The Murder of Trayvon Martin

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by UVA17

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

Signed,
A Chill Half-Black Woman

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

Signed,
A Mad Black Woman

[badgeguy]

I still would like to know about the history of the neighborhood and if any other community watch persons had any run ins with people they felt to be suspicious. And I would like to find out how many and how bad was the vandalism or burglaries were in Zimmermans neighborhood that made him feel like he had to carry a gun. Are there young kids, black or white, or Hispanic in that neighborhood that was causing so much trouble that neighborhood watch persons felt they should carry lethal weapons?
It had been said that GZ had a sort of hero complex and that what he wanted to do was to be the guy who saved his community to be the guy his neighbors looked at as being their protector....which in my opinion led him to get out of his car to check out to see what Martin was really up to......
That being said, have there been any reports about any other alterations in that neighborhood prior to this event?

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!

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by badgeguy

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!

Well if there's no evidence, then a person won't (or shouldn't) be convicted of anything.

And how was this person tried four times? Shouldn't double jeopardy apply?

The reason that there are lesser charges offered is because there are different levels of punishment. For example, let's say someone was driving while under the influence and killed someone, and the only charge on the table was first degree murder. Would you feel comfortable convicting someone of that, possibly sending them to death row? Probably not. This is why the lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter exists.

95% of cases never make it to trial. People plea to lesser charges. This saves time and money, and it's necessary. It's not a matter of "let's convict this person of SOMETHING because we know he's guilty and even without evidence, we need a way to bring him down!" .. it's more about reaching justice quickly, having options when it comes to sentencing, and finding the correct charges for the crimes that are committed.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by badgeguy

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!

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.

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

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.

[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?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

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.

Nothing offensive at all about that result...

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

[badgeguy]

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.

[UVA17]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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

Signed,
A Mad Black Woman

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

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by badgeguy

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.

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

[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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by badgeguy

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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.

[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...