The Murder of Trayvon Martin

[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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by BAckbOwlsgIrl

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.

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.

[BAckbOwlsgIrl]

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by BAckbOwlsgIrl

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.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by BAckbOwlsgIrl

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.

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.