Zimmerman Not guilty

[TheMeInTeam]

Not to mention that people have forgotten that it was raining and the grass and sidewalks were wet. I doubt that fact should just be left out totally.

Not totally, but I don't think they're MAJOR facts given how the event supposedly unfolded. Rain impacts the evidence somewhat, and it explains some of Martin's movements, but the core issue in this case was whether or not it is plausible that Zimmerman acted in self-defense once the altercation began.

 

[Berzerker]

Logical fallacy: if you carry a weapon, the other party would have a stronger case for arguing self defense.

Not if the one with the gun led with their nose instead of the gun barrel. You do understand that it took up to a minute of fighting before the gun entered the struggle. And given the evidence, I can see M feeling the gun with his left leg when he straddled Z and a race to the gun which he lost.

If it's clearly proven that Zimmerman (a) initiated the confrontation

What evidence indicates who initiated the violence?

Z's statements were corroborated by M's phone friend. She said the creepy ass cracka was back (she also says cracka refers to an authority figure, "the man" - cops and security guards/watchmen are crackas - that sinks the stalker argument).

And the next thing she hears is M asking "why are you following me?" and Z's response, "what are you doing around here?". That response would have confirmed Z was a "cracka" as defined by Rachel Jenteal.

Thats how this started, when Z walked thru the T on his way back to his truck M came out of hiding and started asking questions. Thats why Z said he came out of nowhere, maybe some bushes - like under an over hang out of the rain.

And Z wasn't following M by that time, Z said M ran south of the T and when he got to it and looked south M was gone (he was not gone, just hiding nearby). Z went east, that isn't following M who went south.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

And the next thing she hears is M asking "why are you following me?" and Z's response, "what are you doing around here?". That response would have confirmed Z was a "cracka" as defined by Rachel Jenteal.

I really do wonder why the prosecution called this witness. Her testimony really hurt their case or at best contributed nothing to building it. I feel it actually hurt it though.

 

[Farm Boy]

I really do wonder why the prosecution called this witness. Her testimony really hurt their case or at best contributed nothing to building it. I feel it actually hurt it though.

I think they had a poor case and knew it. I think the police probably knew that the case was poor when they seemed reluctant to arrest and public opinion necessitated a trial where the prosecution didn't really have all that much going for it.

Alternatively, one could go with the conspiracy theory of race and roll with the assumption that the good ole boys of institutional racism didn't want a "white hispanic(what a vomitous term we've coined)" convicted of killing a black man.

 

[timtofly]

No, I think that people believe George Zimmerman, even though there are facts that do not correspond to his stories. Z just had more facts going in his favor, and the other facts have been ignored.

 

[Farm Boy]

None of that conflicts with my speculation? Trying to parse out the "no."

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Alternatively, one could go with the conspiracy theory of race and roll with the assumption that the good ole boys of institutional racism didn't want a "white hispanic(what a vomitous term we've coined)" convicted of killing a black man.

That theory isn't impossible, although federal attention without noticing it makes it less likely.

 

[timtofly]

None of that conflicts with my speculation? Trying to parse out the "no."

That is why I did not quote you. Although the word conspiracy may have been the last straw.

 

[~Corsair#01~]

Alternatively, one could go with the conspiracy theory of race and roll with the assumption that the good ole boys of institutional racism didn't want a "white hispanic(what a vomitous term we've coined)" convicted of killing a black man.

I don't think it's a matter of race so much as in-group versus out-group.

Martin was part of the out group for obvious reasons while Zimmerman was essentially being employed by the in group in order to keep the out group away from their gated community- making him their representative.

Race comes into it because race is one of the main ways of separating people into the two groups- alongside wealth, of course.

The allegation being levelled at the court system that acquited Zimmerman is that for a variety of both racial and socio-economic reasons they have identified Zimmerman as being one of "us", and Martin as one of "them" and have made their judgement on that basis.

Racism here is basically serving as a shorthand for this wider, more nuanced confrontation between two groups of people. That's how I see it.

 

[Farm Boy]

Conspiracies aren't impossible! We tend to toss around "conspiracy theory" when something is incredibly improbable, true, but I was going for a more literal use of the word. It is plausible that institutional racism is at least a partial explanation. I'll leave it up to you to decide how likely you think it. I find it being the primary motivator, given the level of attention(like TMIT says) this case is receiving at least, somewhat improbable.

I think it's more like OJ. I think Zimmerman is probably(unless I'm missing something) going to lose his ass in civil court where there is a different standard of proof. Or at least it seems like he should.

 

[timtofly]

I don't think it's a matter of race so much as in-group versus out-group.

Martin was part of the out group for obvious reasons while Zimmerman was essentially being employed by the in group in order to keep the out group away from their gated community- making him their representative.

Race comes into it because race is one of the main ways of separating people into the two groups- alongside wealth, of course.

The allegation being levelled at the court system that acquited Zimmerman is that for a variety of both racial and socio-economic reasons they have identified Zimmerman as being one of "us", and Martin as one of "them" and have made their judgement on that basis.

Racism here is basically serving as a shorthand for this wider, more nuanced confrontation between two groups of people. That's how I see it.

Are we talking about the actual proceedings during the trial?

No one, but Z and M know who approached who that started the altercation. While M may have a "side" it had nothing to do with the color of his skin, but the actions of that night. Both M and Z had a history which may be motive for engagement, but we do not have M's side of the story.

It seems ok to overlook the fact that Z did say, "they always get away". Was that a self-fulfilling prophecy that even people who shoot people always get away? M did not get away.

 

[MobBoss]

All of Zimmerman's accounts in the case are pretty inconsistent. He changed the story each time. Its pretty obvious he's lying. The prosecution did an extremely bad job in this case.

This is simply incorrect. While there may be some discrepancy shown it certainly wasn't to the level of 'he changed the story each time'...he did no such thing. And in any case there was also testimony that it is not uncommon for someone being banged in the head as he was, and going thru what he has to have problems recollecting exact events that occurred.

I agree the prosecution did a bad job; but they didn't have much to work with in the first place. Again, this case should have never gone to trial based on the merits.

How is getting out of your vehicle and running after said person with armed gun after the dispatcher told you not to not considered stalking?

It doesn't meet the legal definition of stalking? For example the charge of stalking in Florida isn't a singular event, but repeated behavior from one person towards another.

Logical fallacy: if you carry a weapon, the other party would have a stronger case for arguing self defense.

Rofl, that wasn't the context of the exchange. You commit your own logical fallacy in assuming that simply carrying a weapon makes for a stronger case against said person: it doesn't. It entirely depends on how said weapon is used or brandished in the exchange. If it remains concealed the entire time (i.e. its unseen/unused) it doesn't strengthen said case at all.

Yes, I'm sure most juries are filled with legal experts.

You don't have to be a legal expert to grasp the concepts as explained. In fact, great effort is used to ensure the jury understands and grasps the evidence presented to them.

And how does gunshot forensic evidence confirm self-defense? Which is not at all the same as being in accordance with Zimmerman's account of events.

As I understand it, the evidence from the gunshot wound itself indicated that Martin was in a position above Zimmerman, on top of him, when the shot was fired. The expert mention that his finding was consistent with Zimmerman's account of the altercation.

That's not my argument now. By following the deceased Zimmerman set a string of events in motion ending with him killing the other party.

This does not mean he is guilty of murder however.

Since Zimmerman was the one with a weapon, if anybody could argue self defense that would most likely be the deceased.

Rofl, for someone talking about 'false logic' you sure do engage in more than a bit of it right there. It is certainly not uncommon for people armed with a weapon to be attacked and have to defend themselves in some form.

At any rate, killing someone because you feel threatened (not Zimmerman's argument, by the way) is hardly reasonable.

If your nose has been broken, and you've had your skull pounded on cement a few times I think its quite reasonable to feel threatened by the person doing that.

If it were, Zimmerman wouldn't even have been tried in the first place.

He shouldn't have been. The actual evidence given at trial reflects that.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I agree the prosecution did a bad job; but they didn't have much to work with in the first place. Again, this case should have never gone to trial based on the merits.

I don't care what one believes or not, but the prosecution should not call witnesses that help the defense, or vice versa. From a strict *strategy* standpoint, some of their decisions make me scratch my head.

No matter how bad a case looks, the lawyers are at least TRYING right? I'm not even saying Zimmerman should have been ruled guilty because the evidence points away from that, but if I'm put in a court of law pushing for a guilty verdict I sure as heck wouldn't call witnesses onto the stand that build the defendant's case more than they build mine.

He shouldn't have been. The actual evidence given at trial reflects that.

It's worth noting that the federal government pushed this case, and also that it bypassed a grand jury. I'm not sure that's appropriate in and of itself.

 

[JollyRoger]

No matter how bad a case looks, the lawyers are at least TRYING right? I'm not even saying Zimmerman should have been ruled guilty because the evidence points away from that, but if I'm put in a court of law pushing for a guilty verdict I sure as heck wouldn't call witnesses onto the stand that build the defendant's case more than they build mine.

If you don't call those witnesses, the other side will. I would much rather get them out of the way early than have the other side call them at the end.

On the point of whether it should have gone to trial, I wonder if OJ Simpson or Casey Anthony or Lieutenant Watada should have gone to trial. Also 3 of the 6 jurors were initially ready to convict when they started deliberating.

 

[MobBoss]

I don't care what one believes or not, but the prosecution should not call witnesses that help the defense, or vice versa. From a strict *strategy* standpoint, some of their decisions make me scratch my head.

As a legal professional, I can tell you that is not an exact science. I've seen it occur many times where you expect a witness to testify a certain way, then when on the stand they suddenly deviate and harm your case as opposed to help it. It literally happens all the time and the reason is people get a lot more nervous up there than they realize and often end up giving up more information than they really intended - often to the point of being damaging as opposed to helping who called the witness.

No matter how bad a case looks, the lawyers are at least TRYING right?

Well, of course they are; but you cant always predict how a certain person will react on the witness stand. Even with careful preparation things can unravel quickly. It's part of being human.

I'm not even saying Zimmerman should have been ruled guilty because the evidence points away from that, but if I'm put in a court of law pushing for a guilty verdict I sure as heck wouldn't call witnesses onto the stand that build the defendant's case more than they build mine.

Again, you'd literally be shocked at how common it is for that to occur. I had a hearing the other day for a dangerous dog determination. Guy had it locked up to get his pooch off the hook, but then he opened his mouth when he should have kept it shut and mentioned something that sank his entire argument. It happens.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I think they had a poor case and knew it. I think the police probably knew that the case was poor when they seemed reluctant to arrest and public opinion necessitated a trial where the prosecution didn't really have all that much going for it.

The police don't decide how poor a case might happen to be. That is up to the DA to prosecute arrests or not, even though they are occasionally consulted first in some instances.

Again, the investigating officer at the scene recommended that Zimmerman be arrested for the homicide. He was overruled by his superiors specifically due to "stand your ground" considerations, which now prohibit the police arresting people for homicide cases until they have been thoroughly investigated if there is even any possibility it may involve "stand your ground".

Public opinion really had nothing to do with the process despite how much the "law and order" crowd have whined that the case was tried in the "liberal" press. This is Florida law.

 

[JollyRoger]

Witnesses are very unreliable. No matter how much you prep them, a good number say the craziest stuff once you get them on the stand.

 

[MobBoss]

Witnesses are very unreliable. No matter how much you prep them, a good number say the craziest stuff once you get them on the stand.

I agree with this 100%. Although when this does occur, man does it make for some great stories down at the local tavern.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Again, you'd literally be shocked at how common it is for that to occur.

Fair enough. Between your expertise and your reasoning I can see how witnesses would be quite unpredictable at times.

 

[Agent327]

Rofl, that wasn't the context of the exchange. You commit your own logical fallacy in assuming that simply carrying a weapon makes for a stronger case against said person: it doesn't. It entirely depends on how said weapon is used or brandished in the exchange. If it remains concealed the entire time (i.e. its unseen/unused) it doesn't strengthen said case at all.

You are assuming I was referring to a context; I wasn't. Interestingly, these kind of assumptions seem endemic to this case and the comments on it. At any rate, from a legal professional (the vagueness of the term confirms that you are) I expect something more serious tha a "rofl" and misinterpretation of someone's words.

You don't have to be a legal expert to grasp the concepts as explained. In fact, great effort is used to ensure the jury understands and grasps the evidence presented to them.

From what one juror publicly commented after the verdict, that hasn't had much effect in this case.

As I understand it, the evidence from the gunshot wound itself indicated that Martin was in a position above Zimmerman, on top of him, when the shot was fired. The expert mention that his finding was consistent with Zimmerman's account of the altercation.

I see. It seems pretty clear Mr Zimmerman hadn't a clue what he was doing. He might have a legitimate claim for self defense, but the whole chain of events that set the confrontation in motion was based on some prejudiced - and mistaken - notion. (The same prejudice that one of the jurors presented in an interview, by the way.)

This does not mean he is guilty of murder however.

We are talking of an armed man pursuing another because of "suspicious behaviour". I don't quite see how the end result - the suspicious character getting shot dead - is in any way reasonable with respect to a suspected burglary (of which there was no evidence whatsoever).

Rofl, for someone talking about 'false logic' you sure do engage in more than a bit of it right there. It is certainly not uncommon for people armed with a weapon to be attacked and have to defend themselves in some form.

You seem to roll over the floor a lot. Killing someone as a response to being attacked isn't proportional. Nothing "false" about that. Defending oneself is not the same as killing someone who attacks you and subsequently claiming self defense. Pulling the gun might be self defense, taking someone's life isn't. If it were, no trial would have been necessary in the first place.

If your nose has been broken, and you've had your skull pounded on cement a few times I think its quite reasonable to feel threatened by the person doing that.

One can feel threatened long before that happens.

He shouldn't have been. The actual evidence given at trial reflects that.

You seem to assume that the mere claim of self defense is sufficient to avoid trial for manslaughter or murder. That's hardly in accordance with legal procedure.