The Murder of Trayvon Martin

[Phrozen Sands]

So I guess it would be fair to pursue and follow George Zimmerman. If he were to try to defend himself, if he got shot and killed, my defense would be I was standing my ground. The difference is I'd be in prison right now. That's a really stupid law. That jury already had predetermined the outcome long before that trial even started.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Phrozen Sands

So I guess it would be fair to pursue and follow George Zimmerman. If he were to try to defend himself, if he got shot and killed, my defense would be I was standing my ground.

Possibly. Stand your ground can lead to some absurdities. Now in this case, we have a bit more than Zimmerman just following Martin. We have a physical altercation which wasn't going Zimmerman's way and then the shooting. If you simply walked up to someone and shot him, that's not going to play out in your favor.

That jury already had predetermined the outcome long before that trial even started.

The jury followed the law.

[DrPhil]

Zimmerman Emerges to Help Distressed Family

Sure, it is probably legit and mere coincidence...Zimmerman's a good wholesome community kinda guy...yadayadayada...we get the point. The amused part of me thinks this smells like the fake crack deal around the White House for George H.W. Bush's presidency. I'm just glad Zimmerman didn't have his gun. Ya know, shit happens when you coincidentally have a gun.

[maconmagnolia]

Originally Posted by Mizeree I2K

Well that's obvious. In those jurors minds they basically thought about somebody like Zimmerman protecting their neighborhood from somebody like Martin. That's all that was.

I don't think that's fair. The jurors said that they wanted to convict Zimmerman of something, but under the law, they couldn't do so.

The state overcharged the case, could not back it up, and this is the natural end result. I think that if they originally would have charged Zimmerman with manslaughter and made their case that way, he would have been convicted. Unfortunately, that isn't what happened.

[TonyB06]

Originally Posted by maconmagnolia

I don't think that's fair. The jurors said that they wanted to convict Zimmerman of something, but under the law, they couldn't do so.

The state overcharged the case, could not back it up, and this is the natural end result. I think that if they originally would have charged Zimmerman with manslaughter and made their case that way, he would have been convicted. Unfortunately, that isn't what happened.

I disagree. How did "overcharging" (by this, I'm presuming you mean murder 2) prevent jurors from convicting on the lesser included charge of manslaughter?

I thought, as did many others, manslaughter was clearly proven. Given that it was a lesser included charge, it was certainly there for the jurors to consider.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by TonyB06

I disagree. How did "overcharging" (by this, I'm presuming you mean murder 2) prevent jurors from convicting on the lesser included charge of manslaughter?

I thought, as did many others, manslaughter was clearly proven. Given that it was a lesser included charge, it was certainly there for the jurors to consider.

Manslaughter is a matter of intent, negligence, and justifiability. Even if manslaughter could be proven, manslaughter potentially carries a heavy sentence in Florida. That is why the defense and judge wanted the jury to know that manslaughter is not doing Zimmerman a favor. Manslaughter is not the lesser penalized charge in Florida that it is in some other states.

One explanation of manslaughter with a firearm:
http://www.richardhornsby.com/crimes...html#Penalties

[maconmagnolia]

Originally Posted by TonyB06

I disagree. How did "overcharging" (by this, I'm presuming you mean murder 2) prevent jurors from convicting on the lesser included charge of manslaughter?

I thought, as did many others, manslaughter was clearly proven. Given that it was a lesser included charge, it was certainly there for the jurors to consider.

I just don't think it's a very convincing argument for the state to say, "Well, here is my argument for why he should be convicted of second degree murder. Oh, and if you don't believe me, here's this lesser charge that you can convict him of."

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by maconmagnolia

I just don't think it's a very convincing argument for the state to say, "Well, here is my argument for why he should be convicted of second degree murder. Oh, and if you don't believe me, here's this lesser charge that you can convict him of."

Prosecutors do that all the time. That is one of the purposes behind multiple charges and plea bargains.

I'm all for people challenging the legal and cj system. Just be consistent.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Mizeree I2K

Well that's obvious. In those jurors minds they basically thought about somebody like Zimmerman protecting their neighborhood from somebody like Martin. That's all that was.

What makes this obvious?

How about you sit your Oklahoma, "white privileged" country ass down somewhere and shut up.

I'll take privileged. There's no doubt about that. But country? There's nothing wrong with that, many of my friends are country as hell, but I don't think anyone who knows me would say that.

You need to learn how to communicate civilly if you want to be taken seriously. If you don't care, why communicate at all? Do you just enjoy being crass?

[Phrozen Sands]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Stand your ground can lead to some absurdities. Now in this case, we have a bit more than Zimmerman just following Martin. We have a physical altercation which wasn't going Zimmerman's way and then the shooting. If you simply walked up to someone and shot him, that's not going to play out in your favor.

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

I agree, it wouldn't play out in my favor because as many black men who are serving time in prison, I don't have the resources for it to play out in my favor. The point I was making is Zimmerman did just that. He pursued, shot, and killed someone who was not bothering him, or anyone else, which is wrong on all levels.

Originally Posted by Kevin

The jury followed the law.

I didn't say the jury didn't follow the law. I said they already had predetermined their decision long before the trial started.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Phrozen Sands

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

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

I agree, it wouldn't play out in my favor because as many black men who are serving time in prison, I don't have the resources for it to play out in my favor. The point I was making is Zimmerman did just that. He pursued, shot, and killed someone who was not bothering him, or anyone else, which is wrong on all levels.

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.

I didn't say the jury didn't follow the law. I said they already had predetermined their decision long before the trial started.

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

[TonyB06]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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?

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.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by TonyB06

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.

That's a little mischaracterization.

When he first walked outside, the Black guy was on top while they were wrestling. He could tell this because the guy on the bottom was a lighter color. The witness was looking out the window and yelling out the window telling them to stop. After the incident, he saw other people out there with flashlights. The guy who had been previously on top was lying face down in the grass. The one who had been on the bottom had his hands in the air. The guy who did the shooting said, “I shot the other guy in self defense. My gun is on the ground.”

He didn’t have his patio door open. He could only hear the helps with all doors and windows closed. He says he couldn’t tell who was yelling for help. He thought it was the person on the ground at first because his logic says that the person on the bottom would be the one yelling for help. He says he truly couldn’t tell who was yelling help. It was too dark. He didn’t see how it started or how it ended. He only saw when they were in an altercation on the ground.

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

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

[BAckbOwlsgIrl]

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.

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by TonyB06

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.

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...