Zimmerman Not guilty

[Gucumatz]

Has anyone seen the interviews of one of the Jurors by Anderson Cooper today and yesterday? She practically parroted the Defense's presentation step by step and placed the majority of fault on Trayvon.

Particularly fascinating, it seems deductively that the Prosecution left little real effect on the Jurors and while initially the Jurors were split on a 3 votes for acquittal, 2 votes for manslaughter, 1 for 2nd degree murder - that it ultimately came down to hours and hours of studying the wording of the laws on self defense and stand your ground for the ultimate acquittal. According to the Juror, Florida's Stand Your Ground Law played a significant role in the verdict

 

[Formaldehyde]

I mentioned it earlier in this thread. Her parroting of the O'Mara in lieu of listening to the evidence was deplorable. So is her apparent racism and disdain for keeping informed. She is the epitome of an incredibly bad juror. I have no idea why the prosecution didn't axe her during voir dire since the judge didn't seem to care.

 

[Patroklos]

Racism? WHAAAAT? So now the jurors are racist, awesome.

Is anyone else noticing a patern here?

 

[Formaldehyde]

I made a post just two pages ago that details this, which I even highlighted in bold:

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."

The "pattern" here is quite obvious.

 

[Patroklos]

I am sorry, but is anyone here actually paying attention to Forma at this point? I mean, outside of jester value?

 

[Formaldehyde]

"I rest my case".

 

[Patroklos]

Discussion? You haven't said anything that isn't a collection of indecipherable lies, imagination, and overt racism for a dozen pages Forma. Ain't nobody got time for that. The discussion is happening above and around you dude.

 

[MobBoss]

You are assuming I was referring to a context; I wasn't.

So you're making comments with no context. Nice!

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)

What's vague about that? I work as a Paralegal in civil and criminal litigation. Nothing vague about that at all.

I expect something more serious than a "rofl" and misinterpretation of someone's words.

You got more than that. Not my fault you lack any appreciation for it.

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

Can you be less vague?

I see. It seems pretty clear Mr Zimmerman hadn't a clue what he was doing.

I don't see how that particularly matters as pertains to the matter of self-defense.

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.)

What prejudice would that be exactly?

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).

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.

You seem to roll over the floor a lot.

I only do it when I point out others hypocrisy.

Killing someone as a response to being attacked isn't proportional.

Nor does it have to be. You don't have to wait to be maimed or die of your own wounds prior to acting in self-defense.

Nothing "false" about that.

Nope, but it is irrelevant.

Defending oneself is not the same as killing someone who attacks you and subsequently claiming self defense.

It certainly can be however. It is certainly not that uncommon as to be unheard of.

Pulling the gun might be self defense, taking someone's life isn't.

Again, it can be as just was illustrated in the case before us.

If it were, no trial would have been necessary in the first place.

No trail was necessary for this to be honest and it was only conducted due to pressure from the Obama administration...and it got the expected result to show for it.

One can feel threatened long before that happens.

Not life threatened, which was a key component in Z's defense. His bodily injury did indeed give an indication that he had been beaten, which adds weight to his claim that he acted in self-defense.

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.

I assume nothing of the sort (and you trying to say I have is frankly pathetic). However, in the absence of any real direct evidence to refute the claim of self-defense, there simply isn't a basis for a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.

And that is a rather easy concept to grasp. You don't even have to be a legal expert to get it.

 

[FriendlyFire]

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.

Unless of course you felt fear for you life, being unarmed, followed and then aggressively confronted while doing nothing more then trying to get back home ? Would that have been perfectly legitimate self defence too?

Of course TM wasnt the innocent teenager either, (drug use, illegal gun) but neither is GZ (assault, lying and theft)

In the end came down to GZ injuries as evidence of being assaulted.

 

[Berzerker]

Martin saw the cracka and it was Martin who started asking him questions - there is no evidence Zimmerman confronted Martin. This combined with the broken nose and beating tells me it was Martin who started the fight just like Zimmerman says.

 

[Farm Boy]

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.

The police, acting as gatekeepers to the criminal justice system, at least generally do not arrest people for whom they do not think any crime will hold up, any capriciousness aside.

DAs, being political entities, almost certainly do listen to public opinion when and if it gets loud enough. Just like Sheriffs.

 

[Formaldehyde]

No, the police don't typically arrest those they don't think are not guilty of crimes. A large part of the reason is that they would be subject to false arrest if they did cavalierly arrest people for no reason.

However, this was obviously not such a case. Again, the paperwork submitted by the original investigating officer the night of the killing states that he thinks Zimmerman should be arrested based on his investigation. if this had been any other matter besides a homicide that might fall under the "stand your ground" statute, he would have been arrested that very night. There is no question about that.

Again, state law in the form of the "stand your ground" statute specifically prohibits the arrest of those who might fall under its purview was the sole reason that Zimmerman wasn't arrested that night. It has absolutely nothing to do with politics.

I do not mean to be pedantic here. The decision to not arrest George Zimmerman is critical in understanding why Trayvon Martin is a national cause célèbre and Justin Patterson is not. In looking at that decision, it is important to understand the changes enacted in Florida law in 2005, under SYG. Among those changes--making it very difficult to arrest someone who claims self-defense:

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.--
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

It is section 2 and section 3 which caused George Zimmerman to not be arrested that night, as it has with numerous others since this absurd law was passed. It has typically been adding months to the arrest of those who commit homicides where the statute might pertain.

In this particular case, the governor even appointed a special prosecutor to determine if there was "probable cause" under that statute to arrest and charge George Zimmerman criminally for this homicide. The "law and order" Tea Party governor went to such unusual lengths to try to assure that nobody could claim that it was politically motivated. And yet the usual suspects at Fox News, Breitbart, etc. did so anyway despite him being the literal antithesis of the "liberal" media which they despise so much.

The State AG, Pam Bondi, is also a staunch "law and order" Republican and is another darling of the Tea Party set.

On December 1, 2009, Bondi officially announced that she would be running for Florida Attorney General.[4] On August 24, 2010 she won the Republican primary for this post, narrowly defeating Lieutenant Governor Jeff Kottkamp in a 3-way race. She was endorsed by former Alaska Governor and 2008 vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin during the primary. On November 2, 2010, she defeated Democratic state Senator Dan Gelber, to become the Attorney General of the State of Florida by a 55% to 41% margin.[5]

Bondi was the lead attorney general in an unsuccessful lawsuit seeking to overturn Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), Florida et al v. United States Department of Health and Human Services. In the lawsuit the State of Florida and 26 other states argued that the individual mandate provision of the PPACA violates the Constitution.

If anything, the politics of the situation would have caused George Zimmerman to not be arrested and charged instead of the opposite.

 

[MobBoss]

The police, acting as gatekeepers to the criminal justice system, at least generally do not arrest people for whom they do not think any crime will hold up, any capriciousness aside.

DAs, being political entities, almost certainly do listen to public opinion when and if it gets loud enough. Just like Sheriffs.

Generally, they don't try to make that determination. They arrest people on a reasonable suspicion based upon the facts known to them at the time. They depend on the DAs and charging attorneys to actually determine what to actually charge and attempt to get a conviction on (as well as pleas down to lesser charges etc.).

DAs generally listen public opinion, but also have to realize that a good amount of that opinion is based upon their conviction rates. DAs that routinely pursue cases that are long odds at conviction generally don't stay DAs for very long.

 

[Yeekim]

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.

For someone so very into scrutinizing facts you are rather liberal with mathematics. 185 vs 158 makes a difference of 27 lbs, not 40. Also, while we are at it, M was 5' 11'' vs Z's 5' 7''.

Equally (un)reasonable claim in opposite direction would be to call M a bully for attacking a heavily overweight smurf while being in ideal shape himself.

EDIT: Before you ask for source, data about weight and height is from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin

 

[Agent327]

The police, acting as gatekeepers to the criminal justice system, at least generally do not arrest people for whom they do not think any crime will hold up

That claim isn't supported by factual evidence. Plenty of arrests never end up in convictions. (Also, ofcourse, there are other grounds leading to a possible arrest other than the ones you seem to have in mind here.)

Generally, they don't try to make that determination. They arrest people on a reasonable suspicion based upon the facts known to them at the time. They depend on the DAs and charging attorneys to actually determine what to actually charge and attempt to get a conviction on (as well as pleas down to lesser charges etc.).

DAs generally listen public opinion, but also have to realize that a good amount of that opinion is based upon their conviction rates. DAs that routinely pursue cases that are long odds at conviction generally don't stay DAs for very long.

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).

So you're making comments with no context. Nice!

Apparently you don't know what that means. I'm assuming you're a paralegal.

What's vague about that? I work as a Paralegal in civil and criminal litigation. Nothing vague about that at all.

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

You got more than that. Not my fault you lack any appreciation for it.

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

Can you be less vague?

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

I don't see how that particularly matters as pertains to the matter of self-defense.

Nor am I claiming it does, Mr Paralegal.

What prejudice would that be exactly?

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

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.

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 only do it when I point out others hypocrisy.

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

Nor does it have to be. You don't have to wait to be maimed or die of your own wounds prior to acting in self-defense.

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

Nope, but it is irrelevant.

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

It certainly can be however. It is certainly not that uncommon as to be unheard of.

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

Again, it can be as just was illustrated in the case before
us.

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. 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.

No trail was necessary for this to be honest and it was only conducted due to pressure from the Obama administration...and it got the expected result to show for it.

Ofcourse a trial was necessary: someone was killed. "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.)

Not life threatened, which was a key component in Z's defense. His bodily injury did indeed give an indication that he had been beaten, which adds weight to his claim that he acted in self-defense.

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.

I assume nothing of the sort (and you trying to say I have is frankly pathetic).

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

However, in the absence of any real direct evidence to refute the claim of self-defense, there simply isn't a basis for a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.

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

And that is a rather easy concept to grasp. You don't even have to be a legal expert to get it.

I'm no legal expert - and obviously you aren't either -, but I have no trouble with the concept. Unlike, as I've just shown, Mr Paralegal. Lol all you want - that won't win you a day in court.

 

[Berzerker]

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).

that would be our drug war responsible for that, not the election of sheriffs

 

[Farm Boy]

Generally, they don't try to make that determination. They arrest people on a reasonable suspicion based upon the facts known to them at the time. They depend on the DAs and charging attorneys to actually determine what to actually charge and attempt to get a conviction on (as well as pleas down to lesser charges etc.).

DAs generally listen public opinion, but also have to realize that a good amount of that opinion is based upon their conviction rates. DAs that routinely pursue cases that are long odds at conviction generally don't stay DAs for very long.

Indeed. But I am pretty sure we would be burying our heads in the sand to think that the national attention would have no impact on whether or not a trial would be the end result here. A trial where justice can be found in the "best court system in the world." Where at least it's somewhat harder to be mad at anonymous jurors rather than the system when punishment isn't meted out. Are we not paying attention to the requests pouring in for the Federal Government to "do something?" It might, and it might not, but to think public attention and opinion has no play in how the government is treating/has treated this case is blissfully naive. The same is true of any case at all that gets attention as this one got attention. As far as I can determine, of course.

 

[Formaldehyde]

For someone so very into scrutinizing facts you are rather liberal with mathematics. 185 vs 158 makes a difference of 27 lbs, not 40. Also, while we are at it, M was 5' 11'' vs Z's 5' 7''.

The weight difference of 40 pounds was mentioned numerous times by the prosecutors during the trial. It was never denied or disputed by the defense attorneys.

Zimmerman's height is reportedly 5′7″ (1.70 m); and his weight is recorded as being 185 lb (84 kg) on his Seminole County Sheriff's Office Inmate Booking Information dated April 11, 2012, the date of his arrest.[30] Zimmerman's height is shown as 5′8″ (1.73 m); and his weight at 200 lb (91 kg) on the Sanford Police Department Offense Report for February 26, 2012, the night of the shooting.[38]

You didn't seem to actually read your own source. Does this make you "conservative" with "mathematics"?

Equally (un)reasonable claim in opposite direction would be to call M a bully for attacking a heavily overweight smurf while being in ideal shape himself.

You do realize George Zimmerman gained 100 pounds since then.

George Zimmerman Gained A Massive Amount Of Weight Before His Trial

The testimony from expert witness Dennis Root seems pretty obvious when you look at Zimmerman, who at 5 foot 8 weighs more than 300 pounds. But Zimmerman hasn't always been this fat.

The neighborhood watch volunteer and alleged vigilante has gained a massive amount of weight since he shot and killed an unarmed teenager in February 2012 and ignited a debate on race in America. Zimmerman weighed about 194 pounds when he killed Martin.

George Zimmerman had been attending 2-hour long MMA training classes 2-3 times a week for over a year. Calling him a "heavily overweight smurf" at the time of the incident just shows extreme bias and a propensity for ludicrous hyperbole.

So which was it? Did Zimemrman only outweigh someone you just claimed was in great shape by only a few pounds? Or was he a "heavily overweight smurf" that night when he took the life of a completely innocent minor even though he was apparently in no real danger of losing his own life? That is if he hadn't already pulled the gun long ago and was fearful that Martin might take it away from him. Your opinion seems to change within the very same post.

 

[classical_hero]

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.

Just to make it perfectly clear she should have said that Trayvon deserved to die and that the boy is a n******. I don't see how else she could have phrased it.

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:

Can I come to where you live and start attacking you and break your nose and pound your head on the ground?

So you are making it out like he couldn't wait until he killed Trayvon. For that to happen it would be a massive conspiracy. You will have to have the weapon's expert to lie in court and the doctor to lie in court also. There is just far too much evidence to goes against what you are saying. You are basically ignoring anything that doesn't fit your pre-existing view.

 

[Formaldehyde]

You mean it is you and a handful of others who continue to ignore the basic facts, as well as the expert testimony presented during this trial? "You are basically ignoring anything that doesn't fit your pre-existing view."

Your hyperbole regarding the actual physical damage to George Zimmerman as testified by numerous experts during the trial is yet another classic example.

And claiming that I am in any way "making it out like he couldn't wait until he killed Trayvon" just shows to what length you will go to deliberately misrepresent my opinions in these threads. I have not stated anything in this thread that the prosecutors themselves did not present at the trial.