Originally Posted by UVA17 (Post 2227253)

:)

But that doesn't mean it's always an option. That's all I was saying

Signed,
A Chill Half-Black Woman

Originally Posted by badgeguy (Post 2227257)

And I'm against the argument that our judicial system seems to try and get people convicted of "something" rather than nothing when the evidence is really inconclusive....(a point being a local trial of a guy named Widmer who had been tried FOUR times in order for the prosecution to get him locked up...even though all three previous trials he was found not guilty of murdering his wife)....the evidence and the whole thing just seemed to me to be a witch hunt!

Originally Posted by badgeguy (Post 2227257)

And I'm against the argument that our judicial system seems to try and get people convicted of "something" rather than nothing when the evidence is really inconclusive....(a point being a local trial of a guy named Widmer who had been tried FOUR times in order for the prosecution to get him locked up...even though all three previous trials he was found not guilty of murdering his wife)....the evidence and the whole thing just seemed to me to be a witch hunt!

Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 2227275)

Not going to bother commenting on the speculation and what ifs and stuff you'd want to know before delivering your opinion.

I took a minute to Google this local case. Your understanding of what happened must have come from one of those unburdened-by-fact email forwards you get from your ultra-right-wing friends.

The first trial was declared a mistrial due to juror misconduct. The second was a hung jury. The third jury convicted. He's trying to get a fourth trial, but from what little I've seen, there's not much hope that'll go anywhere.

Originally Posted by Phrozen Sands (Post 2227251)

Would there have been an altercation if Zimmerman did what the authorities told him to do?

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06 (Post 2227280)

I just Googled this as well. It looks like he was actually convicted during the first trial, but it was later overturned due to juror misconduct. So he's gone through three trials and he was convicted twice.

The fourth trial never happened. Widmer and his attorneys wanted one, but they were denied.

Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 2227282)

Nothing offensive at all about that result...

Originally Posted by DrPhil (Post 2227256)

:)

What does whether it is always an option have to do with the George Zimmerman trial?

Signed,
A Mad Black Woman

Originally Posted by badgeguy (Post 2227288)

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.

Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 2227281)

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?

Originally Posted by badgeguy (Post 2227288)

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.

Originally Posted by TonyB06 (Post 2227300)

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.

Originally Posted by TonyB06 (Post 2227300)

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.