Zimmerman Not guilty

[Formaldehyde]

Because you like making things up when you obviously know better. But since you can't be honest...

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0784/Sections/0784.048.html

You will note that "and repeatedly" is included in each section of the statute not dealing with breaking a protective order or violating a condition of sentencing. All of which is common sense of course but when you are fishing...

You do realize that is the legal definition of stalking in the state of Florida? That Fallen Angel Lord didn't claim that Zimmerman should actually be arrested under that statute?

Stalking is unwanted or obsessive attention by an individual or group toward another person. Stalking behaviors are related to harassment and intimidation and may include following the victim in person or monitoring them. The word stalking is used, with some differing meanings, in psychology and psychiatry and also in some legal jurisdictions as a term for a criminal offense.

According to a 2002 report by the National Center for Victims of Crime, "Virtually any unwanted contact between two people [that intends] to directly or indirectly communicates a threat or places the victim in fear can be considered stalking"[1] although in practice the legal standard is usually somewhat stricter.

"All of which is common sense of course but when you are fishing..."

 

[Agent327]

What evidence indicates who initiated the violence? The problem for the prosecution (who carried the burden of proof) is that there was no conclusive evidence either way. Just because Z got a little booboo on his head doesn't mean he wasn't the initiator. From a legal perspective, all the verdict means is that the prosecution did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Z did not have a self defense claim.

Correct.

Another logical fallacy right here:

Simply having a weapon does not make one more or less likely to assault or be assaulted.

Simply having a weapon gives you an advantage over someone simply not having a weapon. It doesn't give you the right to shoot the unarmed person and claim self defense.

Anyway, the jury has spoken. Case closed.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Source please.

Witness on phone with Martin prior to his contact with Zimmerman.

That is certainly not how the prosecution characterized it, nor did their expert witnesses.

It depends how you define "significant". I'm defining it as "yes, he was obviously struck by something, multiple times". That these injuries turned out to not be life-threatening is irrelevant. You don't need to wait until you have brain damage to defend yourself if you believe (with good reason) that you're at risk.

Who has claimed Martin "did nothing"? I must have missed it with all these posts.

You missed it, and the claim isn't unique to this forum, either. A TON of people equate this as a scenario where "hoodie + skittles = shot". If this isn't your position (and I'm not saying it is, as there's a ton going on in this thread), then there's no point arguing with you over it.

Again, source?

I can't say for certain assault happened, just that it allegedly did and it was *most certainly* plausible given the testimony of the forensic expert and a witness claiming that Martin was on top, with no other injuries while Zimmerman had injuries.

Had Martin not been shot, there would have been a *very* strong assault and battery case here. Martin's history would not have helped him in that scenario.

What does that possibly have to do with anything?

It can induce panic reactions, and I've seen small amounts of it lead to exactly that in other people. Not just minor panic, but rather truly irrational fears of things that can't possibly happen at the moment as if they're occuring (the dude in question was in a standing fetal position on the floor near the couch, worried that his parents had already found out about him not only smoking it but also other things, while being perfectly normal before smoking it).

I'm not saying this happened and I believe it likely was not a significant factor in this case, but you can't say for 100% that it wasn't. Altered perception can be dangerous and so can reacting with irrational panic or anxiety.

No it's not. But in this particular case, I think it is quite safe to say the way Zimmerman racially profiled and chased after him in direct contradiction to what the dispatcher told him to do is just incredibly stupid. That he then spewed numerous lies to try to cover up how stupid it really was.

Generally speaking, I don't think it's a good idea to follow anybody suspicious on foot while alone. What if Martin was actually a drug dealer, and just turned and shot him and booked it? Zimmerman's story, while not perfectly consistent, was reasonably so. It's hard to tell the difference between a pure liar and someone who just went through something extremely traumatic. I can speculate as much as anybody else what *exactly* was going through both of their heads, but it's equally useless to do so for me as anybody else.

Martin's in a similar boat though. If someone is following you, there are a finite number of possibilities as to why. None of them suggest actively engaging that person is a good idea. We don't have Martin's side of this story, but any number of things could have been done differently on his end to survive. I don't think Zimmerman could have even attempted to shoot him if he didn't attack Zimmerman, and I doubt most anybody following someone would attack them if they simply called the police and headed for the house they're staying at.

I apologize for using the word "ignornace" though. Misinformation was a better choice. Ignorance has bad connotations; although essentially my intent was to imply that people are getting upset over the outcome of this trial without having crucial evidence presented at the trial. I listened to a good portion of the testimony live (I don't live very far from where this happened, and it's an even bigger story here than it is everywhere else). Witnesses for the prosecution wound up testifying in such a way that it made Zimmerman more credible. Witnesses for the defense did likewise. I don't think the jury had much choice. Maybe the prosecution just botched the deal spectacularly terribly, but I don't think so. I think they entered the trial with insufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in the first place. If they had it, they certainly didn't provide it.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Anyway, the jury has spoken. Case closed.

Yep. Seems to be the right verdict as well.

 

[Farm Boy]

Holy balls, TMIT wandered into OT? Hiya!

 

[Formaldehyde]

Witness on phone with Martin prior to his contact with Zimmerman.

AFAIK she didn't state anything of the sort. Her only comment was that Martin refused to run away anymore. We simply don't know who approached whom, or even where the initial confrontation actually took place. But what we do know for certain is that George Zimmerman has repeatedly lied about what actually occurred based on the facts we do know.

It depends how you define "significant". I'm defining it as "yes, he was obviously struck by something, multiple times". That these injuries turned out to not be life-threatening is irrelevant. You don't need to wait until you have brain damage to defend yourself if you believe (with good reason) that you're at risk.

Your own "definition" shows how biased you actually are. There is no physical evidence he was "obviously struck by something, multiple times." One of the prosecution witnesses even claimed his facial injuries could have been caused by one blow. And that blow certainly could have been in defense of Zimmerman pulling out his gun.

And it is most definitely "relevant" that none of the injuries were that severe as far as I am concerned. I personally think George Zimmerman is a coward for taking the life of a minor he outweighed by 40 pounds when he knew the police would soon be there. YMMV.

You missed it, and the claim isn't unique to this forum, either. A TON of people equate this as a scenario where "hoodie + skittles = shot". If this isn't your position (and I'm not saying it is, as there's a ton going on in this thread), then there's no point arguing with you over it.

Then I'm sure you won't mind finding at least one case where someone in this forum even insinuated it, much less stated it.

I can't say for certain assault happened, just that it allegedly did and it was *most certainly* plausible given the testimony of the forensic expert and a witness claiming that Martin was on top, with no other injuries while Zimmerman had injuries.

Had Martin not been shot, there would have been a *very* strong assault and battery case here. Martin's history would not have helped him in that scenario.

In other words, you are speculating while holding George Zimmerman to a completely different double standard. Nobody saw the entire confrontation. Nobody knows that Martin was on top of Zimmerman the entire time.

But we do have one witness who claimed to see them struggling upright nowhere near the T intersection, which completely contradicts Martin's own statements.

And Zimmerman is the one with the criminal record of violence, both domestic and even towards a police officer.

It can induce panic reactions, and I've seen small amounts of it lead to exactly that in other people. Not just minor panic, but rather truly irrational fears of things that can't possibly happen at the moment as if they're occuring (the dude in question was in a standing fetal position on the floor near the couch, worried that his parents had already found out about him not only smoking it but also other things, while being perfectly normal before smoking it).

I'm not saying this happened and I believe it likely was not a significant factor in this case, but you can't say for 100% that it wasn't. Altered perception can be dangerous and so can reacting with irrational panic or anxiety.

Even more absurd speculation based on utter nonsense. Or are you some sort of acknowledged expert on the supposed effects of trace amounts of marijuana, but have yet to publish your seminal study of why it is so evil?

Generally speaking, I don't think it's a good idea to follow anybody suspicious on foot while alone. What if Martin was actually a drug dealer, and just turned and shot him and booked it? Zimmerman's story, while not perfectly consistent, was reasonably so. It's hard to tell the difference between a pure liar and someone who just went through something extremely traumatic. I can speculate as much as anybody else what *exactly* was going through both of their heads, but it's equally useless to do so for me as anybody else.

It isn't "difficult" at all. Those who are honest and aren't trying to hide their real motives and what actually occurred don't engage in so many blatant lies.

I apologize for using the word "ignornace" though. Misinformation was a better choice.

As you continue to spread "misinformation" yourself.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Holy balls, TMIT wandered into OT? Hiya!

Greetings . Slow day or two here I guess.

Anyway, this isn't really stand your ground in the first place, at least not when it comes to what allegedly happened. There is no walking away when someone is beating on you while you're on the ground, and Zimmerman followed him in the first place (both the story of the defense, and I don't think the prosecution had much interest in stand your ground either). If Zimmerman's claim is accurate that law isn't the issue here...but if it isn't then of course it also wouldn't be the issue since we'd have actual manslaughter or murder.

It really comes down to whether the self defense claim was valid, as the claim that he was being physically attacked and was in a position that could have caused him long term/permanent damage or death is the only possible justification for using the firearm in this scenario in the first place. "Stand your ground" isn't the law that comes into play while currently being assaulted/battered, so the real question is whether or not it was plausible that he was, in fact, being assaulted.

The jury believed it is, and that's a reasonable conclusion given the testimony of witnesses for both the prosecution and the defense. While Zimmerman came out without severe injuries, I have little doubt that IF his claim were true and Martin simply kept beating on him, another 30-60 seconds could have resulted in much worse than a cut, a broken nose, and some bruises. With that established it's just a matter of whether or not you believe this story is possible in the first place.

The prosecution failed rather miserably to show that it wasn't possible/plausible.

Your own "definition" shows how biased you actually are. There is no physical evidence he was "obviously struck by something, multiple times." One of the prosecution witnesses even claimed his facial injuries could have been caused by one blow. And that blow certainly could have been in defense of Zimmerman pulling out his gun.

Punching someone with a gun in the face is beyond irrational. You'd be better off claiming the injuries were self-inflicted after the fact as a cover up.

It's hard to buy that though, with multiple testimonies suggesting that Martin was on top of Zimmerman though.

I personally think George Zimmerman is a coward for taking the life of a minor he outweighed by 40 pounds when he knew the police would soon be there. YMMV.

Many years ago when I was in great shape, I could have easily beaten someone 60+ pounds more than me half to death or literally to death inside a few minutes, just based on some basic wrestling knowledge. It's not even that hard...most adult men are physically capable of it if you have a full mount. Weight means very little when you're now the guy on the bottom. We considered the non-athletic heavyweights comparable to turtles in the desert; once they're flipped on their back they really can't move.

Weight isn't completely meaningless, but in a fight between two people who aren't professionals it's no guarantee, and any advantage it carries is completely gone if you're on the ground with your opponent on top of you, unless it's sheer muscle weight. Zimmerman is not "sheer muscle weight" lol.

In other words, you are speculating while holding George Zimmerman to a completely different double standard.

The issue is how Martin would prove self defense, with no injuries at all. After all, the only injury on him was the bullet wound. Had there been more than that, assault and battery would of course been difficult/impossible to prove, and it would have turned into a situation of a pure fight with it very difficult to prove anything with no direct witnesses, similar to how it's hard to prove anything right now. In that case, Martin would rightfully have gotten off (so would have Zimmerman).

Even more absurd speculation based on utter nonsense. Or are you some sort of acknowledged expert on the supposed effects of marijuana but have yet to publish your seminal study of why it is so evil?

You're denying that this drug can cause people to behave unusually?

As you continue to spread "misinformation" yourself.

Hardly.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Anyway, this isn't really stand your ground in the first place, at least not when it comes to what allegedly happened.

I'm sure that's why the defense made sure it was part of the jury instructions.

Or why the defense thought long and hard in trying to have the matter overturned on that basis. But they decided not to do so, apparently out of fear that having it rejected would be used against them during the trial.

Or why it specifically stopped the investigating officer from arresting George Zimmerman that night as he recommended be done in the original report. Again, if he had done so we likely never would have heard a word about this case at least until the verdict was annonced.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I'm sure that's why the defense made sure it was part of the jury instructions.

Or why the defense thought long and hard in trying to have the matter overturned on that basis, but they decided not to do so apparently out of fear that having it rejected would be used against them during the trial.

I don't see the disconnect here; I believe it would have been rejected because it doesn't apply properly here. Apparently the defense considered that possibility also. If they truly believed the law was for-sure applicable in this case, they wouldn't have had much to fear in attempting to use it.

Prosecution/defense say all kinds of crap to the jury that isn't strictly fact based. Both sides will try to play on emotions or make them consider things they shouldn't on a routine basis, including the ever popular "let's say this and then have it be stricken from evidence...SURELY, the jury can forget what they just heard and keep it from influencing their decision".

It's one of the more sickening facets of how these trials are handled; decisions should not be made based on emotions, regardless of which side is prompting them.

Again, if he had done so we likely never would have heard a word about this case at least until the verdict was annonced.

Indeed, it would have been better for everyone (including Zimmerman) had the officer made that judgment, instead of not arresting him based on a law that even the defense wasn't ultimately confident in using. The verdict would likely have been identical, but this wouldn't have been an unnecessarily national story.

 

[Farm Boy]

My attack and request for justification, if there can actually be any, of Stand Your Ground Laws was an aside by me. I know it didn't come into the trial here as a key issue. It was mentioned and I am as yet at a total loss as to how that particular subset of laws is not, in fact, stupidly and belligerently evil.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

There is no reason to assume either person will become violent, in fact that assumption is dangerous. I don't see the need for the law really; either you're attacked and can defend yourself or you have no reason to be using your weapon. I don't find the "I'm going to threaten/attack you and if you don't run away you're guilty if you defend yourself against me" any more palatable than the "I am going to stand here and shoot you if you attack me and it's always perfectly fine". Neither of these scenarios is acceptable.

I agree that the law seems asinine/unnecessary. If it isn't pure self defense, why are you shooting someone? Why is it required to run if you feel threatened? Is running always practical? Can that be interpreted consistently? I don't see what its existence accomplishes.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I don't see the disconnect here; I believe it would have been rejected because it doesn't apply properly here.

I'm also sure an attempt to dismiss on those grounds would have been rejected because "stand your ground" clearly doesn't pertain when the killer tracked down his innocent victim instead of actually standing his ground.

But it is clearly "applies" to this case in many regards despite actually not having anything specifically to do with it. Not only was it part of the jury instructions due to the insistence of the defense attorneys as I already mentioned, juror B37 has specifically stated it was part of her reason to decide to vote for acquittal.

A juror in the George Zimmerman trial broke her silence Monday night on national TV to say Florida's "stand your ground" laws played a role in the decision to acquit the Sanford neighborhood watch captain.

Prosecution/defense say all kinds of crap to the jury that isn't strictly fact based. Both sides will try to play on emotions or make them consider things they shouldn't on a routine basis, including the ever popular "let's say this and then have it be stricken from evidence...SURELY, the jury can forget what they just heard and keep it from influencing their decision".

It's one of the more sickening facets of how these trials are handled; decisions should not be made based on emotions, regardless of which side is prompting them.

And you are using much of it yourself as the basis for many of your arguments.

Indeed, it would have been better for everyone (including Zimmerman) had the officer made that judgment, instead of not arresting him based on a law that even the defense wasn't ultimately confident in using. The verdict would likely have been identical, but this wouldn't have been an unnecessarily national story.

It certainly wouldn't have been a national story until he was acquitted, if he actually was. Zimmerman likely would not have had the opportunity to retain such expensive legal help and an apparent army of volunteers which spent so much time dissecting every single detail of the case.

The outcome could have been quite different:

MIAMI — As they began deliberating in George Zimmerman’s murder trial, three of the six jurors wanted to acquit him while the other three wanted to convict him of either murder or manslaughter, one of the jurors said.

The woman, known as Juror B37, told CNN’s Anderson Cooper on Monday that when the jury began deliberations Friday, they took an initial vote. Three jurors— including B37 — were in favor of acquittal, two supported manslaughter and one backed second-degree murder. She said the jury started going through all the evidence, listening to tapes multiple times.

“That’s why it took us so long,” said B37, who said she planned to write a book about the trial but later had a change of heart.

When they started looking at the law, the person who initially wanted second-degree murder changed her vote to manslaughter, the juror said. Then they asked for clarification from the judge and went over it again and again. B37 said some jurors wanted to find Zimmerman guilty of something, but there was just no place to go based on the law.

B37 said jurors cried when they gave their final vote to the bailiff.

She also claimed what appear to be blatant lies that Serino told had much to do with her decision:

The juror said Sanford Police Detective Chris Serino made a big impression on her, because he would have been accustomed to dealing with murders and similar cases. He would have known how to spot a liar, and yet he testified that he believed Zimmerman, the juror said.

Legal analysts agreed that Serino’s testimony was a blow to the state’s case. The Sanford police were criticized last year for not arresting Zimmerman, and Gov. Rick Scott later appointed a special prosecutor, who brought charges against the neighborhood watch volunteer.

So the personal opinion of one of the cops who should be able to "spot a liar" was taken over all the other cops and prosecutors who have vastly more experience who claimed just the opposite.

It has also been revealed that Juror B37 hates the media and could quite possibly be a racist who seems to have a preternatural fear of riots.

A mere two days after finding George Zimmerman innocent of the murder of Trayvon Martin, juror B37 in the case has signed on with a prominent literary agent, as a prelude to a book deal. This juror is a woman who hates the media and went into the trial mistakenly believing there were "riots" over the case.

The video above is the entire voir dire of juror B37— the process during which the attorneys question prospective jurors to determine their suitability. During the questioning, the juror, a mother of two who owns "a lot" of animals, revealed the following things:

- She dislikes the media in general and considers it worthless. "You never get all the information... it's skewed one way or the other."

- "I don't listen to the radio" or read the internet, she said. Her only news about the case came from the Today show. "Newspapers are used in the parrot's cage. Not even read," she said. "It's been so long since I even read one. The only time I see em is when I'm putting them down on the floor."

- During questioning, she referred multiple times to "riots" in Sanford after Trayvon Martin was killed. "I knew there was rioting, but I guess [the authorities] had it pretty well organized," she says at one point. In fact, despite a great deal of salivating anticipation by the media both before and after the trial, there were no riots in Sanford, Florida.

- She referred to the killing of Trayvon Martin as "an unfortunate incident that happened."

- Asked by George Zimmerman's attorney to describe Trayvon Martin, she said, "He was a boy of color."

Juror B37 found George Zimmerman not guilty. Her book will surely make her a lot of money.

Or course, this political cartoon is a bit of an exaggeration. Everybody knows that you must be 18 before you can intentionally kill someone with a concealed firearm for merely being punched in the nose in the state of Florida:

 

[Agent327]

Yep. Seems to be the right verdict as well.

There appear to be different opinions on that.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I missed this addon to a previous post until now:

Many years ago when I was in great shape, I could have easily beaten someone 60+ pounds more than me half to death or literally to death inside a few minutes, just based on some basic wrestling knowledge.

I'm sure you think you could have based on your comments so far.

But again, there is no factual evidence to support that was what was occurring in this case. Now is there? You are just repeating what you just called "one of the more sickening facets of how these trials are handled".

And speaking of wrestling, 40 pounds difference in weight is likely at least two weight classes. It is a massive advantage in such situations. I would think anybody who claimed even the most basic knowledge of wrestling would understand this basic fact.

The issue is how Martin would prove self defense, with no injuries at all.

Merely being threatened is sufficient reason to kill someone in "self-defense" in this hopelessly backward state. I think it is quite clear that Zimmerman did indeed threaten a completely innocent minor. That if he hadn't been black that the probability of him being found guilty of any crime if he had even killed Zimmerman would have been close to 1. Of course, YMMV.

You're denying that this drug can cause people to behave unusually?

You are claiming that trace amounts can have the effect you absurdly attributed to some friend who acted strangely?

You do realize that Reefer Madness was debunked long ago. Right?

Such pervasive fear of a basically harmless recreational drug is just utter nonsense based on propaganda instead of facts.

 

[Farm Boy]

I'm going to have to agree on the trace amounts of pot thing. Pot can make you paranoid, true, but this seems rather akin to somebody having a couple beers 3 days ago and then writing off their later, sober, actions as "well alcoholics can be violent."

 

[Formaldehyde]

There are also different levels of paranoia. Why is it that you rarely hear of a pot smoker going on a killing rampage because they think people are out to get them?

The paranoia you get from smoking pot is largely due to thinking that others will notice you are stoned and have a negative reaction. It is much like being fearful that you won't do as well as you should on a test which you forgot to study.

Perhaps some day Americans and others can finally get over the massive propaganda they have been incessantly fed due to the so-called "war on drugs", which in this particular case should be called the "nonsensical war on a basically harmless substance".

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

There appear to be different opinions on that.

Yeah, what's that all about? We're usually such an agreeable bunch of people.

 

[timtofly]

I post the actual 911 recording for easy reference and you STILL make stuff up. At time 2:07 of the recording I posted Zimmerman clearly reports Martin running away.

If you can't get basic things like that right why should anyone pay attention to the ret of you contortionist attempts to bend the truth?

According to records M had been walking for 40+ minutes. Now he could have been jogging for all we know. I said that Z never said that M was running, until after you hear Z getting out of the truck.

Z told the dispatch that he was calling because M was acting strange and just walking around. Z even claimed that M approached his truck and "seemed" to be checking him out. Even the person on the phone with M seemed to remember a conversation with M that Z was checking M out.

It was not until Z opened his door and got out of the truck, did he say, "M is running". There is the point that Z felt he needed to roll up his window because M was "getting too close". I do not claim to say what Z was thinking, but he did say out loud, "They always get away." The dispatcher was trying to record the needed information, and all Z could think of at the time was "they always get away"?

I could speculate that perhaps Z was sitting there hoping M would do something. What happened between the time he felt he needed to roll up his window and him opening the truck door to get out and "confront" M?

Last time I knew checking someone out is not illegal to do, even profiling. It is the actions afterwards that count.

I listened to your source over and over about a dozen times, attempting to separate the speculation from the fact. It seems like others just look for certain words in my post and comment on them.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I'm sure you think you could have based on your comments so far.

But again, there is no factual evidence to support that was what was occurring in this case. Now is there? You are just repeating what you just called "one of the more sickening facets of how these trials are handled".

And speaking of wrestling, 40 pounds difference in weight is likely at least two weight classes. It is a massive advantage in such situations. I would think anybody who claimed even the most basic knowledge of wrestling would understand this basic fact.

Could have, but would never (there are more sophisticated, less permanent ways to disable someone, and I would almost never resort to that either). I've never been in a fight (not in the violent, punches throwing sense anyway) and given a choice, I never will be. But my point is that I was not unique, or even unusual. Any reasonably athletic person could easily do the same even to someone much heavier than them. The human body is fragile.

Yes, 40 pounds is anywhere from 0 (215 to 275) to several weight classes (most of the sub-150's had increments much closer to 5). But, neither of these guys are trained professionals under a competitive setting. Once someone is down, it's very difficult to escape.

The point I'm trying to emphasize in all of this is that IF Zimmerman was telling the truth about this particular situation, it's not really deniable that he was at serious and potentially life-threatening risk. It's just a matter of whether you believe his story, or rather if there is proof against it beyond a reasonable doubt.

I'm going to have to agree on the trace amounts of pot thing. Pot can make you paranoid, true, but this seems rather akin to somebody having a couple beers 3 days ago and then writing off their later, sober, actions as "well alcoholics can be violent."

Fair enough. In my defense, I said it was a minor and largely irrelevant point anyway. The real issue in this case is whether you believe that Zimmerman was being ground&pounded, and whether he did anything beyond merely following Martin prior to that, based on testimony. If he was being assaulted in such a way, self-defense is justified. If he wasn't, then it isn't. The prosecution really didn't show beyond a reasonable doubt that such didn't happen while the defense managed through their forensic expert + presentation of injury combination that it was certainly possible it did, which pretty well eliminated any chance at a guilty verdict.

 

[timtofly]

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.