Zimmerman Not guilty

[Ajidica]

Because you utterly fail to take the issue of Z acting in self-defense at all. But to most reasonable and logical people getting your nose broke and your head bashed into concrete is perfectly legitimate reason to act in self-defense.

Why are you assuming the conflict was initiated by Martin against Zimmerman? For all we know Zimmerman initiated the conflict and those actions were Martin defending himself.
It isn't like we are in a courtroom trying to spin some evidence.

 

[MobBoss]

Why are you assuming the conflict was initiated by Martin against Zimmerman? For all we know Zimmerman initiated the conflict and those actions were Martin defending himself.
It isn't like we are in a courtroom trying to spin some evidence.

Because the evidence supports it. If the evidence were otherwise, Z would have been convicted.

 

[Ajidica]

Because the evidence supports it. If the evidence were otherwise, Z would have been convicted.

What evidence, besides Zimmerman's account (in which it should be clear he is not the most objective of observers), do we have of the events? All we know for certain is that a fight broke out, Zimmerman was injured, Martin ended up on top of Zimmerman, and then Zimmerman shot Martin.
How does any of that clearly indicate who started the fight?

 

[MobBoss]

At least DAs aren't elected for office as sheriffs are (which. for a large part, explains why the US has the most inmates in the world).

I think this depends on the locality, because some are indeed elected.

Assumption confirmed. I suggest you might need some additional law study.

No, I'll just assume you're being an ass and act accordingly.

I'm in need of appreciation of misrepresentation of my words? Hardly.

Again, that wasn't misrepresentation. But if relying on that claim is your sole debate tactic of choice then /oh well.

Have you been following this case at all? You are unaware that one of the jurors gave a public interview?

Which 4 other jurors immediately disagreed with. Yes, I've been following the case quite closely.

Nor am I claiming it does, Mr Paralegal.

No need for the Mr. but do stay off my lawn.

Literal quotes in Form's post. Perhaps you missed it.

I don't read his posts, so if you want me to address something along those lines you'll have to repost it.

I fail to take the issue? What does that even mean here? Self defense, as I've now tried to explain repeatedly to you, is not the same as homicide. I would think a paralegal would know such details.

I do. You however seem confused in regards to the issue of what defines it. You have stated that someone confronting an armed person should automatically be granted that status - that's simply not logical or reasonable in the face of the law.

Good luck with that. So far you've been failing. Nor, I might add, is "hypocrisy" relevant here. Or in court, for that matter.

Nono..you claim I am; however, that claim is simply another pathetic argument tactic for you to claim your own victory where none exists.

As I said, you don't seem to grasp the essence of the difference between self defense and killing someone.

Of course I have. I suggest less silly claims like this by you and more meat of discussion of the subject. Or is that all you have?

Says you. Pardon me if I don't take your word for it.

In the larger picture of whom did what and when in this case it is absolutely irrelevant. It would be far more relevant if self-defense were not claimed and this were a manslaughter issue. But it's not.

Which is why that's not what I'm arguing.

Then why even mention it?

Actually, it isn't. The case was about reasonal doubt about Mr Zimmerman's claim of self defense. Yet it took 6 jurors quite some time to reach a majority verdict.

15 hours over 2 days over a multi-week case isn't 'quite some time' to reach a verdict. Not at all.

That rather contradicts your claim about explaining legal details to the jury: either the jury was below average intelligent, or they - as you - failed to grasp the essence of the legal question.

Haven't you kept up with the case? The jury twice sent back to the court for clarification and explanation of evidence that was presented. You're claim of the jury being of below average intelligence is just stupid.

Ofcourse a trial was necessary: someone was killed.

That's not what deems the need of a trial.

"Pressure from the Obama administration" has nothing to do with it. (If anything, a Harvard man should know the legal chances in a case like this.)

If you think this then you haven't kept up with the case. I have from the beginning.

I'm not even arguing he wasn't. The point is, was he justified in his claim. Which is a legal matter, not an emotional one.

Except this case is entirely based upon emotion, not on the facts. If it had been based on facts it never would have gone to trial.

You seem to have a short memory. You just did it again in this very post...

Not at all. In fact I am complimented on how good a memory I have.

But that's not your decision, now is it?

I'm not a prosecutor and neither are you. However, I do point out that the original prosecutor in this case didn't bring charges against Z because the evidence didn't support it. It would seem his opinion were accurate given the results of this case.

A prosecutor may decide not to press charges for this reason; that doesn't refute that there is a legal basis for a trial. Without that prosecution could not even be considered. The fact that the trial seems unwinnable in advance isn't a legal argument, it's a political one.

This case has had more political and racial overtones than being based on actual merits. This is why its been a crap case from the start.

I'm no legal expert - and obviously you aren't either

Well, having worked as a Paralegal now for going on 27 years, i'm far closer to being an expert that you are that's for sure.

-, but I have no trouble with the concept.

I'd say there are more than a few concepts you are indeed having trouble with from the comments you've given.

Unlike, as I've just shown, Mr Paralegal. Lol all you want - that won't win you a day in court.

I've been the paralegal on more 'win's in court than I can count. I've been involved in all types of cases, both criminal and civil, and I've seen just about everything there is to see. When this case started I said Z would be acquitted based on what we knew, and even Jolly agreed with that. And Z got acquitted. Sounds like a win to me.

 

[Gucumatz]

So apparently four of the other jurors released a statement distancing themselves from the Juror that spoke to Anderson. She may have been one of the strongest jurors for the Defense it seems

Also a small thing, I really dislike how in some of the reports I am reading Zimmerman is being called a "Self proclaimed Hispanic or White-Hispanic". Don't think I have ever read this kind of wording before in the news

 

[Formaldehyde]

So apparently four of the other jurors released a statement distancing themselves from the Juror that spoke to Anderson. She may have been one of the strongest jurors for the Defense it seems

Also a small thing, I really dislike how in some of the reports I am reading Zimmerman is being called a "Self proclaimed Hispanic or White-Hispanic". Don't think I have ever read this kind of wording before in the news

I see nothing at all wrong with white Hispanic. After all that is clearly what he is, as opposed to being black Hispanic. Why is that in any way objectionable to you?

But the only mention I can find of "self proclaimed Hispanic" is Sean Hannity whining to another bigot, Anne Coulter, on his show claiming that AP called him that, as well as other similar sites which are parroting it. Do you have a reliable source which confirms this?

 

[Farm Boy]

I see nothing at all wrong with white Hispanic. After all that is clearly what he is, as opposed to being black Hispanic. Why is that in any way objectionable to you?

So surely mulattoes and some pastier blacks are white blacks and those of more noticeably "African features" are black blacks? Are Asians "whiter" minorities than hispanics? Does it matter if they're from Nanchang or Thailand? This is certainly a plausible way to look at things, but is it really something we want?

 

[Gucumatz]

Try calling a Dominican that he is black, he will not like it I guarantee it to you Forma. Try telling a eastern Bolivian that he is just white and he won't like it either. Argentinians will get mad if you call them anything but white. The term "Hispanic" in the US is still an evolving term, I personally don't want to see it evolve into a separate racial category here in the US for different ethnicities and nationalities.

And it varies between source to source, but IE in the latest AP report describing the distancing of the four women from the outspoke and waaay too assuming Juror for example I found this:

"Zimmerman identifies himself as Hispanic". I don't hear other people who are half and half being reported in the news as only "identifying himself as Hispanic".

IE myself, I am half Guatemalan and half German. If I were to appear in the news I wouldn't want others to identify me as: Oh he only claims to be Hispanic leaving dubious inferences for people to make

 

[classical_hero]

What evidence, besides Zimmerman's account (in which it should be clear he is not the most objective of observers), do we have of the events? All we know for certain is that a fight broke out, Zimmerman was injured, Martin ended up on top of Zimmerman, and then Zimmerman shot Martin.
How does any of that clearly indicate who started the fight?

How often do you see a fight start out and the instigator is on the bottom? the one who is the aggressor is usually the one who winds up on top. All you are doing is basing your thoughts on conjecture. As you said the evidence points that Trayvon was on top of George when the fatal shot went off. Based on the evidence you would say that Trayvon was causing the problems at the time of the fight since he was on top and the injuries to George and the fact that the only injury to Trayvon is the gunshot, showing that Trayvon had the upper hand in the fight. If you have any evidence that disproves this, then put up or shut up. The side that is on Zimmerman's side is basing our thoughts on the evidence presented at the trial, all the other side has given is conjecture and nothing concrete at all. It is time to show that you have conclusive evidence that George desired to kill Trayvon.

 

[dutchfire]

How often do you see a fight start out and the instigator is on the bottom?

Half the time?

 

[Ajidica]

How often do you see a fight start out and the instigator is on the bottom? the one who is the aggressor is usually the one who winds up on top.

In fights it is advantageous to be on top, but simply being the attacker does not mean they will stay on top. If someone has a vague understanding of fighting they will know to try and get on top. If someone grabs you from behind the best way to get out of that situation is to lift up your legs and force yourself back so the attacker ends up on the bottom and you are free to either continue the fight in a better position or flee.

All you are doing is basing your thoughts on conjecture.

I'm not quite sure where you are going with this, as all I've been saying is that acting as if we know exactly how the fight began is sort of silly given the complete lack of reliable evidence.

Based on the evidence you would say that Trayvon was causing the problems at the time of the fight since he was on top and the injuries to George and the fact that the only injury to Trayvon is the gunshot, showing that Trayvon had the upper hand in the fight.

Is it not possible Zimmerman initiated the altercation, Martin retaliated, and then Zimmerman-realizing things were turning serious- shot him?
I am not saying that is what occurred, but rather given the absence of evidence surrounding how the fight began it is intellectually dishonest to act as if you know for sure how the fight began.

If you have any evidence that disproves this, then put up or shut up.

I can't very well put up evidence demonstrating my point, when my point is that we don't have enough evidence to know one way or another to a reasonable degree of certainty.

The side that is on Zimmerman's side is basing our thoughts on the evidence presented at the trial, all the other side has given is conjecture and nothing concrete at all. It is time to show that you have conclusive evidence that George desired to kill Trayvon.

I have never said Zimmerman wanted to kill Trayvon, and unless he is seriously sociopathic, I do not believe he ever had a desire to kill anyone.

My personal opinion of what occurred is that Zimmerman decided to follow Martin for a variety of reasons-along with playing cop even though the police dispatcher told him not follow Martin. After having a guy following him for some time without announcing his intent, Martin felt afraid and probably the 'fight' part of the 'fight or flight' reflex was kicking in. Who initiated the confrontation is completely unknown. (I personally feel Zimmerman initiated the confrontation, but not with the intent for it to turn violent.) The confrontation turned violent, and Zimmerman started to lose the fight. (IIRC, the medical examiner said the injuries Zimmerman sustained from his head hitting the concrete are consistent with either a fall or intentional force.) At this point, Zimmerman felt in danger for his life, and fired the gun.

I feel the circumstantial evidence suggests that Zimmerman probably should have been convicted on manslaughter but the direct evidence the prosecution needed to get such a conviction wasn't forthcoming. That said, I expect a substantial civil suit against Zimmerman about the role he played in Martin death which he will probably lose.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Try calling a Dominican that he is black, he will not like it I guarantee it to you Forma.

I don't "call" anybody "black" or "white". But those designations are used by the police on a regular basis. Sometimes they use "Hispanic" as well in areas where there are a number of people who can be better identified by using that designation.

Again, claiming that a policeman would be subject to criticism for calling George Zimmerman "white" when he didn't specifically know his mother was Hispanic is just so much utter nonsense.

And it varies between source to source, but IE in the latest AP report describing the distancing of the four women from the outspoke and waaay too assuming Juror for example I found this:

"Zimmerman identifies himself as Hispanic". I don't hear other people who are half and half being reported in the news as only "identifying himself as Hispanic".

Yet you still didn't provide a URL...

The interview came two days after the six-woman jury acquitted Zimmerman, a former neighborhood watch activist, of second-degree murder in the shooting death of Martin in a gated community in Sanford, Fla. Martin was black, and Zimmerman identifies himself as Hispanic. Zimmerman was not arrested for 44 days, and the delay in charging him led to protests from those who believed race was a factor in the handling of the case.

Is that what this is all about? That completely innocuous comment? Really?

Do you have any idea how many competely reputable newspapers carried that story verbatim because they found absolutely nothing wrong with it?

 

[Formaldehyde]

How often do you see a fight start out and the instigator is on the bottom?

How often do you see a fight start and an eyewitness claims they were both struggling with each other while upright for quite some time. But the person who kills the other one claims he was intially sucker-punched, immediately fell to the ground as a result, and was on the bottom the entire time 40 yards from where the incident actually took place?

 

[timtofly]

How often do you see a fight start out and the instigator is on the bottom? the one who is the aggressor is usually the one who winds up on top. All you are doing is basing your thoughts on conjecture. As you said the evidence points that Trayvon was on top of George when the fatal shot went off. Based on the evidence you would say that Trayvon was causing the problems at the time of the fight since he was on top and the injuries to George and the fact that the only injury to Trayvon is the gunshot, showing that Trayvon had the upper hand in the fight. If you have any evidence that disproves this, then put up or shut up. The side that is on Zimmerman's side is basing our thoughts on the evidence presented at the trial, all the other side has given is conjecture and nothing concrete at all. It is time to show that you have conclusive evidence that George desired to kill Trayvon.

We can use just the facts in the 911 call Z made. According to Z, M had been walking around. In fact the record shows that M had been walking for 45 minutes a route that would only take 15. Assume that M was in no hurry to get home.

Z told the dispatch that M approached his vehicle. Z seems to have rolled up his window at that time. M kept walking. Z opened his door and exited the vehicle. It is then that Z said M was running. Assume that after walking all that time, M saw Z get out of the vehicle, and decided not to stick around.

Z started to "run" after M. Assume Z is the one trying to confront M. Z is told in so many words to stop. Z does stop. Z has no idea if M stopped or not. That is speculation. Just because M was almost home does not mean he was planning on running the rest of the way home. Assume that in his hurry to get away from Z, he dropped his call. He then called back and was on the phone for another 4 minutes. It seems that since Z had stopped M could continue to slowly walk back home like he had been for the last 40+ minutes.

It was only Z who headed south from the T, that allowed M to say that Z again appeared.

If we assume that M was hiding and talking to his friend about it, then the defense should have gotten that out of the witness who M was talking to on the phone. No one has mentioned that line of questioning, so I assume it never happened. So far every one believes Z's account and that is good enough, even though it does not fit any facts that we do have. It only fits speculation on both Z's part and any one who believes Z.

Who wanted to detain a suspect for the police?

Who was walking home talking on the phone?

Even if M felt guilty, or even itching for a fight why would he run when Z opened his door and exited his vehicle? It seems he would have hung up and waited for Z. He kept talking on the phone for 4 more minutes. And then he did not hang up, but seems to have dropped his phone.

Now we can assume that M was laying in ambush now that they were in the dark, but someone who is about to ambush someone does not walk over and ask why he is being followed. Would that not defeat the purpose of a surprise attack. Even if M said what Z accusing him of saying, I doubt M would have the upper hand if he was trying to attack Z. Not to mention that fact that we have totally switched who was trying to confront whom.

We do know that his friend told him to run, but he stood his ground and asked Z why he was being followed. The one who wanted M detained could just as easily grabbed M and answered with, "what are you doing around here?" By that time M dropped his phone and attempted to get away. The area was wet and slippery and they could have fallen down in any manner. That at one point M was on top hitting Z in the face, would allow for a swollen nose and even the head hitting the ground. It does not prove that M attacked first.

If Z was on the bottom yelling for help, how would he even know what M was saying? He more than likely was concentrating on getting his gun. Now later he explained to his father that there was a struggle for the gun. That seems to be an important fact that was not in the initial police report. He did not even mention it in the video walk through. If people are using Z's videotaped accounting, they should see how so far off he was from what actually happened while on the recorded (unedited) dispatch call. After the shooting, when the police arrived, Z holstered his weapon, and raised his hands in the air? That was only after he mistook a guy with a flashlight to be the police? He seemed to over emphasize the need to restrain M, almost to redundancy. I assume he either regained control pretty quickly or never really lost it? From his injuries, he may have lost control for like 30 seconds? The more he told it the more he added to make M look like a really aggressive person.

I do not think that he meant to kill any one. He was not authorized to follow, much less detain a suspect. Putting himself in a position to be allegedly attacked is irresponsible. Z knew he had a gun, even if he was not going to use it. It seems that would give any one more confidence in such a situation. Z spoke his thoughts "They always get away." From his actions, that was about all he was thinking about.

 

[MobBoss]

What evidence, besides Zimmerman's account (in which it should be clear he is not the most objective of observers), do we have of the events? All we know for certain is that a fight broke out, Zimmerman was injured, Martin ended up on top of Zimmerman, and then Zimmerman shot Martin.
How does any of that clearly indicate who started the fight?

Well, there is the small fact that Martin could have gotten away from Z at will. Add in the comments from his girlfriends testimony 'i.e. the creepy cracka comments and 'why you following me', plus the forensic evidence of Martin being on top of Z, as well as the testimony that Z was a virtual wuss in regards to physical ability....well, to most people that would lend credence to a young black man getting pissed off about being followed and instead of simply avoiding a confrontation by easily running away instead approached Z and most likely attacked him in anger over being followed by a 'creepy cracka'....'cause you know, dem creepy crackas deserve to get beat yo.

That's precisely the kind of behavior one would expect of a wanna-be thug high on drugs isn't it?

I really don't buy Zimmerman as this 'aggressive hunter' people try to portray him as. Yeah, he might have a bit of wannabe-hero in him, but that doesn't make him a 'track em down Rambo that starts fights. The reality there is he is a wanna-be cop that ran a few yards and got out of breath and got jumped headed back to his vehicle. I'm actually kinda amazed the guy got his gun out the holster and fired it with M on top of him.

 

[Patroklos]

Not just a creepy cracka, but apparently a homosexual rapist now too. Does anyone really want to continue talking about Zimmerman profiling?

 

[kramerfan86]

How often do you see a fight start out and the instigator is on the bottom? the one who is the aggressor is usually the one who winds up on top. All you are doing is basing your thoughts on conjecture. As you said the evidence points that Trayvon was on top of George when the fatal shot went off. Based on the evidence you would say that Trayvon was causing the problems at the time of the fight since he was on top and the injuries to George and the fact that the only injury to Trayvon is the gunshot, showing that Trayvon had the upper hand in the fight. If you have any evidence that disproves this, then put up or shut up. The side that is on Zimmerman's side is basing our thoughts on the evidence presented at the trial, all the other side has given is conjecture and nothing concrete at all. It is time to show that you have conclusive evidence that George desired to kill Trayvon.

Who has the upper hand and who instigated are different things. Its perfectly possible for someone to start something and promptly be on the losing end because they incorrectly estimated the opponent.

 

[Ajidica]

Well, there is the small fact that Martin could have gotten away from Z at will. Add in the comments from his girlfriends testimony 'i.e. the creepy cracka comments and 'why you following me', plus the forensic evidence of Martin being on top of Z, as well as the testimony that Z was a virtual wuss in regards to physical ability....well, to most people that would lend credence to a young black man getting pissed off about being followed and instead of simply avoiding a confrontation by easily running away instead approached Z and most likely attacked him in anger over being followed by a 'creepy cracka'....'cause you know, dem creepy crackas deserve to get beat yo.

I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say here. Could you respond without trying to impersonate a 16 year old black girl?

That's precisely the kind of behavior one would expect of a wanna-be thug high on drugs isn't it?

Since when did Martin become 'high on drugs'? It is comments like these that make me doubt whatever you say about the trial. The medical examiner concluded that Martin had trace amounts of, IIRC, THC but in levels biologically incapable of causing a high while the event was occurring, let alone during the day of the incident or the days preceding it.

I really don't buy Zimmerman as this 'aggressive hunter' people try to portray him as. Yeah, he might have a bit of wannabe-hero in him, but that doesn't make him a 'track em down Rambo that starts fights. The reality there is he is a wanna-be cop that ran a few yards and got out of breath and got jumped headed back to his vehicle. I'm actually kinda amazed the guy got his gun out the holster and fired it with M on top of him.

I don't believe Zimmerman wanted to start a fight either, but that doesn't mean he doesn't bear some responsibility for taking actions that increased the probability of a fight occurring.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I don't believe Zimmerman wanted to start a fight either, but that doesn't mean he doesn't bear some responsibility for taking actions that increased the probability of a fight occurring.

What crime falls under "taking actions that increase the probability of a fight"? Why would he expect to be attacked? I can increase the probably of a fight by exercising outside right now; I am much more likely to encounter someone in doing so, and therefore would necessarily increase the probability based on that alone.

Now, could he reasonably *expect* that following Martin would lead to a fight? Isn't saying that following Martin on foot increased the probability of a fight actually profiling Martin unfairly? Normal human beings don't attack people simply because they're being followed. Isn't that profiling Martin more than Zimmerman supopsedly did?

 

[MobBoss]

I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say here. Could you respond without trying to impersonate a 16 year old black girl?

What makes you think I was trying to impersonate a 16 year old black girl? Is that what you think they sound like? Perhaps I was impersonating a wanna-be thug male?

Since when did Martin become 'high on drugs'?

Ah, so you didn't follow the case. There was testimony that Martin had THC in his system from smoking Marijuana that night. Guess you must have missed the toxicology report that was allowed into evidence.

It is comments like these that make me doubt whatever you say about the trial.

The medical examiner concluded that Martin had trace amounts of, IIRC, THC but in levels biologically incapable of causing a high while the event was occurring, let alone during the day of the incident or the days preceding it.

Actually the medical examiners report on it said that it could indeed have had 'some effect' on Martin. That, in combination with Zimmeran's 911 account that the individual acted/looked like they were on drugs was another key part of the defense in this case.

I don't believe Zimmerman wanted to start a fight either, but that doesn't mean he doesn't bear some responsibility for taking actions that increased the probability of a fight occurring.

Of course he bears some responsibility for what occurred, but not criminally. He will still have to live with the fact that he took Martin's life that night, and also have to deal with the false stigma of being a killer racist for the rest of his life. I wouldn't discount that as a lack of 'responsibility' on his part at all.