments.

And once you create it, the defense asks: "Based on what known facts?" And dismisses it as pure fabrication.



I'm not a lawyer but I tend to think the prosecution's case was unwinnable. Once you accept the notion that there was an altercation, there is no way to prove that Zimmerman did not feel his life was threatened.