Trayvon Martin Case

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

If the prosecution had made a better case, it shouldn't have mattered who started the fight. The open/shut nature of the case is because of the way the fight ended. How the fight began is simply not a newsworthy national event. It's semantics. You can just say "they fought" and the facts of the case are unchanged.

The evidence is what it is, including gaps, and including just enough to know that Zimmerman *might* have feared for his life. How the fight started, how it ended, both are important in a self-defence case.

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

GZ was acquitted because his team of lawyers was able to make Trayvon Martin's death a footnote in a series of semantics. They decided a 17 year old's life was collateral damage to Zimmerman's perception of the events.

C'mon, you've been fairly reasonable compared to others in this thread. "Engaged" is semantics, too.

IMO, Zimmerman was acquitted because nobody could prove beyond a reasonable doubt what we're talking about. That's probably why Zimmerman's lawyers didn't even try a Stand Your Ground claim, to avoid a civil trial. Because they would have lost the SYG case for the same reason. (JoeR if you read this please feel free to correct me if you want.)

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

The evidence is what it is, including gaps, and including just enough to know that Zimmerman *might* have feared for his life. How the fight started, how it ended, both are important in a self-defence case.

C'mon, you've been fairly reasonable compared to others in this thread. "Engaged" is semantics, too.

IMO, Zimmerman was acquitted because nobody could prove beyond a reasonable doubt what we're talking about. That's probably why Zimmerman's lawyers didn't even try a Stand Your Ground claim, to avoid a civil trial. Because they would have lost the SYG case for the same reason. (JoeR if you read this please feel free to correct me if you want.)

I'm trying to call attention to the impact of the court ruling, without actually criticizing the ruling based on the cases made in court. It's a fine line to walk and I realize that I might appear both reasonable and unreasonable at different points in a post based on what you believe. I'm not trying to be anything other than truthful.

I am not doubting that Zimmerman might have legitimately feared for his life at some point during the altercation (though that can be questioned by a skeptic), but:

1) the ability to construct a situation in ones mind where they overstate the immediate threat is not to be confused with self-defense, a situation that necessarily requires a credible threat.

2) the mental construct for Zimmerman of immediate danger would have to be linked more tightly to "black thug guy" than "unarmed teenager" in order to justify lethal force. The problem is that the former construct is based heavily on either a poor understanding of race relations at best, or blatant racism at worst. When we deal with facts, we know that Martin was both unarmed, and a teenager, and to go beyond that in terms of character requires a breach of respect for mankind I am not willing to make.

George Zimmerman is likely not an expert on anything. He's probably a racist. He probably didn't intend to kill someone, but he WAS willing to shoot someone who he saw as different/less than human. He made a mistake. I don't think he was defending himself from immediate danger, and I don't think the evidence suggests that was in very much danger.

I do think it's very questionable reasoning to so much as suggest that Zimmerman acted lawfully. Obviously, a criminal trial is not trying to argue that he acted lawfully, but rather, that he did not act unlawfully beyond reasonable doubt. Also: he shot and killed someone. The state of Florida is likely going to want to be very careful about how they apply the law in similar cases, after ruling that someone can shoot and kill, without acting unlawfully (beyond a reasonable doubt).

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

He's probably a racist.

This is one issue that is driving me nuts. There really is no evidence of this at all. In fact the prosecution never brought it up because there is so little evidence. The fact that TM was black meant one thing... it was a defining characteristic that made him look, to GZ, similar to other assailants who had perpetrated some crimes in the neighborhood. It would be really easy to process this whole situation collectively if in fact we could make a reasonable assumption of his racism but I just don't see it. I think if the case could have been made, even weakly, the prosecution would have done so. The racist aspect has been laid out there from the beginning by grand-standing politicians, ne'er-do-well media, and folks with specific agendas. To me, focusing on TM's race and insinuating GZ's racism only seeks to further impair race-relations.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

This is one issue that is driving me nuts. There really is no evidence of this at all. In fact the prosecution never brought it up because there is so little evidence. The fact that TM was black meant one thing... it was a defining characteristic that made him look, to GZ, similar to other assailants who had perpetrated some crimes in the neighborhood. It would be really easy to process this whole situation collectively if in fact we could make a reasonable assumption of his racism but I just don't see it. I think if the case could have been made, even weakly, the prosecution would have done so. The racist aspect has been laid out there from the beginning by grand-standing politicians, ne'er-do-well media, and folks with specific agendas. To me, focusing on TM's race and insinuating GZ's racism only seeks to further impair race-relations.

... and undercuts the credibility those so insinuating.

As for the rest, agree 100%.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I'm trying to call attention to the impact of the court ruling, without actually criticizing the ruling based on the cases made in court. It's a fine line to walk and I realize that I might appear both reasonable and unreasonable at different points in a post based on what you believe. I'm not trying to be anything other than truthful.

I am not doubting that Zimmerman might have legitimately feared for his life at some point during the altercation (though that can be questioned by a skeptic), but:

1) the ability to construct a situation in ones mind where they overstate the immediate threat is not to be confused with self-defense, a situation that necessarily requires a credible threat.

The crux of your denial that there was no credible threat to GZ is based, it seems to me, entirely on the "just losing a fight is not excuse for use of deadly force" argument coupled with the "unarmed teen cannot pose reasonable fear of great bodily to an adult". Both of these have been discussed ad nausem throughout this thread.

As to the first, I heartily agree - merely losing a fight is not enough to justify deadly force. The evidence presented in this case, however, is that there was a very real and reasonable inference that GZ was not "just losing a fight" but was, in fact, suffering a vicious, unrelenting beat down with no help in sight.

As to the assumption that an unarmed teen could never pose a threat of serious bodily injury to an adult, even w/out examining the evidence presented I take issue with this assumption and assert that I can think of numerous scenarios in which an unarmed teen posed a credible threat of death or serious injury to an adult. I firmly believe that, based on the evidence presented in this case, it was reasonable to believe such a scenario existed. If you assert it could not, see my post #1016 and refute with direct evidence the scenario described.

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

2) the mental construct for Zimmerman of immediate danger would have to be linked more tightly to "black thug guy" than "unarmed teenager" in order to justify lethal force. The problem is that the former construct is based heavily on either a poor understanding of race relations at best, or blatant racism at worst. When we deal with facts, we know that Martin was both unarmed, and a teenager, and to go beyond that in terms of character requires a breach of respect for mankind I am not willing to make.

So, as GZ is lying on his back, pinned to the ground with his head being slammed to the concrete, blood running down his throat, blows raining down on him and screaming for help - GZ thinks, "Hmmmm, b/c of my poor understanding of race relations, I shall reach for my gun to shoot this black thug guy. Of course, if it is was just an unarmed teen, I would let him pound me into a concussive stupor."

"When we deal with facts", we look beyond the simplistic conclusions and, instead, take in and examine the totality of the circumstances presented that evening and not just the headlines.

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

George Zimmerman is likely not an expert on anything. He's probably a racist. He probably didn't intend to kill someone, but he WAS willing to shoot someone who he saw as different/less than human. He made a mistake. I don't think he was defending himself from immediate danger, and I don't think the evidence suggests that was in very much danger.

"He's probably a racist"; he saw Martin as "as different/less than human." That's a whole lot of 'suming going on there Lucy.

The lead investigator said GZ had a hero complex but did not believe he was a racist. When the FBI originally looked into this, in April of last year, they interviewed over 30 witnesses (neighbors and coworkers) of GZ. None accused him of being a racist. In 2010, GZ asked the local chapter of the NAACP to assist a homeless black man who had been assaulted by the (white) son of a Sanford police lieutenant but was rebuffed. Clearly, GZ was a blantat race baiting, n***** hating white hispanic.

OR -- As the investigator determined, GZ "profiled" Martin based on his clothes and circumstances. The circumstances being that, in the last 15 months, several homes in the neighborhood had been broken into by black youths including a home invasion involving a single mother and her child. The clothes being a black hoodie also warn by a local gang of black youths who had perpetrated these crimes. As a black woman in the neighborhood stated - the recent crimes had been committed by black teens and "that was why George was suspicios of Trayvon."

As I have said before, GZ was incorrect in his characterization of TM as one of "those **** [that] always get away." However, to assert this incorrrect characterization was based motivated by racial animus or was irrational is a reverse discrimination of the most insidius kind.

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I do think it's very questionable reasoning to so much as suggest that Zimmerman acted lawfully. Obviously, a criminal trial is not trying to argue that he acted lawfully, but rather, that he did not act unlawfully beyond reasonable doubt. Also: he shot and killed someone. The state of Florida is likely going to want to be very careful about how they apply the law in similar cases, after ruling that someone can shoot and kill, without acting unlawfully (beyond a reasonable doubt).

You are entitled to your opinion, many on this board agree with you and, in fact, would go beyond saying "it was questionable" that GZ acted lawfully. As you so accurately pointed out, however, we have only one version of the events and the question is not "do we have enough reasonable assumptions to convict GZ?" but, rather, "Is there reasonable doubt to acquit GZ?"

In Florida, and every other state in the union, it is legal to shoot and kill in self-defense when there is credible evidence that you were in fear of great bodily harm. You, I and every citizen of every State, are entitled to use deadly force to defend themselves or others from imminent death or great bodily harm. When we do, we will be - as GZ was - presumed innocent unless the State can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that we did not act in self-defense as defined through "semantics". Pray that is always thus.

This case set no precedents, changed no laws, but was a consistent application of the right of self-defense as it exists in all States.

Again, nothing of that changes the underlying tragedy.