ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

The Zimmerman Trial Clarifies the Situation

Updated on June 29, 2013
A key witness for the DA, but inconsistent
A key witness for the DA, but inconsistent
Zimmerman's defense team
Zimmerman's defense team

Regardless of what you may think about Trayvon Martin or George Zimmerman, the trial is finally clearing up several key points that have been spun in the media. The media is biased either for Martin or Zimmerman, there seems to be few news organizations that are 100% impartial. Of these, MSNBC is very pro-Martin, CNN tries hard to be fair, but tends to slant to the Martin side especially with Piers Morgan, whose already convicted Zimmerman from day Day 1 with mantra of a teen with a pack of skittles and tea was gunned down.

Ice tea or skittles have little to do with anything except convey some sort of false innocence. What if Trayvon was carrying something much more sinister, would it matter? Of course not. It has nothing to do with the case.

Some of the facts that have now been substantiated is that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman using martial art punches on Zimmerman which accounts for the busted nose and back of the head cuts. Someone was screaming. So, since there is no eyewitness but evidence shows Z was on the ground and T on top, the jury will likely think it was Z yelling. However, the real critical point is at what point does Z feel his life is in danger? His injuries do not show that his life was in danger yet, although, T was getting the best of him. The law states that it is in the eyes of the beholder regarding when he would have fear for his life. What you or I think does not matter. It is possible that Z overreacted too soon out of fear for his life and maybe he could have or should tried harder to escape the punches but the law is not written like that at all. It is a little like sexual harassment in that, it is viewed from the victim point of view not from the person doing it in a joking or innocent way.

If the jury thinks Z overreacted, then the murder is only manslaughter during the heat of the moment, which is what did happen. Z did not stalk or hunt T down with murder in his mind. That is rubbish. It always was. Just because 911 tells him not to follow, there is no obligation to do so, it is mere advice to keep the watchman out of danger. In this case, had Z done so, T would would be alive. Z had too much suspicion in his mind about T on that dark, rainy night, so he followed at a distance.

The other critical detail needed is who actually started the confrontation that quickly went bad. It still is disputed and it is hard to know and the jury will have the same problem. When does pursuit as a watchman suddenly turn into stalking? Is it just semantics? At times, it seems like T was fed up of being followed and when they met got confrontational about it in short order and before Z knew, he was on the ground. Other times, it is Z who seems like the one for he continued to follow, maybe too close, and asked T what he was doing. Yet, what else would Z ask, I mean, he is the watchman. Is this question confrontational or did T simply take it that way because he was black and Z was not? Sometimes, fear and suspicion creates a false sense of what the other is doing in a negative manner, when the reality is the opposite. Obviously, both T and Z were scared. It was dark and rainy. T probably thought that Z was a mugger of some sort, it is logical. That thought in itself creates one to act either afraid in order to escape or confrontational, depending on one's personality. It seems T at first avoided it and then when they both met unexpectedly, he chose to confront. What else could either do?

By the time the two were face to face, their emotions were at high tilt for a variety of reasons but mainly out of fear of the unknown. Like in war, one wrong move can ignite the situation. If T was not happy with Z's response and then thought Z was reaching for a weapon (in reality, it was his cell phone) this explains why he lunged at Z and the scuffle began. Makes total sense. If Z sought to kill T from the start, T would already be dead by that time. Once the scuffle began, like world wars, they take a course by themselves. Emotions peak and clear thinking is unclear.

With Z on the ground getting whipped, it is logical to think that Z might suffer death or serious harm, depending on T's action. One can say, T could have simply get off and said FU to Z and run home. Or, at the moment of confrontation, run at full speed away. Some would do that.

In any case, who started the scuffle and when did Z think his life was in peril are the critical elements remaining.

Do you think the jury will convict Zimmerman or not?

See results


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • NateB11 profile image

      Nathan Bernardo 4 years ago from California, United States of America

      It is unfortunate this case was politicized early on and people had hidden agendas in regard to the case. At that point, mostly people stopped looking directly at facts. And it is certain in a violent situation, you don't know what you might do. The incident is tragic, without a doubt. But we still can look at it reasonably, according to facts. Here's an interesting thing I came across: On Reddit, one of Zimmerman's close relatives was on the site's IAMA feature in which someone of importance answers questions. Zimmerman's relative said Zimmerman was looking for an address to give to the police dispatcher when he got jumped; he claims Zimmerman was not following Trayvon. He also said Zimmerman, prior to the incident, was not an angry man who hunted down Black youth; though, now he is, of course, struggling with many things, understandably, considering all that has happened. Interesting presentation of facts and reasoning here in this piece you've shared.

    • perrya profile image

      perrya 4 years ago

      @Cassie, i agree. I can see how Z thought his life was threatened. It is reasonable.

    • Cassie Smith profile image

      Cassie Smith 4 years ago from U.S.

      Jentel's testimony was very inconsistent. At one point she said that Martin was in front of his father's fiancee's house. Yet Martin's body was far from the house when he was shot. Why didn't Martin go inside if he was so close? Also, I'm not sure I would trust Jentel's testimony. I think she's holding a lot of information back because it makes Martin look bad and would help Zimmerman's case.

      As for when did Zimmerman feel as if his life was in peril, I would think it would be when Martin started pounding his head to the ground to crack his head bloody like that. But hey, someone might think that's not life threatening.

    • profile image

      Ralph 4 years ago

      Zimmerman was charged with second degree murder for purely political reasons. He wasn't even indicted by a grand jury, but instead by Special Prosecutor Angela Corey, who is now distancing herself from this sham as far as possible. She catered to the race baiters and the President, then tossed this mess over the fence.

      I feel sorry for the prosecution. They were given a trial they can not possibly win. Bernie De La Rionda must be extremely frustrated about being assigned this case. This is going to do nothing for him, but hurt his career.

    • perrya profile image

      perrya 4 years ago

      Thanks, I agree, it will either be self defense or manslaughter, if it is anything different it will be injustice.

    • lions44 profile image

      CJ Kelly 4 years ago from Auburn, WA

      Great analysis. The state has overcharged Zimmerman. It should have been manslaughter. This is going to be the Casey Anthony case all over again. They should have learned from that experience.