Trayvon Martin Case

[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).

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

Zimmerman wanted to play out his fantasy and be a tough guy cop. He engaged Martin, then got his ass beat by a 17 year and shot him. The kid was doing nothing wrong. If Zimmerman saw him breaking into a house then fine, but that simply was not the case. He got away with murder. Plain and simple. The jury should be ashamed of themselves.

There was never, ever a showing beyond a reasonable doubt who turned an aggressive verbal confrontation into a physical altercation. Also, because of the presumption of innocence, every assumption and presumption not countered by direct evidence or circumstantial evidence must be found assumed or presumed in Zimmerman's favor. The jury clearly took the charges of "presumption of innocence" and "proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" very seriously. They should in be commended.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

There was never, ever a showing beyond a reasonable doubt who turned an aggressive verbal confrontation into a physical altercation. Also, because of the presumption of innocence, every assumption and presumption not countered by direct evidence or circumstantial evidence must be found assumed or presumed in Zimmerman's favor. The jury clearly took the charges of "presumption of innocence" and "proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" very seriously. They should in be commended.

Seems like semantics, which I think is the fault of the prosecution.

The whole thing reminds me of the "Han Solo shot Greedo first" contention.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

Zimmerman wanted to play out his fantasy and be a tough guy cop. He engaged Martin, then got his ass beat by a 17 year and shot him. The kid was doing nothing wrong. If Zimmerman saw him breaking into a house then fine, but that simply was not the case. He got away with murder. Plain and simple. The jury should be ashamed of themselves.

Oh...so you were there eh? You saw it happen exactly like this? Well, judging by much of the evidence (from prosecutors and defense) is that it was Martin who engaged Zimmerman physically.

It's not against the law to profile somebody. It's not against the law to follow somebody. It is against the law to punch somebody in the nose and slam their head against a concrete sidewalk.

Is Zimmerman a douche bag? Of course. Did Martin's assault deserve being shot with a gun? I'm in no place to say because I simply wasn't there or in that situation. Maybe that place should put up some cameras around the neighborhood if they are having issues with break-ins.

[GTripp0012]

Didn't watch trial. Sounds and reads like defense attorneys did an excellent job of taking what seemed to be an open and shut manslaughter (or 2nd degree murder) case, and bringing reasonable doubt. Thought, based on what I've read, the jurors ruled properly.

I don't really know what the burden of proof a self-defense case is, but the statistical evidence on conviction rates would suggest that Trayvon Martin being black was probably the difference here. Weird to live in a world where killing a un-armed teen can be at least argued as self defense. Feels like the law was fairly subjective: you CAN kill, so long as you fear (for your life, for your health, safety). Fear of course, is an abstraction. The defense painted a dead, unarmed teenager as something that someone in Zimmerman's position could be fearful of and kill.

Council of the defendant needs to work on their jokes. It's just wasn't happening for them.

I did not see any actual reason to believe that the defendant was ever in any real danger prior to the physical altercation with Martin. During the altercation, maybe I can buy that. It does take two parties to brawl. To me, I think the law should error on the side of the person who didn't own/possess a weapon, but that's just my opinion and some see justice in killing an unarmed person.

This was a weird case, to be sure. Police didn't want to press charges at all, and the prosecution's star witness (Trayvon Martin) was killed by the defendant. That's always going to skew a case, I think. I've always said that history gets written by the winners, and since Martin lost the altercation, that also gives a lot of credibility to Zimmerman's story when no one is around to contradict it (the eye-witnesses did not seem to have any role in the case except to add doses of reasonable doubt).

[Gary84Clark]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Didn't watch trial. Sounds and reads like defense attorneys did an excellent job of taking what seemed to be an open and shut manslaughter (or 2nd degree murder) case, and bringing reasonable doubt. Thought, based on what I've read, the jurors ruled properly.

I don't really know what the burden of proof a self-defense case is, but the statistical evidence on conviction rates would suggest that Trayvon Martin being black was probably the difference here. Weird to live in a world where killing a un-armed teen can be at least argued as self defense. Feels like the law was fairly subjective: you CAN kill, so long as you fear (for your life, for your health, safety). Fear of course, is an abstraction. The defense painted a dead, unarmed teenager as something that someone in Zimmerman's position could be fearful of and kill.

Council of the defendant needs to work on their jokes. It's just wasn't happening for them.

I did not see any actual reason to believe that the defendant was ever in any real danger prior to the physical altercation with Martin. During the altercation, maybe I can buy that. It does take two parties to brawl. To me, I think the law should error on the side of the person who didn't own/possess a weapon, but that's just my opinion and some see justice in killing an unarmed person.

This was a weird case, to be sure. Police didn't want to press charges at all, and the prosecution's star witness (Trayvon Martin) was killed by the defendant. That's always going to skew a case, I think. I've always said that history gets written by the winners, and since Martin lost the altercation, that also gives a lot of credibility to Zimmerman's story when no one is around to contradict it (the eye-witnesses did not seem to have any role in the case except to add doses of reasonable doubt).

I agree with you on this.

[JoeRedskin]

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.

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.

It is not semantics to say you cannot be the first to throw a punch.

What you and others call "semantics", I call law and burden of proof.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

It is not semantics to say you cannot be the first to throw a punch.

What you and others call "semantics", I call law and burden of proof.

Zimmerman/Han Solo's presumed innocence re: the first punch/shot is solely a function of obstruction of justice (non-capitalized) because there's no credible witness around to dispute his contention. Greedo is dead, and cannot dispute any accounts of the events, because of the circumstances of the events.

It's the prosecution's duty to frame an easy case in a way so that it is semantics. They cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that Han shot first, so they need to point out what should be obvious to everyone: that it is non applicable to the case.

If the prosecution cannot do that, they are incompetent (and their case is in trouble).

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Zimmerman/Han Solo's presumed innocence re: the first punch/shot is solely a function of obstruction of justice (non-capitalized) because there's no credible witness around to dispute his contention. Greedo is dead, and cannot dispute any accounts of the events, because of the circumstances of the events.

[FRPLG]

Question time.

Let's say for the sake of argument that the bulk of GZ's story is true:

- he followed him because he thought he was suspicious for whatever reason
- he lost track of him visually so he got out of the car to confirm the address
- TM did somehow circle back and confront him
- a physical altercation ensued (let's ignore who specifically initiated the physical aspect for a moment)
- TM was kicking his ass

So the question is, given all of these speculative "facts", how does this change or not change anyone's opinion?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Question time.

Let's say for the sake of argument that the bulk of GZ's story is true:

- he followed him because he thought he was suspicious for whatever reason
- he lost track of him visually so he got out of the car to confirm the address
- TM did somehow circle back and confront him
- a physical altercation ensued (let's ignore who specifically initiated the physical aspect for a moment)
- TM was kicking his ass

So the question is, given all of these speculative "facts", how does this change or not change anyone's opinion?

Well, knowing that GZ's story is valid would give his account of the events a credibility he would have not otherwise earned.

Ultimately though, it doesn't really change the case at all. GZ's story could be 100% accurate, and the self defense case is still incredibly weak. Even given the above, he's not in life threatening danger. He is the victim of battery.

I don't know if Zimmerman shot Martin with the intent to kill, but if that was his way of protecting himself, it's the equivalent of detonating a nuclear missile to protect oneself from a gunman. Effective, but with serious consequences. Until acquittal.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Well, knowing that GZ's story is valid would give his account of the events a credibility he would have not otherwise earned.

Ultimately though, it doesn't really change the case at all. GZ's story could be 100% accurate, and the self defense case is still incredibly weak. Even given the above, he's not in life threatening danger. He is the victim of battery.

I don't know if Zimmerman shot Martin with the intent to kill, but if that was his way of protecting himself, it's the equivalent of detonating a nuclear missile to protect oneself from a gunman. Effective, but with serious consequences. Until acquittal.

The flaw in your argument is that is ASSUMES a great deal. I think there is a valid question to be asked regarding GZ's state of mind as he was engaged in the fight. Absolutely one of the most key questions. The only problem is that no one can ever know what his state of mind was. Even TM didn't know. In fact in every self-defense claim no one can know so it has to be up to the prosecution to show via evidence and common-sense that the threat didn't reach the level necessary to fire a gun in self-defense. What evidence did the prosecution provide? Not much in my opinion.

[RGIII]

Zimmerman might as well denied shooting Martin. He lied about everything else and the jury went with it.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by RGIII

Zimmerman might as well denied shooting Martin. He lied about everything else and the jury went with it.

Time for people to move on.

[RGIII]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Time for people to move on.

Unfortunately this type of thing happens everyday. No, it doesn't always have a deadly ending but, your ignorance is what fuels or frustration.