This has already been answered for you, so I'll just 2nd the responses you received.

Whoa there. Assuming facts not in evidence. What we have is:

1) Zimmerman pursued,
2) ????? [Zimmerman says he was jumped by Martin]
3) They have a wrestling match in which all of the evidence showed Martin was on top of Zimmerman getting the better of Zimmerman, "MMA style" according to one witness. Zimmerman sustains injuries to the back of his head consistent with what the eye witness saw. This is further supported by the defense's gunshot residue expert who testified that the muzzle of the gun was pressed up against the fabric of Martin's hoodie, but not against his body, meaning that the clothing was hanging downward, further supporting the defense theory that Martin was on top.
4) Zimmerman shoots Martin.

2 matters, but even absent SYG, it'd be up to the state to prove Zimmerman initiated the violence. It's not unlawful for a neighborhood watch person to follow someone they deem suspicious--even if it's for an unwarranted reason. It'd further be up to the state to prove at the time Zimmerman elected to use deadly force, he could have retreated safely. If someone is on top of you beating your head against concrete and going at you MMA style, I'm going to just speculate wildly that the state wouldn't be able to meet its burden assuming the same facts and evidence were presented in some parallel universe trial.

The evidence was not as in your hypo where you pursued and killed someone. That's not remotely what the evidence here tended to show.

So the amount of time they took to deliberate, the request for further instruction on manslaughter, etc., was just an act?

Nothing offensive at all about that result...

Yea, I'm not really seeing what the problem is here. Could he have been wrongly convicted? Sure. But nowhere am I seeing a blatant disregard for the law by the prosecution, desperately seeking out a guilty verdict based on nothing but personal feelings, instead of the facts of the case.

The Widmer case is a case where the evidence actually leaves reasonable doubt and although he's been found guilty it was done so many believe erroneously. Many believe that his wife died due to a medical condition and all three trials this far tried to prove that but the prosecution kept doing whatever it had to to get the guilty verdict. From an outside view this trial is opposite o the Zimmerman case where the defense is trying to prove his innocence and some of the public views support this. Zimmerman may be guilty, but there was reasonable doubt and no concrete evidence to prove any guilt. Widmer was found guilty with similarities to the Zimmerman trial where there was no concrete evidence to prove his story or his guilt, but was found guilty by a jury.

No more or less than the post in which you talked about the Occupy movement. As you mentioned, the thread has reached its maximum redundancy. In 38 pages, surely these aren't the only posts that strayed off topic?

Love,
A Chill Half-Black Woman

I guess there are parallels on the level of generality that all murder trials have defendants, facts and maybe a little legal arguing.

I believe there was one witness who testified that he (the witness) could not say for sure who was on top. But he saw struggling. But you, like the jury, have chosen to believe GZ's rendition.

Trayvon's Martin's hands had one minor cut on one finger--certainly not consistent with a beatdown (MMA style or any other), but yet again, something the jury chose to believe. That was the mortician's information in a news interview shortly after the killing--I'm assuming the prosecution had him testify to that fact at trial.

As to the muzzle of the gun being pressed against the hoodie, that would also be consistent with GZ grabbing and holding the hoodie, perhaps as a frightened TM, seeing a gun, tried to get away? Martin backing away as Zimmerman held him in place would also pull the material of his hoodie away from his body. I wonder how long the jury gave consideration to that theory?

As someone said earlier up thread, GZ was quite a bit fitter than he was at trial. At 11 years older than TM, I'm not at all sure he didn't hold his own in a fight.

See how this game goes? At every turn, the jury gave GZ every presumption of belief, and the dead guy--strike that--the dead, unarmed kid who had a right to be where he was, got none.

The most galling thing in this for me, besides the kiling and atrocity of a trial verdict is that nobody gave any weight at all to Trayvon's right to stand his ground.

Apparently two juries who actually heard all of the evidence and were in a position to evaluate the witnesses disagree that there was reasonable doubt.

The "trials" didn't try to prove anything. The prosecution tried to prove guilt, the defense tried to prove that the wife died of a medical condition, or at least suggest reasonable doubt about that. While "many" may believe that he didn't do it, two juries disagreed and one couldn't decide.

FYI, when a verdict is set aside for something like juror misconduct, the result isn't dismissal of charges; the result is a new trial.

I get that there may be people who think he's innocent and has been wrongly convicted. But really, a case where there have been two guilty verdicts, one of which was overturned not because of insufficiency of the evidence or evidence that shouldn't have been admitted but because of juror misconduct and one of which was upheld on appeal (as best I can tell), doesn't work very well as a poster child for prosecutors who'll do anything for a conviction.

That's a little mischaracterization.

http://trayvon.axiomamnesia.com/peop...immerman-case/

Not inconsistent either. This part of the evidence was more-less a draw. The state proved it could have happened one way..maybe...possibly, but not beyond a reasonable doubt.

No, the prosecution didn't attempt to introduce that bizarre alternate theory. Read the review or rewatch the testimony. He made an ass out of the state's experts (his credentials are extremely impressive) and pretty much blew up their conclusions.

http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/story...storyid=324277

Folks who have had the evidence presented to them in a jury trial unanimously disagree with you... or at least they disagreed that the state met their burden in proving those things happened.

Ever hear the phrase "innocent until proven guilty?" It's not meaningless.

Had Martin used deadly force first, I suppose he could have attempted that defense. Martin wasn't on trial though.

I'm not sure what their ages have to do with anything, but ok...

Murder trials require the highest burden of proof to convict. The jury felt the prosecution didn't meet that burden. They found Zimmerman not guilty. I'm not sure why that automatically means that they're all biased and had their minds made up before the trial...

Value of the Verdict and Race
 

Okay, I have not read this entire thread.

Not sure if it was mentioned but what about the value of jury's verdict.

The jury made a decision based on what was given to them. We weren't there. Well, I was not. Now, it seems like people don't like it and they want to appeal. What does it say about the jury's hard work, time and effort? What does it say about respect for them? Sure, there is the right to appeal. But, to me, it seems to be almost disrespectful in that by appealing, a message is being sent that their opinion, hard work and energy is not valued. It comes across as answer shopping that if you don't like verdict, appeal.

What message does this send to future juries? In other cases?
Hey, your decision is not valued. Why bother serving on a jury? It is just going to be appealed? Is that self-defeating to our system? As much as it is apart of it?

At some point, we need to respect a jury's decision for the good of the system.

As for the race issue, I would like to think that we are past that. I really never thought of this as a race case, until it was made out to be one and brought up in the media. Who really cares if the kid is black? I don't. I don't care if the guy is white. Why should it be a big deal. Oh, wait, because someone brought it up and wants to make it. Stop using race as an excuse to have chip your shoulder. People do things not because of race but because they feel compelled to. Both sides made mistakes that night. I really don't think race had to with it. By making it a race issue, we have put ourselves back.

Quote:

Originally Posted by UVA17 (Post 2227290) No more or less than the post in which you talked about the Occupy movement.

Then you were making an analogy. Did you attempt the analogy because you believe the prosecution was reaching in the Zimmerman trial and it should not have been permitted?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BAckbOwlsgIrl (Post 2227311) What does it say about the jury's hard work, time and effort? What does it say about respect for them? Sure, there is the right to appeal. But, to me, it seems to be almost disrespectful in that by appealing, a message is being sent that their opinion, hard work and energy is not valued. It comes across as answer shopping that if you don't like verdict, appeal.

Besides having basic respect for the U.S.A. legal system (and jury system) and acknowledgement of the verdict, we are not obligated to care about a particular jury's hard work, time, and effort. We are not obligated to respect a particular jury. The history and present day dynamics of our legal system is not conducive to what you are saying. Do you really want a society in which people care more about some jurors' feelings than about the larger point being made and the right to an appeal (when applicable) or civil suit? Seriously?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BAckbOwlsgIrl (Post 2227311) As for the race issue, I would like to think that we are past that.

The media cannot be blamed for everything. Race and ethnicity exist. How societies respond to race and ethnicity is the problem. Not the existence of race and ethnicity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BAckbOwlsgIrl (Post 2227311) Who really cares if the kid is black? I don't. I don't care if the guy is white. Why should it be a big deal. Oh, wait, because someone brought it up and wants to make it. Stop using race as an excuse to have chip your shoulder. People do things not because of race but because they feel compelled to. Both sides made mistakes that night. I really don't think race had to with it. By making it a race issue, we have put ourselves back.

Of course, you are free to feel however you feel about race. You don't care, you don't think it is an issue, but the world does not revolve around what we as individuals consider a reality. Race and ethnicity exist and disparities exist regardless of how individuals perceive race and ethnicity. You think we have "put ourselves back" but we were not as far ahead as you assumed. Instead, people have unveiled the issues that were disguised through "diversity rainbows" and "colorblindness claims".

:) Zimmerman wants to highlight his Hispanic identity now so we should respect that he is not white. I'm being partly sarcastic. Zimmerman may have not been even partly motivated by Martin's race and vice versa. That can't be proven so it's neither here nor there at this point. What many people are highlighting is how the response to that evening and the resulting trial would probably have been handled differently if the racial and ethnic dynamics were different. Of course, you are free to disagree because none of us have a crystal ball. But your disagreement is rooted in the facts of this specific case as opposed to generations of cases that have gotten us where we are in 2013.

ETA: Thanks for clarifying the lack of an appeal, MysticCat. I think I keep typing "file an appeal or civil suit" when instead it is just a potential civil suit.

No, there is no right of appeal here. The state cannot appeal an acquittal. Once there is an acquittal, the rule against double jeopardy means that the case is over.

A defendant, on the other hand, always has a right to an appeal. But it's important to understand what an appellate court does and doesn't do. It does not (and cannot) substitute its own views of the evidence for those of the jury; the jury, not the judges, are the finders of fact. The appellate court basically reviews to make sure the rules were followed.

What the appellate considers are questions such as whether any pre-trial or trial procedures violated the constitutional rights of the defendant or whether evidence unduly prejudicial to the defendant was admitted in error. The court can decide that the jury heard evidence it shouldn't have heard. But the result in such a case is not entry of a different verdict by the appellate court. Rather, it's to order a new trial so that a new jury can reach a decision on proper evidence.

My bad. You are correct, Mystic. I used the wrong terminology.

So, now there is a civil suit? Whatever. This case is so overblown. Granted that a life was taken. That can never be overblown. I still think that a civil suit is overblown.

It shows disrespect for the jury's decision.

I don't think it does at all. The jury wasn't presented with the questions of civil liability toward the Martins. They were presented with the questions of whether or not Zimmerman committed murder or manslaughter. A new jury in a civil suit would be answering different questions, with different elements and applying different standards.

Where is this jury loyalty coming from? LOL. We are not talking about throwing defendants and jurors out of windows or over bridges. We are talking about formal legal procedures. A potential civil suit. Civil suits existed before the Zimmerman trial. They do not cease to exist just because some people agree with a verdict or are tired of hearing about an incident and resulting trial.

You would probably feel different about this if you disagreed with the verdict or if there was less coverage of the response to the verdict.

Zimmerman, a more fit one at that, was 27, 28 at the time of confrontation? Martin was 16, and by most photos I've seen, tall and thin.

In general, men are stronger than boys. Zimmerman's appearance now, doughy and out of shape, fit with the defense's "fear for his life" strategy. :rolleyes:

I never said all the jurors were biased. But when I hear the CNN interview of juror B-37... "George's heart was in the right place....." that suggests to me her mind was made up before opening statements.

I agree that Zimmerman's weight gain was intentional.

I thought Martin was 17. I will not assume Zimmerman was stronger than Martin just because he was an (shorter and) older man. I do not doubt Martin was a physically stronger high school athlete and kicked Zimmerman's ass. That was never the issue as far as I am concerned. The altercation happened but Zimmerman just so happened to have a gun. Lucky ducky. That's the issue as far as I am concerned. The prosecutors still did not have what they needed to get a conviction but the issue remains the issue.

I don't assume that juror's mind was made up before the case. She didn't say that is how she felt immediately. She may not have felt that way about Zimmerman until she heard most or all of the evidence. At the same time, everyone in that courtroom may have had their minds made up before the trial. Until we have robots in the court room, we will always have human attorneys, judges, jurors, and so forth. None of these people are fully capable of removing emotion, assumptions, and subjectivity. The legal system is designed to buffer much of this but arguably not all of this.

Perhaps, but in general doesn't mean in this case or always. My son is 15, tall and thin, and very strong.


Agree with all of this.

I slam dunked on MysticCat's son, then put him in a headlock.

I wasn't impressed with this week's CNN Anderson Cooper town hall talk on race. I'm tired of these CNN's talks. I get the point but BLAH. The panelists were good but BLAH. Some of the comments were interesting but BLAH. Nothing new. Nas was on there. BLAH.

And I know many 16-year-olds who are stronger than some 27-year-olds. If you want to argue strength, that's one thing. To argue that one is stronger than the other because he's 10 years older, though.. that doesn't always add up.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood, but this statement - at the end of your arguments about how the jury didn't consider all the facts - made me believe that you were referring to the entire jury:

And regarding juror B-37...

Maybe. Maybe even a few others' were, too. But again, you didn't initially point out one jury member.. you spoke of the jury as a whole.

Even if one person had decided what their vote would be beforehand, everyone in that deliberation room has to agree in order to read a 'guilty' or 'not guilty' verdict.

And even if all of them had their minds made up ahead of time, well.. that's a possibility.. just like it's a possibility that none of them did. None of us will ever know unless they all come out and admit to it. In the meantime, I think that speaking in the definitive about such things only creates more outrage (for lack of a better word).

One of the jurors who spoke out (maybe the only one?) said that the jury was originally split 3-3 when they started deliberations, which would suggest that if even a few jurors did have their minds made up that they would acquit Zimmerman, not all of them did.

I agree, it isn't groundbreaking evidence, but the prosecutor wasn't on their A-game like they should have been.

Martin wasn't "Standing his ground"? Zimmerman was the aggressor, not Martin.
Would it be illegal if it was an act? If all the evidence is pointing to the defense, aren't, most murder cases based on an act to convince the jury to give their clients a lesser sentence or to get them off the hook? Based on my observation, it happened in the Casey Anthony case, it happened with OJ, it happened with Jodi Arias, and it happened in this case too.

But, that has little to nothing to do with the 911 Dispatcher.


That is the debate. Zimmerman's defense used self-defense rather than Stand Your Ground. I think Zimmerman's scars looked like a perhaps much deserved ass kicking. However, in a court of law evidence outweighs theory and personal opinions. Prosecution had more theory and opinions and the defense had more solid evidence (including stronger expert opinions).

All trials are an act, regardless of the verdict and whether we individually agree with the verdict. And regardless of the gender, socioeconomic, racial and ethnic, and other dynamics that serve as extralegal factors (that are technically supposed to be ignored or outweighed by legal factors).

However, I think people who are using this truth to protest the Zimmerman verdict need to find a stronger argument. They need to find something that specifically pertains to the Zimmerman trial lest we are protesting every trial--Casey Anthony, O.J. Simpson, Jodi Arias, etc.

This.

Or maybe there needs to be a refined message as to what exactly is outrageous about the verdict. There's still a lot of uncertainty as to exactly what happened, and when that happens, we're not supposed to lock people up (although we do it all the time).

Makes sense. They really need to do-away with that law.

We do it all the time to those "criminals" who don't have the resources to keep from being locked up.

None of the state's evidence showed that Zimmerman was ever the aggressor except perhaps the claims of Zimmerman's parents that the voice yelling for help was Martin's. Zimmerman's family testified as well, so at best, you have a wash on that point. If, as Zimmerman told the police, Martin attacked Zimmerman while Zimmerman was following Martin with 911 on the phone, then no, that's not standing your ground, that's assault and battery.

That's why I've continued to press the point that this is perhaps not the ideal set of facts to be outraged over because you really don't know who did what and how responsible for his own death Martin was.

Illegal? Probably not. Could it lead to a possible retrial? Yeah, possibly under the right circumstances. From what little we know from B37, the jurors worked very hard on their verdict and based on the evidence I saw and heard, there was reasonable doubt. I haven't heard or read anything to cause me to doubt that. Because you are unhappy with the verdict isn't rational cause for you to think the jury was fixed from the beginning.

I'm not sure what you mean there. Are you saying that all of the evidence was pointing toward guilt? For whatever reason (luck?) 90% of the cases I work on involve a client who has confessed to everything before he bothered to call me (a few have even confessed on the 10 o'clock news before calling me). Those get plead out.

About 1% of cases go to trial, and yes, as Phil said, trials are a lot about acting. In fact, I've taken acting classes for CLE credit to help me better relate to juries. You have a job as an attorney--use the evidence and witnesses, and if you've got it, your personality, to persuade. That's what we do in trials.

(ETA: The defense did not use Stand Your Ground during the trial but this has arguably been a convenient combination of self-defense and Stand Your Ground. People use self-defense when convenient and Stand Your Ground when convenient. Some people have attached a duty to retreat to Martin and some people have attached it to Zimmerman. Some people say Martin should have gone home, some people say Zimmerman should have stayed his gun toting ass in the car. Ignoring the duty to retreat for self-defense, Martin or Zimmerman then had the right to Stand Their Ground.)

I agree but Stand Your Ground is gaining momentum. As long as we have the NRA and gun rights lobbyists, we will have Stand Your Ground. As long as we have people (predominantly whites) who are being told that society is being overtaken by violent criminals (disproportionately Black and Hispanic), we will have Stand Your Ground. As long as we have states passing laws allowing concealed weapons in bars, theaters, restaurants, and some K-12 and college classrooms we will have Stand Your Ground.

I still say all of the above would be axed if it was racial and ethnic minorities and people lower socioeconomic status who were pushing for gun rights and Stand Your Ground. Gun buyback programs in inner cities do not care whether those law abiding citizens who sell their guns are "standing their ground."

True and this continues to be researched and protested. People know the difference between protesting a specific trial and protesting a general message. There is a difference between filing a civil suit and arguing a civil rights violation. The Zimmerman trial probably ended how it should have ended based on the circumstances.

You'll get no argument from me there. It's a real shame how our criminal justice system works sometimes. In Oklahoma, if you can afford to post bail, they believe you can hire an attorney--a total ridiculous fiction.

And of course, if you can't post bail, our lovely county facility is so overcrowded that the cells are on 24/7 lockdown, 4 to a cell. If we kept POWs in the Oklahoma County Jail, we'd be violating the Geneva Convention.

None of it makes sense, because it's bullshit! Zimmerman shot Martin for no reason other than to fuck with a young black kid who he thought fit the stereotype of a thug. When the police showed up, Zimmerman was standing there with a dead body and a gun. The police questioned him, he explained what happened, and then they let his fat ass go.

If the police would have showed up and Martin was holding a gun with Zimmerman on the ground dead, they would have hauled his ass to jail. And if he asked if he could explain what happened, they would have said explain it to the judge. And before anybody pulls the word "Possibly" out of his or her ass, you know damn well what the outcome would have been. But this is the racist ass country we live in.

Is the horse dead yet!?!

First off, you seem to be blatantly ignoring the fact that there was a fight between the two.....and at the time of the incident Zimmerman was not fat...but rather seemingly fit.

Alanis.

Morissette.

Pardon me if none of the above is your own opinion.

What the heck does that even mean Drphil??

It means it is ironic that YOU would say someone is beating a dead horse. It is ironic that you would announce that Zimmerman is overweight now but appeared to be in decent shape back then. Certainly you know that clarification reinforces what Mizeree was saying. Zimmerman was a seemingly in shape 20-something who followed and had a run of the mill fight with a 17 year old. Zimmerman got his ass whooped, then conveniently found his gun on his hip to level the playing field. Sounds more like gun as a facilitating factor and someone who cannot take an ass whooping than self-defense (or even Stand Your Ground). Even without any mention of race, that reinforces what Mizeree is saying and fuels the protest over the verdict.

As for Mizeree's response that "none of it makes sense", I hope he read my post that Phrozen was responding to. Nothing in Mizeree's response refuted anything in my post to which Phrozen was responding. Trust me, we have enough nonsense in the legal and cj system. Mizeree, you do not want to encourage a system in which a prosecutor can only use what you said in your post in a courtroom and it results in a conviction. If you are fine with that, also be fine with that when it results in a verdict that you disagree with. Instead, you would probably argue against a verdict and complain the prosecution didn't have a strong case. If the defendant is a racial and ethnic minority, you would probably claim racist legal/cj system. But, that's what you wanted when it came to the Zimmerman verdict--you got what you asked for and don't like the outcome. We have a right to disagree with verdicts and we have a right to nonviolent protest. In using these rights, we should understand the different foundations of our protests and think about potential outcomes. I compare it to people who are against the death penalty until it hits close to home. Then they want the death penalty in their state and have amnesia as to why it was done away with. I weep for a society (and world) that is expected to go up and down on a whim.

The dead horse is the argument that keeps being made as typed out by Mizeree:
None of it makes sense, because it's bullshit! Zimmerman shot Martin for no reason other than to fuck with a young black kid who he thought fit the stereotype of a thug. When the police showed up, Zimmerman was standing there with a dead body and a gun. The police questioned him, he explained what happened, and then they let his fat ass go.
These two statements are incorrect....an the trial proved that.....the shooting was due to a fight....not to f$&$ with Martin.....and Zimmerman was not FAT at the time...

Badgeguy is slow.

I thought it was against the rules of GC to be negative towards other GC members??

Oh well....

Juror B29: Zimmerman 'got away with murder' but had to be acquitted

Have jurors always been so quick to talk to the media and write books? Don't they usually wait longer than 1-2 weeks?

And....

Family saved by Zimmerman cancels press conference

:rolleyes:

There can be more than one dead horse.

These are the rules:

By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.

Nothing in there about being negative towards other members. We'd all be in a boatload of trouble if being negative were a problem.