George Zimmerman Trial

[FLDomer]

I think that maybe this is a situation where two prejudices came together with a terribly tragic outcome. One young man paid with his life, the other will pay for the rest of his. A situation that could have been prevented by love over hate, common sense over ignorance.

^ this. I'm done with thread, and back to the round the clock coverage down here. Perfectly said Bob!

reps when I get actual CPU and not on my phone

 

[peoriairish]

^ this. Perfectly said Bob

reps when I get actual CPU and not on my phone

If you press and hold on the rep button when on the phone, it should ask if you want to open the link in another tab. Do that, then rep away, then close said tab when done. Hope it works for ya.

 

[Emcee77]

Unfortunately, the only story we have is Zimmerman's. Who knows when the gun was pulled? If we are going to just take Zimmerman's word for it, why even have a justice system?

This happens all the time. Jury verdicts are often based just on who the jury decides to believe. It's blackletter law in Illinois, where I'm licensed, that the testimony of a single eyewitness is sufficient to convict. I deal every day with offenders who say that they were wrongly convicted because there was no physical evidence against him, and every day I tell them, there doesn't have to be, as long as there is credible, positive eyewitness testimony.

The jury's job is to figure out what happened. In this case, a huge part of that will be evaluating Zimmerman's credibility on the stand and determining whether to believe him or not.

The truth would alawy be with the person who survived. All of the evicence I heard with my own ears suggests that Zimmerman was the aggressor. He is the only one who said that Martin said he was going to kill him and attacked. My question is why should we believe him since he is the one who ignored the direction of the police.

We will see what comes out at trial, but when I attempted to review the evidence by reading the Wikipedia article about the incident (no guarantee as to how well that actually represents the evidence that will be introduced), I felt that there was very little evidence to refute Zimmerman's account. No one else saw the incident, but there multiple witnesses who said they saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, which tends to provide some support for the theory that Martin was the aggressor, far from suggesting that Zimmerman was the aggressor. We know that Zimmerman was following Martin, but that doesn't make him the aggressor.

But "why should we believe him"? Answering this question is the jury's job (guided by the lawyers). They will either decide they do or don't believe him, and we live with the answer.

The question in my mind is: At what point do you instigate/provoke/set into motion a string of events that guarantee a confrontation that should then cause you to surrender your right to claim self defense?

If a guy decides to stash his legally owned assault rifle under his best Klan whites and stand on public property outside a house in his hood where he suspects criminal activities are taking place, and if he is confronted by a group of people who think he might be up to know good, can he claim self defense? What if a black guy in Idaho legally arms himself to the tooth and sets up surveillance outside some neo nazi encampment that he thinks made the Meth that took his son's life. When the locals come out to confront him can he stand his ground? What if he waits until they tear his shirt or throw him to the ground, then can he open up on them?

This is a great question to ask and these are great hypotheticals. It would be interesting to research this, but as far as I know, no non-physical provocation is sufficient to amount to "aggression" that would cause the provocateur to lose the ability to claim self-defense if attacked. No matter how hateful the klansmen is, he doesn't lose his right to claim self-defense unless and until he is physically aggressive. Similarly, the black man in Idaho can't claim self-defense until the neo-nazis do something concrete to put him in a reasonable fear that his life is in danger. Drawing a firearm and pointing it at him would probably be enough. Suppose the neo-nazis have no guns, but there are 6 of them advancing on him, and one "tears his shirt or throws him to the ground" ... if these guys are hardcore neo-nazis who are known to have committed hate crimes before, I'd think that would be enough, too. But if the neo-nazis came out, saw the black man, said, "hey what the hell are you doing here?", and he just opened fire ... that's murder. No indication that they were going to do anything to him.

 

[no.1IrishFan]

I hate this case, I really do, wish this incident had never happened. Also, been blown away by this thread...I'll leave it at that. Been trying to stay away from it but, what the heck,



I won't be the first to call anybody anything, but I am curious how many murders the African American community can have before they give up their right to be outraged by a young man's murder based on being erroneously racially profiled, by a fellow civillian with no experience or authority? What is good number? If it were equal to the ratio of European American on European American murders could they then feel outraged?




I did in fact say on this site that it would not matter to me if GZ had some injuries, because in my mind that is not what this case should hinge on. If this case hinges on whether or not GZ had some injuries then I think the right to stand your ground is being unevenly applied. The question in my mind is: At what point do you instigate/provoke/set into motion a string of events that guarantee a confrontation that should then cause you to surrender your right to claim self defense?

If a guy decides to stash his legally owned assault rifle under his best Klan whites and stand on public property outside a house in his hood where he suspects criminal activities are taking place, and if he is confronted by a group of people who think he might be up to know good, can he claim self defense? What if a black guy in Idaho legally arms himself to the tooth and sets up surveillance outside some neo nazi encampment that he thinks made the Meth that took his son's life. When the locals come out to confront him can he stand his ground? What if he waits until they tear his shirt or throw him to the ground, then can he open up on them?




What if you were in a different neighborhood, car broke down, and had to walk on foot, and you were suddenly being followed. What if the guy following you tried in some way to detain you, I'm guessing that wouldn't sit too well with you.



I think this IS a big issue: who had choices and who was forced to react based on the other persons choices. TM only had two choices, 1.) assume this guy is above board and surrender to his will whatever that may be or 2.) fight back in some way. I think fleeing was probably not an option as he was on foot being followed by someone in a car, suddenly running to someone's door or seeking cover in their back yard would likely gotten him shot or arrested.

People talk about how shameless the media is in sensationalizing the case then start talking about what TM had on his facebook page. I don't know if TM was a good kid or bad kid but it has NO bearing on what happened that night. The jury should not give GZ 15 years if he was a good kid and 10 years if he was an o.k. kid and a medal if he was a bad kid. GZ had ZERO insight into what kind of kid he was when he decided to confront/ or cause a confrontation to occur. I do not know if GZ is a good guy or a bad guy, neither did TM, probably they were both operating out of fear, neither very experienced in these types of scenarios, that is why it is better to let trained police who are used to sizing up a suspect and are also known by that suspect to be stopping them for a reason and not just a wacko following you for God knows what.
My problem is not so much with the individuals here but with a posture by the law that allows anyone with their own paranoid, racist, unsubstantiated or even altruistic, noble, and thoughtful notions to become vigilantes and attempt to do what trained professionals are supposed to do. The problem with this is we are a nation governed by law, decided in courts, prescribed by law enforcement officers NOT a nation governed by every other citizens fears, prejudices, notions, experience, mood and mental state.

So ACamp, I am not saying there are no grounds to use deadly force, but I am saying that if this is where we are headed, then it scares me.

You make a very good point, I don't think I was clear enough in my op. I completely understand why the black community is furious over this situation. They should be. I just don't understand why the enormous number of deaths from black on black crimes just get swept under the rug. Where is the same anger for a life that has been pointlessly taken by another black man? But, something like this happens and it's a national story. Truth is, if TM had been shot by another black man in that neighborhood, this thread wouldn't even exist. I value all life, no matter where you came from or what race you are. I hate that TM died, it didn't have to happen. But, what I really hate is that this is only a national story because the shooter wasn't black as well. It shouldn't matter, a life is a life.

 

[A Pac]

Opening statements today. Anyone else think that the judge loses credibility when she wears a leopard spotted headband to court?

 

[A Pac]

Aaaaaaaaaand the HLN censors just missed the prosecuting attorney using the f-word. Way to get fired.

 

[Cackalacky]

Just read that the 911 call analysis by experts won't be admitted as evidence due to uncertainty in the methodologies and conflicting results. The call can be heard in court but any analysis at who is calling for help or who is who during the struggle by an "expert" will not be allowed.

 

[Kaneyoufeelit]

Opening statements today. Anyone else think that the judge loses credibility when she wears a leopard spotted headband to court?

Nope.

 

[Cackalacky]

Opening statements today. Anyone else think that the judge loses credibility when she wears a leopard spotted headband to court?

Unbelievably irrelevant. And that's a big ol NOPE!

 

[ACamp1900]

Red bar, I honestly think its a huge leap to go from, "can we use deadly force when being attacked" to racist white boys in Klan robes and neo nazi meth dealers killing black guys in " self defense",... But that's just me.

My point was very simple, if I am attacked and someone is shouting" I'm killing to kill you" while grabbing for a weapon I'd hope I could defend myself however necessary...

 

[irishpat183]

The tragedy is that Martin is dead ... if you believe that Martin wouldn't have really killed Zimmerman (as ACamp pointed out, we don't know that for sure and never will), nobody needed to die.

That's not to say that Zimmerman should go to jail for murder. If someone is punching me and slamming my head into a concrete sidewalk and reaching for my gun and telling me that I'm going to die (Zimmerman's story), I'm almost certainly justified in using deadly force against him.

But would Martin have really killed Zimmerman, if neither man was armed? I just find it hard to believe. That's the tragedy.

But how did Martin know Zimmerman was packing if he just jumped him?

And the problem here, is that many people(members of the public and media) are assuming that Zimmerman is lying about what happened. Simply because he was a man that killed a 17 year old with a gun, doesn't mean he's a monster. It's a terrible deal...but it looks justified.

Shame on the media for not telling the story of ZImmerman tutoring at risk black youth in the area. They labeled this guy from the begining.

You're right...only on side of the story will be told. It's Martins.

 

[Emcee77]

But how did Martin know Zimmerman was packing if he just jumped him?

Zimmerman's story is that Martin saw or felt the gun at some point during the struggle, and then began reaching for it. He probably didn't know he was packing at first; he likely wouldn't have jumped him at all if he had. No idea whether it's true or not, obviously. We'll see what comes out at trial.

 

[ACamp1900]

It is interesting how little we in fact know or will ever know here, when contrasted with what people of every conceivable mindset feel absolutely happened step for step...

 

[GoIrish41]

It is interesting how little we in fact know or will ever know here, when contrasted with what people of every conceivable mindset feel absolutely happened step for step...

The only piece of evidence that puts any observer who is making such comments in the scene is the 9-1-1 call. There is a lot in that call that looks pretty bad for Zimmerman -- especially the fact that he was told to stop pursuing TM, and the fact that TM ended up dead by a gunshot that Zimmerman admits he fired.

 

[irishpat183]

The only piece of evidence that puts any observer who is making such comments in the scene is the 9-1-1 call. There is a lot in that call that looks pretty bad for Zimmerman -- especially the fact that he was told to stop pursuing TM, and the fact that TM ended up dead by a gunshot that Zimmerman admits he fired.

No, it doesn't.

A 911 operator has ZERO authority. It wasn't a cop that told him to stop. Again, if there were recent break ins in the area, it's a llittle suspicious that a young person is walking around in the rain at night in dark clothing.

The 911 call actually does him a favor. He called 911 in the first place. And when he was told to stop following, according to Zimmerman, Martin was already aware of him and approching Zimmerman.


911 operators also tell homeowners to not shoot intruders.

 

[GoIrish41]

But how did Martin know Zimmerman was packing if he just jumped him?

And the problem here, is that many people(members of the public and media) are assuming that Zimmerman is lying about what happened. Simply because he was a man that killed a 17 year old with a gun, doesn't mean he's a monster. It's a terrible deal...but it looks justified.

Shame on the media for not telling the story of ZImmerman tutoring at risk black youth in the area. They labeled this guy from the begining.

You're right...only on side of the story will be told. It's Martins.

It doesn't matter what Zimmerman did before the incident. It doesn't matter what was in his head at the time of the incident. The only thing that matters is what he did during the incident and the moments leading up to it. Is the media irresponsible for reporting what TM had on his Facebook page or that he was suspended from school, or that he had drugs in his system? That doesn't have any place in this case either but you seem to be giving them a pass on that reporting.

 

[irishpat183]

I just simply don't see the case for Martin.....except for the emotional side.

First he was a "young kid"...turns out he was really 17 and has a questionable history and run ins with the law and problems at school with assaults.

Then, it was because he was black....turns out, the tape was edited by MSNBC (which resulted in a firign and apology) but the damage was already done and the public was in riot mode. Little did the public know, Zimmerman is half hispanic.

Then it was the Zimmerman followed him and confronted him....Nope. Turns out, a broken nose and cracked head proves that Trayvon was not only attacking him, but on top of Zimmerman at the time of the shooting.

Then it's questions about Zimmerman and his money issues, lawyer fees....etc. Anythign to distract from the real case....Which is: did Zimmerman kill this teen in cold blood because he was simply a black male walking around the neighborhood?

Which is no. Not even close.

 

[irishpat183]

It doesn't matter what Zimmerman did before the incident. It doesn't matter what was in his head at the time of the incident. The only thing that matters is what he did during the incident and the moments leading up to it. Is the media irresponsible for reporting what TM had on his Facebook page or that he was suspended from school, or that he had drugs in his system? That doesn't have any place in this case either but you seem to be giving them a pass on that reporting.

Let's be honest here....WHO was the media after from the begining? The ONLY reason that stuff came out was because of the inital attack on Zimmerman. And you know it.

 

[Emcee77]

I just simply don't see the case for Martin.....except for the emotional side.

First he was a "young kid"...turns out he was really 17 and has a questionable history and run ins with the law and problems at school with assaults.

Then, it was because he was black....turns out, the tape was edited by MSNBC (which resulted in a firign and apology) but the damage was already done and the public was in riot mode. Little did the public know, Zimmerman is half hispanic.

Then it was the Zimmerman followed him and confronted him....Nope. Turns out, a broken nose and cracked head proves that Trayvon was not only attacking him, but on top of Zimmerman at the time of the shooting.

Then it's questions about Zimmerman and his money issues, lawyer fees....etc. Anythign to distract from the real case....Which is: did Zimmerman kill this teen in cold blood because he was simply a black male walking around the neighborhood?

Which is no. Not even close.

You are making an assumption here. The broken nose and cracked head do not prove that Zimmerman wasn't the first aggressor. They just prove that Martin was tougher than Zimmerman.

Not that I totally disagree with you ... I agree that there is scant evidence that Zimmerman was the first aggressor. This case will come down to whether the jury thinks his testimony is credible. A big part of that will be how he performs on cross-examination.

 

[irishpat183]

You are making an assumption here. The broken nose and cracked head do not prove that Zimmerman wasn't the first aggressor. They just prove that Martin was tougher than Zimmerman.

Not that I totally disagree with you ... I agree that there is scant evidence that Zimmerman was the first aggressor. This case will come down to whether the jury thinks his testimony is credible. A big part of that will be how he performs on cross-examination.

Fair enough.

Even still...it doesn't hurt Zimmerman.

I suppose at the end of the day, it's Zimmerman's story vs a dead guy. Dead guys don't talk. Therefore, case closed.

Had someone seen everything up to the point of thhe shooting? Might be a different case. But I don't see how you can convict him for Murder on the evidence presented.

 

[GoIrish41]

Let's be honest here....WHO was the media after from the begining? The ONLY reason that stuff came out was because of the inital attack on Zimmerman. And you know it.

As long as we are being open minded about it, Zimmerman did shoot a kid who wasn't doing anything wrong. That kinda thing does tend to generate a little outrage -- particularly when the police didn't seem to do anything about it for a month or so. So, the rebuttle to "unfair" reporting is to dig up "unfair" stuff on the other side to counter with? Silly me, I thought that it is either right or wrong. My mistake.

 

[Cackalacky]

The 911 call actually does him a favor. He called 911 in the first place. And when he was told to stop following, according to Zimmerman, Martin was already aware of him and approching Zimmerman.

My understanding, and correct me if I am wrong, is that he was told to stop pursuing, but then said stuff like "these *******s always get away" and "**** he's running" so GZ continued to follow TM and the confrontation was had. Martin was aware of him based on the conversation he was having with a girl, but what report said TM approached Zimmerman? Was it Zimmerman 's account? I did not get this from listening to the call. If there is something else, I would love to see who said it and where it came from.

In the end I think it is as BobD said... a tragic conclusion of misconceptions

 

[GoIrish41]

I just simply don't see the case for Martin.....except for the emotional side.

First he was a "young kid"...turns out he was really 17 and has a questionable history and run ins with the law and problems at school with assaults.

Then, it was because he was black....turns out, the tape was edited by MSNBC (which resulted in a firign and apology) but the damage was already done and the public was in riot mode. Little did the public know, Zimmerman is half hispanic.

Then it was the Zimmerman followed him and confronted him....Nope. Turns out, a broken nose and cracked head proves that Trayvon was not only attacking him, but on top of Zimmerman at the time of the shooting.

Then it's questions about Zimmerman and his money issues, lawyer fees....etc. Anything to distract from the real case....Which is: did Zimmerman kill this teen in cold blood because he was simply a black male walking around the neighborhood?

Which is no. Not even close.

First, let me say I missed you Pat. It's been a while since we sparred on here. In your post above, for example, there is just soooo much to disagree with it is astonishing that you fit it into such a short post.

Martin was 17. Did you seriously think it was a toddler walking down the street at night alone in the rain. I mean, he did have Skittles, so I can see where it might have thrown you. News flash, 17 is a young kid.

Martin had problems at school and run-ins with the law, none of which Zimmerman could possibly have known by simply looking at him in the dark. He didn't have the benefit of the evil press reporting all of those bad things about Martin when he followed him and ended up shooting him. Martin's past is completely irrelevant.

What information could he have known at a glance? That he was black. Even though your suggestion that latinos couldn't possibly have something against another reace because being a minority erases predjudice from your mindset. I'm not saying Zimmerman was a racist, but let's not pretend it is absolutely out of the question that he was either.

If there is any evidence that contradicts the 9-1-1 call where Zimmerman says that he is following Martin that I haven't heard about, please let me know. If he wasn't following him, it seems that you are suggesting that out of the blue, Martin walked up to Zimmerman and sucker punched him, lept on top of him and began punching him and smashing his head into the sidewalk. I guess that is possible (afterall, who is alive that would argue that's what happened?), but you and I both know that is extraordinarily unlikely. Whether or not Zimmerman physically confronted Martin or he just completely freaked him out by following him through the neighborhood, the confrontation almost certainly happened because of Zimmerman's actions, not Martin's.

Finally, Zimmerman's money issues were a direct result of this court case, and they speak to his judgment (unless the carrying a gun and following people through a neighborhood at night didn't tip you off).

 

[Redbar]

Red bar, I honestly think its a huge leap to go from, "can we use deadly force when being attacked" to racist white boys in Klan robes and neo nazi meth dealers killing black guys in " self defense",... But that's just me.

My point was very simple, if I am attacked and someone is shouting" I'm killing to kill you" while grabbing for a weapon I'd hope I could defend myself however necessary...

ACamp, I am trying to understand why you would take both of my hypotheticals, one where a hypothetical white guy and one where a hypothetical black guy abuse the self defense concept and turn them both into, "racist white boys in Klan robes and neo nazi meth dealers killing black guys." I was trying to illustrate a point not be inflammatory, in case you missed it, I put the point succinctly before it, I said, "If this case hinges on whether or not GZ had some injuries then I think the right to stand your ground is being unevenly applied. The question in my mind is: At what point do you instigate/provoke/set into motion a string of events that guarantee a confrontation that should then cause you to surrender your right to claim self defense?
I have no problem with a person using deadly force to defend themselves, my problem is that the law especially criminal statutes should always seek to be applied as evenly as possible, that should be a given. Any law that encourages amateurs, to interpret the law, empowers them to enforce the law, with deadly force, and the only standard is that individual's subjective interpretation of the situation and their subjective view of the world, should be questioned. The failure to question these types of powers being given to any guy that can get a permit, and the failure to hold that person to the highest standard when they use that type of power is scary to me.
Maybe GZ will be found to have exercised a high degree of caution, but the feeling that the only reason this is a case or it is important is because of the media...,blah, blah, blah, or cause it wasn't black on black crime, is IMO wrongheaded. For some, sure...and they are missing the point too. There are some important issues that we as a nation need to figure out what we are comfortable with.

 

[WestCoast]

My point was very simple, if I am attacked and someone is shouting" I'm killing to kill you" while grabbing for a weapon I'd hope I could defend myself however necessary...

What if that person shouts "I'm going to go you".

Me fail english? That's unpossible.

 

[ACamp1900]

ACamp, I am trying to understand why you would take both of my hypotheticals, one where a hypothetical white guy and one where a hypothetical black guy abuse the self defense concept and turn them both into, "racist white boys in Klan robes and neo nazi meth dealers killing black guys." I was trying to illustrate a point not be inflammatory, in case you missed it, I put the point succinctly before it, I said, "If this case hinges on whether or not GZ had some injuries then I think the right to stand your ground is being unevenly applied. The question in my mind is: At what point do you instigate/provoke/set into motion a string of events that guarantee a confrontation that should then cause you to surrender your right to claim self defense?
I have no problem with a person using deadly force to defend themselves, my problem is that the law especially criminal statutes should always seek to be applied as evenly as possible, that should be a given. Any law that encourages amateurs, to interpret the law, empowers them to enforce the law, with deadly force, and the only standard is that individual's subjective interpretation of the situation and their subjective view of the world, should be questioned. The failure to question these types of powers being given to any guy that can get a permit, and the failure to hold that person to the highest standard when they use that type of power is scary to me.
Maybe GZ will be found to have exercised a high degree of caution, but the feeling that the only reason this is a case or it is important is because of the media...,blah, blah, blah, or cause it wasn't black on black crime, is IMO wrongheaded. For some, sure...and they are missing the point too. There are some important issues that we as a nation need to figure out what we are comfortable with.

I guess I felt my point was pretty clear... then you seemed to take issue, kind of, yet agree... ???

I guess in your first response, when I first read it, your two hypotheticals read more like a race obsessed conflation honestly... I didn't think they had much relevance to my question when the obvious assumption to my question was that no Klan members, meth dealers or race baiting of any kind was involved, just an attacker and someone trying to defend himself. When you focus on my concern from the context of this case alone (which was never my intent) then I see why someone could connect that.

Another point, I never said anything about this case being of no importance (I assume that was at me). I do feel that there are most likely many other cases just like this going on across the country currently, and there have certainly been many similar to it throughout the years... my niece's murder case for one… we all know of/follow this particular one because of the media’s coverage.

 

[Cackalacky]

Charleston Police Blotter:
Punch unexpected for 'cartoon' character

"A man walking downtown at 2 a.m. acting like the "Futurama" TV show's cartoon lobster character, "Dr. Zoidberg," was punched in the face, according to a Charleston police report.


The 22-year-old man, who had a chipped tooth and possible broken nose, drove himself to a hospital, the report says.

The man told police he was "just playing around" Feb. 11 near King and Calhoun streets when he began imitating Zoidberg. The report says the 22-year-old described Zoidberg as "a lobster doctor that walks sideways with his claws out and makes noise."

When "Zoidberg" passed another man on the street, the other man reportedly asked, "What did you say to me?" The 22-year-old's friends pulled him away from the man, "telling him, 'keep going, he said nothing to you,' " according to the report.

The man reportedly followed for about 20 feet and threw the punch. The alleged assailant, who is known by the 22-year-old, reportedly ran away, the report states.

The report says the 22-year-old told officers he wants to press charges."

 

[ACamp1900]

I know I shouldn't, but I can't stop giggling... what the hell??

 

[BobD]

I would punch him too, I can't stand lobster doctors.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

I am absolutely amazed at what I read on this thread page. Now Zimmerman has a broken nose? And serious injuries? When did that happen? Because it wasn't introduced into evidence.

Here are the pictures: