New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

John Goode Testimony Is Strong

Minotaur

Governor
He is the first witness to date who saw it earlier and did say that Trayvon was on top initially in a "ground and pound" position. He seems to be a good witness and this hits at the heart of it. We may never know if Zimmerman pulled out his gun and Trayvon tried to save himself or Zimmerman grabbed him first and Trayvon struggled to get away or if Goode's impressions are correct to what he saw. Whatever it was, Goode seems believable to me without filling in if the gun was already pulled out, or who started it, or if fists were being exchanged. Goode did not see a switch of positions did he? Other witnesses noted the one on top got up and walked away after the shooting so that question is hanging. He may have given an answer so if you heard it, tell me??? But I think this goes to the heart of why Second Degree Murder could be a stretch but that can change as the trial moves on. If indeed the jury can decide on a lesser degree of Manslaughter, it would be a stronger case due to the choices Zimmerman made that night leading up to the death imo. Here is the manslaughter law in Florida:

"Manslaughter by Culpable Negligence: Engaging in “Culpably Negligent” conduct that resulted in the death of another person.

Penalties for Manslaughter: The crime of Manslaughter is classified as a Second Degree Felony and is assigned a Level 7 offense severity ranking under Florida's Criminal Punishment Code.
If convicted of Manslaughter, a judge is required to impose a minimum prison sentence of 9¼ years in prison and can impose any additional combination of the following penalties:
Up to 15 years in prison.
Up to 15 years of probation.
Up to $10,000 in fines."
 

Minotaur

Governor
Manslaughter fit the crime and should be on the table...
I gave a link to a discussion of Florida law that says Manslaughter is always an option for a jury so we'll see how it plays out. They really have no witness thus far as to what happened in the moments that one or the other grabbed, hit, or detained the other so it seems a better option to me. They do have evidence that proves who was the aggressor throughout the entire time as one tried to get home from the store and the other tried to capture a criminal in his mind.
 
i tend to agree that manslaughter "feels right" here.

but we have yet to see any actual DEFENSE witnesses, regarding things like

- EMT technicians who treated zimmerman at the scene
- emergency room doctors who gave him stitches at the back of the head
- photos of the head wounds
- videos or transcripts of the initial police interview
 

Minotaur

Governor
i tend to agree that manslaughter "feels right" here.

but we have yet to see any actual DEFENSE witnesses, regarding things like

- EMT technicians who treated zimmerman at the scene
- emergency room doctors who gave him stitches at the back of the head
- photos of the head wounds
- videos or transcripts of the initial police interview
Agree. All of that! The blood evidence and medical report could be big. This case may go in a lot of directions because of evidence we don't know so we'll see. Defense may have a witness who says Trayvon was up to no good and that would change it. Right now we pretty much know what happened with missing parts and we know the 911 calls that show Zimmerman's actions and state of mind. No evidence yet that Trayvon did anything wrong in coming home. Still no evidence of who touched who first or why. Just seems like a bad case for Murder 2 and more compatible with culpability from a chain of bad decisions made that night that ended with someone dead.
 

Bo-4

Senator
Hi Min, i'm good with manslaughter. What's clear at this point is that he definitely got out of his car and ran after and otherwise stalked and confronted the kid after being told not to.

I'll mail him some soap on a rope ;-)

Btw, all i've watched so far was the security dude out of Tampa who was up first. He didn't do a very good job selling his company did he? The cameras in that particular area were out of commission because someone ran over the PVC containing wiring with a lawnmower (probably long before the incident). And they were all off as to the time by 18 minutes.

Really makes you want to hire THOSE guys huh? :rolleyes:
 

trapdoor

Governor
If Travyon actually did attack, then wouldn't "stand your ground" apply, meaning Zimmerman would not be convicted even of manslaughter?
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
If Travyon actually did attack, then wouldn't "stand your ground" apply, meaning Zimmerman would not be convicted even of manslaughter?
It seems to me that the evidence may be moving the outcome to a lesser charge

manslaughter... perhaps involuntary.. perhaps SYG comes in to play.
 

Dino

Russian Asset
If Travyon actually did attack, then wouldn't "stand your ground" apply, meaning Zimmerman would not be convicted even of manslaughter?
I like reckless endangerment, for violating watch rules and having the gun. Manslaughter nets a 6-9 year sentence, too strong for this weak a prosecution case I've seen so far.
 
Z

zzigzzag

Guest
If Travyon actually did attack, then wouldn't "stand your ground" apply, meaning Zimmerman would not be convicted even of manslaughter?
One would think so. So why did the defense abandon that SYG claim?

Because of the criminal menacing laws. If Zimmerman was engaged in an unlawful activity, Stand Your Ground no longer applies.

A person is guilty of menacing in the second degree when:

He or she intentionally places or attempts to place another person in reasonable fear of physical injury, serious physical injury or death by displaying a deadly weapon, dangerous instrument or what appears to be a pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or other firearm;

He did that. It's not really in question, is it?
 

trapdoor

Governor
One would think so. So why did the defense abandon that SYG claim?

Because of the criminal menacing laws. If Zimmerman was engaged in an unlawful activity, Stand Your Ground no longer applies.

A person is guilty of menacing in the second degree when:

He or she intentionally places or attempts to place another person in reasonable fear of physical injury, serious physical injury or death by displaying a deadly weapon, dangerous instrument or what appears to be a pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or other firearm;

He did that. It's not really in question, is it?
I honestly don't know. I haven't been following the case at all. I don't find it all that interesting.
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
One would think so. So why did the defense abandon that SYG claim?

Because of the criminal menacing laws. If Zimmerman was engaged in an unlawful activity, Stand Your Ground no longer applies.

A person is guilty of menacing in the second degree when:

He or she intentionally places or attempts to place another person in reasonable fear of physical injury, serious physical injury or death by displaying a deadly weapon, dangerous instrument or what appears to be a pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or other firearm;

He did that. It's not really in question, is it?

It is unknown at this point whether he displayed it and that it (a gun display) was the proximate cause of the altercation.
 
Z

zzigzzag

Guest
They didn't really want to have to make the case that an armed adult who chases a kid down and detains him is just "standing his ground". It's not legal to chase people down and detain them....let alone shoot them if they don't like it and push back. SYG doesn't fly when you're committing a crime to begin with. Abandoning it was an admission to dirty hands.
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
They didn't really want to have to make the case that an armed adult who chases a kid down and detains him is just "standing his ground". It's not legal to chase people down and detain them....let alone shoot them if they don't like it and push back. SYG doesn't fly when you're committing a crime to begin with. Abandoning it was an admission to dirty hands.
Now, Z detained TM? Z was brandishing his gun, throughout? which testimony are you referring to...
 

Minotaur

Governor
If Travyon actually did attack, then wouldn't "stand your ground" apply, meaning Zimmerman would not be convicted even of manslaughter?
They are not claiming SYG in this which I thought was easier to prove than Self Defense. From what I read though the defense may be able to claim SYG at the end of the trial (maybe closing arguments?) They may be avoiding it because of Zimmerman following Trayvon as I am not sure how Florida's version of the Castle Document works. Like does it make anyplace a person is a place where you can shoot someone like this? Does it allow you to follow them? Stuff like that are a bit confusing and I don't know the answers to all that.
 
Z

zzigzzag

Guest
It is unknown at this point whether he displayed it and that it (a gun display) was the proximate cause of the altercation.
True. But menacing laws aren't limited to being armed. That was just a definition of second degree menacing. It's kinda self evident that one can't choose the ground someone else is about to walk on as a place to use deadly force to "stand" on it because it's "yours".

Who chased who here? These manufactured theories that TM was the aggressor are belied by the tapes....not to mention the Skittles he was taking to his cousin. Zimmy's plan was underway before the kid had a clue that there was one. His plan was to go home.
 
Z

zzigzzag

Guest
Now, Z detained TM?

Do you have some other theory for how the "scuffle" started? Has anyone denied that Zimmy chased him down to confront him and question him?
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
True. But menacing laws aren't limited to being armed. That was just a definition of second degree menacing. It's kinda self evident that one can't choose the ground someone else is about to walk on as a place to use deadly force to "stand" on it because it's "yours".

Who chased who here? These manufactured theories that TM was the aggressor are belied by the tapes....not to mention the Skittles he was taking to his cousin. Zimmy's plan was underway before the kid had a clue that there was one. His plan was to go home.

I dont know who chased who at this point. Nor does anyone observing. So to characterize it a Z's 'plan' is premature. is it not? What is in evidence is that Z followed. to what degree = unknown. It is also known that whereas Jenteal testified that TM called from near his Fathers fiancees house...that is not where he was found. Is this not correct?
 
Z

zzigzzag

Guest
Now, Z detained TM?

Do you have some other theory for how the "scuffle" started? Has anyone denied that Zimmy chased him down to confront him and question him?
 
Top