CptJake wrote: And in '89, and in the 90s, and as recently as 2003 (but that one was not race related.)
It is honestly amazing to me that many of you dismiss the possibility of riots in Florida, especially when the press and professional race baiters and social media can (and seem to be) pushing race as an issue for this.
1. I wasn't aware of this information. Thanks. I always have difficulties equating Miami with the rest of Florida.
2. I still wouldn't call out the guard. I'd be ready but thats a major deal and lots of opportunity costs. Plus this is in Sanford, thats the middle of the state, near Orlando. I guess Disney could send its einsatztruppen if needed. I'd bet Disney has an entire robot army ready to roll.
A 2nd degree murder charge was very much an over charge with what was known about the shooting. They may have been hoping Z's lawyers would try to plea down to manslaughter. The elements needed to convict on the 2nd degree charge were going to be hard to prove even with better coached witnesses.
Next witness just affirmed TM on top punching Z "MMA style" when shot.
And that there is what you call witness for the defense establishing self defense ladies and germs. UNless they have a witness showing Z physically starting the fighting they are in deep doo doo because thats self defense at this point.
Frazzled wrote: I guess Disney could send its einsatztruppen if needed. I'd bet Disney has an entire robot army ready to roll.
Or put them all in time out on the "It's A Small World" ride until they learn to play nice
whembly wrote: Yup... this is the prosecution team's witness to the fight and um, he pretty much laid out the entire defense case.
Am I wrong about this?
Nope. The prosecution's eyewitness has told the jury that Trayvon Martin was on top of George Zimmerman, that George Zimmerman had cried out for help, that Trayvon Martin was moving his arms in a downward motion (that will likely corroborate the injuries George Zimmerman sustained), and that the witness from his position as an observer knew that what was happening was serious and serious enough to call 911.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Next witness just affirmed TM on top punching Z "MMA style" when shot.
And that there is what you call witness for the defense establishing self defense ladies and germs. UNless they have a witness showing Z physically starting the fighting they are in deep doo doo because thats self defense at this point.
At this point I don't think the defense even need to call any of their witnesses, they could also rest their case as it stands.
I have a query. Why wouldn't an eyewitness account be brought first, rather than pick through the odd hearsay/interpretation stuff that we went through with the over-the-phone "witness"?
Is it simply a coinflip to determine who brings the first one? Standard procedural issue?
sourclams wrote: I have a query. Why wouldn't an eyewitness account be brought first, rather than pick through the odd hearsay/interpretation stuff that we went through with the over-the-phone "witness"?
Is it simply a coinflip to determine who brings the first one? Standard procedural issue?
I suspect they were hoping that the young lady would be a much draw a lot more sympathy that the middle aged white dude would.
Jeeez... I feel like they got prosecutors for this trial from the "Law School of Watching Way Too Much Law and Order" as opposed to, you know, actual degree granting institutions. Or they have no case and are just trying to do everything they can so when gak inevitably hits the impeller they can say "Not our fault!"
How much you want to bet that Prosecution failure to indict will center around their Star Witness. As in they're going to "blame" Rachel. Even though they're not trying to make this a racial issue. Its going to turn into a racial issue at the end.
edit
Before we go overboard on Z being calm on just killing M. Z is still mentally coming to grip to what he did.
The state had to know what the only actual eye witness from before the shot was fired was going to say (namely that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and appeared to be beating the gak out of him). Based on the line of questioning this afternoon, and the amount of time the prosecution spent discussing Zimmerman's injuries and state after the shooting with the EMT, the first responding officer, etc., it seems pretty obvious that they're not going to bother arguing that Zimmerman was both winning the fight and decided to shoot.
Rather, it seems like they're going after two points:
1) Zimmerman initiated the conflict. The "star witness" from the first day is the linchpin to this point, and while I don't think she pulled it off, you never know what the jury's going to think. 2) Zimmerman's injuries weren't serious enough to reflect a deadly attack, and therefore he had no cause to be in fear for his life, and thus no justification for shooting Martin. This might actually succeed for reasons I won't go into that will inevitably sound sexist.
Although, it occurs to me that the prosecution focusing on Zimmerman's MMA gym membership might open the doors to getting Martin's own interest in MMA on the record. If the defense manages to get the various videos of Martin engaging in street fights into evidence, they might as well rest, because it's over.
2) Zimmerman's injuries weren't serious enough to reflect a deadly attack, and therefore he had no cause to be in fear for his life, and thus no justification for shooting Martin. This might actually succeed for reasons I won't go into that will inevitably sound sexist.
That point is the silliest one I've heard the prosecution attempt. I can swing a baseball bat and miss your head by a fraction of an inch, and threaten to bash your brains in. You would have no injuries at all but would be very justified in feeling threatened for your life. I can choke some one until they pass out , and they will have 'non life threatening' red marks on their neck. I can point a gun at a person and again leave zero injuries, but they could very well feel threatened with death.
What matters in regards to this point is: At the time Zimmerman was on the ground, did he justifiably feel threatened? I know if I had some dude pounding me and smacking my head into concrete I sure would.
Well....Prosecution Eyewitness has took pictures of the damage to Z head right after the incident. I also remember somewhere that M also reached for Z holster weapon when it exposed itself....
Jihadin wrote: Well....Prosecution Eyewitness has took pictures of the damage to Z head right after the incident. I also remember somewhere that M also reached for Z holster weapon when it exposed itself....
According to Z. His statement was that when M saw the gun, he said to Z "Your gonna die tonight..." probably with a racial expletive in there.
The defense just has to preserve the reasonable doubt that already exists. They don't have to really argue anything crazy, they just have to keep the murkiness as it is.
The prosecution, on the other hand, even with a better prosecutor would have had a very hard time with this just because of how much reasonable doubt there is. They will have no problem presenting a believable scenario where Z is guilty, they just won't be able to show that the other scenarios didn't happen.
Think Jesse Jackson be out the picture on this. He be dealing with the aftermath of his son going to jail....including his son wife....court has to stagger the jail terms for their two kids...Actually I'm not sure how they will do that. I think both got 15 yrs.
Jihadin wrote: Think Jesse Jackson be out the picture on this. He be dealing with the aftermath of his son going to jail....including his son wife....court has to stagger the jail terms for their two kids...Actually I'm not sure how they will do that. I think both got 15 yrs.
Court appointed guardians? I wouldn't leave the children in the care of two convicted felons.
And you think Jesse will actually care about family when he can cause more racial issues in America?
I can imagine that question popping up in FLA at Jesse. So how's your grandson's doing now that your son and his wife in jail for buying homes with campaign funds? He be making statements up north instead of down south.
Something else I noticed that I may be misinterpreting, as no one else has mentioned it that I've seen:
Jeantel's testimony included the tidbit that when she reconnected with Martin, he told her he was in back of his father's fiancee's home. The actual fight took place 70 yards from that house. Not sure how those two facts can both be true if Martin didn't go back out to look for Zimmerman.
Seaward wrote: Something else I noticed that I may be misinterpreting, as no one else has mentioned it that I've seen:
Jeantel's testimony included the tidbit that when she reconnected with Martin, he told her he was in back of his father's fiancee's home. The actual fight took place 70 yards from that house. Not sure how those two facts can both be true if Martin didn't go back out to look for Zimmerman.
That is an interesting fact if true... I'm having a hard time finding her actual testimony, as opposed to pundits discussing it. Can anyone help provide links for that?
If he did make it back to the house, and then come back out... well then that's a closed case.
Edit: oh man... I just read about how she admitted to committing perjury while on the stand, and effectively admitting the prosecution had coached her on what to say...
Seaward wrote: Something else I noticed that I may be misinterpreting, as no one else has mentioned it that I've seen:
Jeantel's testimony included the tidbit that when she reconnected with Martin, he told her he was in back of his father's fiancee's home. The actual fight took place 70 yards from that house. Not sure how those two facts can both be true if Martin didn't go back out to look for Zimmerman.
70 yards is 210 feet. There would be numerous houses, fences, and roads in his way. We'd need a map of the neighborhood to know really if Martin had easy access to his residence.
Seaward wrote: Something else I noticed that I may be misinterpreting, as no one else has mentioned it that I've seen:
Jeantel's testimony included the tidbit that when she reconnected with Martin, he told her he was in back of his father's fiancee's home. The actual fight took place 70 yards from that house. Not sure how those two facts can both be true if Martin didn't go back out to look for Zimmerman.
70 yards is 210 feet. There would be numerous houses, fences, and roads in his way. We'd need a map of the neighborhood to know really if Martin had easy access to his residence.
As the maps show, it couldn't get easier. He had a straight line with nothing blocking his way. 70 yards would take just a handful of seconds to cross.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: My i aks what you as trying to prove with the pictures(Im not being rude, Im genuinely confused)
Lord was asking for them, he wanted to see what impediments Martin may have had in his way from reaching the home he was staying at.
LordofHats wrote: And what was the time between when Zimmerman started looking and when the fight with Martin occured?
EDIT: I ask because it looks like he could have made it now did he have the time to get there and back behind Zimmerman without Zimmerman noticing.
It was 3 minutes and 14 seconds from the time Z hung up the phone with the police, (31 seconds after he said he lost site of Martin), and Martin was shot.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: So he could have ran home, but instead decided to beat Z?
I don't think he went home. I have lived in a suburb though and it isn't hard to circle around without people noticing. Wonder if the defense will argue that's what happened.
LordofHats wrote: I don't think he went home. I have lived in a suburb though and it isn't hard to circle around without people noticing. Wonder if the defense will argue that's what happened.
The testimony from Jeantel is that Z did find Martin, 3 minutes after Z said he lost site of Martin. 3 minutes, 70 yards. You do the math.
That's a question that, even without this aspect of Jenteal's testimony, more and more people are thankfully starting to ask. It has an answer that I referred to earlier in this thread: the media slanted the ever-loving gak out of this incident, and people got riled up and demanded a trial.
That's a question that, even without this aspect of Jenteal's testimony, more and more people are thankfully starting to ask. It has an answer that I referred to earlier in this thread: the media slanted the ever-loving gak out of this incident, and people got riled up and demanded a trial.
When this is done, I hope Zimmerman sues the ever living hell out of MSNBC. He should die a millionaire for what they did to him.
That's a question that, even without this aspect of Jenteal's testimony, more and more people are thankfully starting to ask. It has an answer that I referred to earlier in this thread: the media slanted the ever-loving gak out of this incident, and people got riled up and demanded a trial.
When this is done, I hope Zimmerman sues the ever living hell out of MSNBC. He should die a millionaire for what they did to him.
Agreed...
Especially if this bit of information is accurate... I even don't think the Martin's would have a civil case against Zimmerman.
djones520 wrote:
The testimony from Jeantel is that Z did find Martin, 3 minutes after Z said he lost site of Martin. 3 minutes, 70 yards. You do the math.
I don't think anything she says can be believed at this point. She keeps changing the story. But I do notice when people happily start believing her when her story changes to fit what they want to think happened. I'm betting though that the jury is likely to believe her newer testimony though so Zimmerman's probably in the safe zone.
They'd still have a case. They just wouldn't have a witness claiming to have intimate knowledge of Martin's state of mind. The prosecution has botched their jobs from the get go though. Even before this there was a lot of stupid decision making.
d-usa wrote: I'm amazed that everything she said is either a lie, or completely unreliable.
Except the tiny bit that might help Z. That bit was the truth.
Well she admitted she lied about about some of her testimony, she admitted it while she was on the stand. I haven't heard anyone claim the rest of her testimony was a lie.
But phone records indicate when the call between her and Martin was lost, that can't be refuted.
d-usa wrote: I'm amazed that everything she said is either a lie, or completely unreliable.
Except the tiny bit that might help Z. That bit was the truth.
I don't believe everything was a lie or unreliable save the stuff that helped George Zimmerman.
I believe, for example, she finally provided her real name under oath.
The important aspects of her testimony have changed multiple times, often depending on the circumstances in which she was interviewed. She denied a key aspect of her testimony - what she originally said she heard Zimmerman say to Martin - right up until the transcript of the deposition was read to her, then she said she remembered saying it, but it wasn't what happened.
For what it's worth, I think she's probably unreliable with regards to where Martin said he was at various points during their conversation, including the bits that "help Z." I think, frankly, that she (rightly) sees herself as the only real shot the prosecution has, and consciously tried to make her testimony as favorable as possible to Martin, even lying in numerous spots. Do I blame her for that? Not really, actually. But it doesn't change the fact that she was a train wreck of a witness who impeached the prosecution's case numerous times.
There is still a case, especially enough of one to send it to a jury to decide.
Some people shouldn't let the media whip them into a frenzy about how there is no case, especially people who complained about the media whipping people into a frenzy.
LordofHats wrote: They'd still have a case. They just wouldn't have a witness claiming to have intimate knowledge of Martin's state of mind. The prosecution has botched their jobs from the get go though. Even before this there was a lot of stupid decision making.
I very much doubt they'd have a case, honestly. They don't currently appear to have one even with the testimony. The numerous people involved with the initial decision that the state didn't have enough evidence for a conviction of anything, much less second degree murder, aren't looking quite so lazy/racist/complicit currently.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: There is still a case, especially enough of one to send it to a jury to decide.
Some people shouldn't let the media whip them into a frenzy about how there is no case, especially people who complained about the media whipping people into a frenzy.
I certainly hope you're not referencing me. I'm discussing the actual trial proceedings; most of the talking heads are still very much on the, "Oh, this is a slam dunk for the prosecution, Zimmerman had a gun!" train.
Same here. I got to watch the last couple days of testimony, that's what I'm basing this stuff off of. The prosecution's witnesses have done nothing but show that there was ample time for Martin to get away, and that Zimmerman was the one getting his ass beat by Martin.
They have done nothing to show clear evidence that Zimmerman was threatening Martin, or intended to cause him any harm.
If we're tracking how bad Prosecution is I hope the Martin parents are tracking like us. So when Z walks they do not play the race card on Prosecution...
d-usa wrote: So none of you are reading any news stories of any kind in regards to this story? Just watching testimony without any commentary at all?
Color me surprised.
Only in looking for factual wording, from the testimony. I haven't read a single op-ed piece on the matter since the trial started.
Edit: Granted, I don't read to many op-ed's on anything now a days.
Of course that also assumes that only op-ed pieces contain a bias or personal opinion, and that written news that are not op-eds are free from any bias or personal agendas.
d-usa wrote: Of course that also assumes that only op-ed pieces contain a bias or personal opinion, and that written news that are not op-eds are free from any bias or personal agendas.
Do you even know what you're arguing at this point? You seem to be saying that if someone thought that the media whipping up a circus around an apparent non-crime by deliberately creating an extraordinarily misleading impression on the public for the purposes of encouraging a political prosecution, they shouldn't consume any coverage of the resulting trial whatsoever.
d-usa wrote: Of course that also assumes that only op-ed pieces contain a bias or personal opinion, and that written news that are not op-eds are free from any bias or personal agendas.
Do you even know what you're arguing at this point? You seem to be saying that if someone thought that the media whipping up a circus around an apparent non-crime by deliberately creating an extraordinarily misleading impression on the public for the purposes of encouraging a political prosecution, they shouldn't consume any coverage of the resulting trial whatsoever.
And you seem to say that media is good if it reports something something that you support or reports something that you share an opinion with, but that they are whipping up a circus if they are reporting something that you don't agree with.
But then debating anything with you is pointless, so why bother.
d-usa wrote: Of course that also assumes that only op-ed pieces contain a bias or personal opinion, and that written news that are not op-eds are free from any bias or personal agendas.
Do you even know what you're arguing at this point? You seem to be saying that if someone thought that the media whipping up a circus around an apparent non-crime by deliberately creating an extraordinarily misleading impression on the public for the purposes of encouraging a political prosecution, they shouldn't consume any coverage of the resulting trial whatsoever.
And you seem to say that media is good if it reports something something that you support or reports something that you share an opinion with, but that they are whipping up a circus if they are reporting something that you don't agree with.
But then debating anything with you is pointless, so why bother.
d-usa wrote: And you seem to say that media is good if it reports something something that you support or reports something that you share an opinion with, but that they are whipping up a circus if they are reporting something that you don't agree with.
But then debating anything with you is pointless, so why bother.
Why bother indeed, if you're simply going to outright make stuff up. I don't think I've once in this thread suggested the media has played a remotely positive role in any of this, even now.
djones520 wrote: They won't. They'll go after him in civil court. While marching alongside Jesse Jackson.
They actually might have a decent civil case. If Z's actions negligently led to a series of events that led to reasonable self defense, he might bear some fraction of the responsibility. Remember that civil court can still find for a plaintiff for partial responsibility and a partial judgement, even if someone was only 20% responsible or what have you. As long as the actions were sufficiently negligent, even a small fraction of the blame will be worth a bit of money.
Basically, even if not "guilty", it can be "his fault".
Perhaps it's simply someone having to do with Zimmerman's voice stress analysis after his arrest, though why the prosecution would want to bring that up is beyond me.
Perhaps it's simply someone having to do with Zimmerman's voice stress analysis after his arrest, though why the prosecution would want to bring that up is beyond me.
I'm in a differant work center today, so can't get audio on the trial. The footnotes I saw though said he was referring to the audio recordings from the 911 calls. But he was also saying it was impossible to make any judgement from them.
Perhaps it's simply someone having to do with Zimmerman's voice stress analysis after his arrest, though why the prosecution would want to bring that up is beyond me.
I'm in a differant work center today, so can't get audio on the trial. The footnotes I saw though said he was referring to the audio recordings from the 911 calls. But he was also saying it was impossible to make any judgement from them.
If the expert is saying it's impossible, why the hell the prosecutor putting him on the stand?
SANFORD, Fla. (AP) — An FBI audio expert whose pretrial testimony helped keep prosecution witnesses from testifying at George Zimmerman's murder trial took the stand Monday and said a person who is familiar with a voice on a recording has a better chance of identifying it.
Prosecutors called FBI expert Hirotaka Nakasone to focus on the issue of who was screaming for help on 911 calls during the confrontation that ended with the neighborhood watch volunteer fatally shooting 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. Jurors were played the 911 calls several times last week.
The recordings are crucial pieces of evidence because they could determine who the aggressor was in the confrontation. Martin's family contends it was the teen screaming, while Zimmerman's father has said it was his son.
Even though he was a pre-trial witness for the defense, prosecutors called Nakasone to set up later testimony from either the teen's mother or father that they believe it was their son yelling for help.
During his pre-trial testimony, Nakasone testified that there wasn't enough clear sound to determine whether Zimmerman or Martin was screaming on the best 911 sample, an assertion he repeated Monday.
"It's not fit for the purpose of voice comparison," Nakasone said.
Nakasone also said guessing a person's age by voice is "complicated" in general, and it was impossible to determine with the 911 sample he heard.
The FBI expert said that it's easier for a person with a familiarity of a voice to identify it than someone who has never heard it previously. That is especially true if the recording is of a subject screaming and the person trying to identify the voice has heard the subject under similarly stressful circumstances previously, Nakasone said.
But under cross-examination by defense attorney Don West, Nakasone said there was a risk of increased listener bias if people trying to identify a voice are listening to a sample in a group, as Martin's parents did, rather than individually.
"There might be a risk of bias included in the end results," Nakasone said.
Nakasone's pretrial testimony, along with other defense experts, helped keep two prosecution audio experts from testifying. One prosecution expert ruled out that it was Zimmerman screaming on the 911 call and the other thought it was the teen.
Judge Debra Nelson ruled that the methods used by the experts aren't reliable. Her ruling didn't prevent the 911 calls from being played at trial.
More than 20 witnesses last week testified during the opening week of a testimony in a trial that has opened up national debates about race, equal justice, self-defense and gun control.
Zimmerman has said he fatally shot the teen in February 2012 in self-defense as the Miami-area black teenager was banging his head into the concrete sidewalk behind the townhomes in a gated community. Zimmerman is charged with second-degree murder and has pleaded not guilty.
Zimmerman defense attorney Mark O'Mara said at the end of last week that the trial was progressing at a faster pace than anticipated, but that he was reserving judgment on the prosecution's case so far.
"We're in the middle of it. They've got a lot more to show. These things build up slow, and it's sort of like pieces of a puzzle," O'Mara said. "People say, 'wait a minute, I can't see the picture yet.' They're very good prosecutors, they're gonna do very good job, and they're gonna put on their evidence. We'll see how it goes. We're certainly ready to respond to it."
Zimmerman, 29, could get life in prison if convicted of second-degree murder. The state argued during its opening statement that Zimmerman profiled and followed Martin in his truck and called a police dispatch number before he and the teen got into a fight.
Zimmerman has denied the confrontation had anything to do with race, as Martin's family and their supporters have claimed.
Perhaps it's simply someone having to do with Zimmerman's voice stress analysis after his arrest, though why the prosecution would want to bring that up is beyond me.
I'm in a differant work center today, so can't get audio on the trial. The footnotes I saw though said he was referring to the audio recordings from the 911 calls. But he was also saying it was impossible to make any judgement from them.
If the expert is saying it's impossible, why the hell the prosecutor putting him on the stand?
because the defense will. The same reason as the other witnesses. If the prosecution doesn't put them up it looks like the prosecution is hiding something.
Am i the only one thinking the prosecution is shooting themselve in the foot with each witness?
For Jeantel, who lied on stand and gave unclear statements, then refused to come back the following day.
The the witness that proved it was M ontop of Z beating him up.
Now the audio expert that said it is unclear who is screaming
hotsauceman1 wrote: Am i the only one thinking the prosecution is shooting themselve in the foot with each witness?
For Jeantel, who lied on stand and gave unclear statements, then refused to come back the following day.
The the witness that proved it was M ontop of Z beating him up.
Now the audio expert that said it is unclear who is screaming
No, that seems to be the general thinking for most.
My stance on this isn't that the prosecution isn't screwing the pooch. They're trying to make the best of an impossible situation. Remember originally the DA for the county this happened in didn't want to try the case. Then all of the political pressure came down, and the venue got changed, and this new DA was basically ordered to do this. He didn't really have a choice in the matter.
Seaward wrote: They were showing slides of Zimmerman's written account of the shooting and it appears they just plain forgot they were in open court on TV.
Well, it was such a low key event, with little national attention, that I'm sure it just slipped their minds....
The prosecution called the officer who interviewed Zimmerman at the police station. On defense cross-examination, she gave a pretty favorable impression of the credibility of Zimmerman's story. The prosecution got back up on redirect and had to maneuver her into saying that most of her testimony had been speculation. I think he meant for it to come off as just the favorable-to-the-defense stuff, but it didn't play that way.
She was starting to look pretty pissed with the prosecutor.
djones520 wrote: Is it just me, or does the Lead Detective look like he's extremely pissed off that he has to be there right now?
Serino got knocked from investigation to patrol after Corey took over the case as a result of his part in recommending that charges not be filed. He's probably very pissed about the whole thing, as his career's essentially come to an end.
Frazzled wrote: So is there any evidence or statements so far disputing Z's statement about being attacked by TM at this point?
No... as far as I can tell, no. They seem to really be focusing on Zimmermans statements today, I'm not sure what angle their trying to work with that. Really wish I had sound.
djones520 wrote: Is it just me, or does the Lead Detective look like he's extremely pissed off that he has to be there right now?
Serino got knocked from investigation to patrol after Corey took over the case as a result of his part in recommending that charges not be filed. He's probably very pissed about the whole thing, as his career's essentially come to an end.
That would explain a lot. Couple that with how it seems the trial is now going no where... I could understand being pissed.
Seaward wrote: Serino got knocked from investigation to patrol after Corey took over the case as a result of his part in recommending that charges not be filed. He's probably very pissed about the whole thing, as his career's essentially come to an end.
I hope that he's talking to his union, or lawyer about this turn of events. Because it's looking more and more like he made the right call.
Seaward wrote: Serino got knocked from investigation to patrol after Corey took over the case as a result of his part in recommending that charges not be filed. He's probably very pissed about the whole thing, as his career's essentially come to an end.
I hope that he's talking to his union, or lawyer about this turn of events. Because it's looking more and more like he made the right call.
No, he made the wrong call. Just because the end result of the trial is an acquittal does not mean the cop should have made that decision and just let someone go.
"Should I charge this person" and "will this person be convicted" are two ENTIRELY different questions which are by design supposed to be answered by different people.
He absolutely should have been charged. It's not police business to worry about conviction, that is supposed to be a jury's job.
Rented Tritium wrote: No, he made the wrong call. Just because the end result of the trial is an acquittal does not mean the cop should have made that decision and just let someone go.
"Should I charge this person" and "will this person be convicted" are two ENTIRELY different questions which are by design supposed to be answered by different people.
He absolutely should have been charged. It's not police business to worry about conviction, that is supposed to be a jury's job.
Based on the evidence that the Prosecution has shown to date there is little to suggest that Zimmerman should have been charged.
It's the DA's job to worry about the prospect of conviction. It's the jury's job to be the finder of fact
Seaward wrote: Serino got knocked from investigation to patrol after Corey took over the case as a result of his part in recommending that charges not be filed. He's probably very pissed about the whole thing, as his career's essentially come to an end.
I hope that he's talking to his union, or lawyer about this turn of events. Because it's looking more and more like he made the right call.
No, he made the wrong call. Just because the end result of the trial is an acquittal does not mean the cop should have made that decision and just let someone go.
"Should I charge this person" and "will this person be convicted" are two ENTIRELY different questions which are by design supposed to be answered by different people.
He absolutely should have been charged. It's not police business to worry about conviction, that is supposed to be a jury's job.
There is a reason DA's have the power to choose to not press charges. It's to prevent frivolous proceedings like this, that end up being a huge expense to the tax payer for no reason.
Seaward wrote: Serino got knocked from investigation to patrol after Corey took over the case as a result of his part in recommending that charges not be filed. He's probably very pissed about the whole thing, as his career's essentially come to an end.
I hope that he's talking to his union, or lawyer about this turn of events. Because it's looking more and more like he made the right call.
No, he made the wrong call. Just because the end result of the trial is an acquittal does not mean the cop should have made that decision and just let someone go.
"Should I charge this person" and "will this person be convicted" are two ENTIRELY different questions which are by design supposed to be answered by different people.
He absolutely should have been charged. It's not police business to worry about conviction, that is supposed to be a jury's job.
Really? You're effectively saying anyone who could potentially be charged with a crime should have to go through a trial. I don't think you understand the import of that. Part of the duty of the state is to bring appropriate charges in the adminstration of justice, not "throw it all against the wall and see what sticks"
Just taking this down to traffic situations. Your statement shows suppport for no one ever getting warnings for potential traffic violations and always being charged with all possible crimes. Just send it to trial, after all thats justice.
Rented Tritium wrote: No, he made the wrong call. Just because the end result of the trial is an acquittal does not mean the cop should have made that decision and just let someone go.
"Should I charge this person" and "will this person be convicted" are two ENTIRELY different questions which are by design supposed to be answered by different people.
He absolutely should have been charged. It's not police business to worry about conviction, that is supposed to be a jury's job.
Prosecutors and police kinda/sorta work together in building up the evidence necessary to form a case, y'know. When all involved conclude that evidence doesn't exist, it's not making a decision about a person's guilt or innocence, it's making a decision about whether or not there's enough evidence to try them.
Seaward wrote: Serino got knocked from investigation to patrol after Corey took over the case as a result of his part in recommending that charges not be filed. He's probably very pissed about the whole thing, as his career's essentially come to an end.
I hope that he's talking to his union, or lawyer about this turn of events. Because it's looking more and more like he made the right call.
No, he made the wrong call. Just because the end result of the trial is an acquittal does not mean the cop should have made that decision and just let someone go.
"Should I charge this person" and "will this person be convicted" are two ENTIRELY different questions which are by design supposed to be answered by different people.
He absolutely should have been charged. It's not police business to worry about conviction, that is supposed to be a jury's job.
Really? You're effectively saying anyone who could potentially be charged with a crime should have to go through a trial. I don't think you understand the import of that.
Part of the duty of the state is to bring appropriate charges in the adminstration of justice, not "throw it all against the wall and see what sticks"
Just taking this down to traffic situations. Your statement shows suppport for no one ever getting warnings for potential traffic violations and always being charged with all possible crimes. Just send it to trial, after all thats justice.
The DA decides, not the police.
And no, I wouldn't say the same thing about civil traffic law because it's not a criminal matter involving a death. Let's please not do this thing where every statement I make is assumed to be a blanket principle that applies to every kind of law ever.
Rented Tritium wrote: No, he made the wrong call. Just because the end result of the trial is an acquittal does not mean the cop should have made that decision and just let someone go.
"Should I charge this person" and "will this person be convicted" are two ENTIRELY different questions which are by design supposed to be answered by different people.
He absolutely should have been charged. It's not police business to worry about conviction, that is supposed to be a jury's job.
Prosecutors and police kinda/sorta work together in building up the evidence necessary to form a case, y'know. When all involved conclude that evidence doesn't exist, it's not making a decision about a person's guilt or innocence, it's making a decision about whether or not there's enough evidence to try them.
And none of that process happened here. The cops on scene basically decided that there wasn't a case until everyone freaked out about it rightly. Based on the information the police had, he should have been charged that night. The DA might have dropped it later, but he should have been picked up and charged.
Seaward wrote: Serino got knocked from investigation to patrol after Corey took over the case as a result of his part in recommending that charges not be filed. He's probably very pissed about the whole thing, as his career's essentially come to an end.
I hope that he's talking to his union, or lawyer about this turn of events. Because it's looking more and more like he made the right call.
No, he made the wrong call. Just because the end result of the trial is an acquittal does not mean the cop should have made that decision and just let someone go.
"Should I charge this person" and "will this person be convicted" are two ENTIRELY different questions which are by design supposed to be answered by different people.
He absolutely should have been charged. It's not police business to worry about conviction, that is supposed to be a jury's job.
There is a reason DA's have the power to choose to not press charges. It's to prevent frivolous proceedings like this, that end up being a huge expense to the tax payer for no reason.
The DA, not the police. This is not a decision that should be made on the street.
Rented Tritium wrote: No, he made the wrong call. Just because the end result of the trial is an acquittal does not mean the cop should have made that decision and just let someone go.
"Should I charge this person" and "will this person be convicted" are two ENTIRELY different questions which are by design supposed to be answered by different people.
He absolutely should have been charged. It's not police business to worry about conviction, that is supposed to be a jury's job.
Based on the evidence that the Prosecution has shown to date there is little to suggest that Zimmerman should have been charged.
It's the DA's job to worry about the prospect of conviction. It's the jury's job to be the finder of fact
Based on what the police knew that night, he absolutely should have been charged.
Rented Tritium wrote: Based on what the police knew that night, he absolutely should have been charged.
I would love to hear your reasons for this, because on the evidence available (and what has been shown) it's looking more and more like charging and prosecuting Zimmerman was a mistake. The Prosecution's evidence is doing more to acquit than convict him.
Rented Tritium wrote: Based on what the police knew that night, he absolutely should have been charged.
I would love to hear your reasons for this, because on the evidence available (and what has been shown) it's looking more and more like charging and prosecuting Zimmerman was a mistake. The Prosecution's evidence is doing more to acquit than convict him.
Maybe the lawyer's flipped a coin and these are actually the defense witnesses, with prosecution witnesses coming later.
Rented Tritium wrote: Based on what the police knew that night, he absolutely should have been charged.
I would love to hear your reasons for this, because on the evidence available (and what has been shown) it's looking more and more like charging and prosecuting Zimmerman was a mistake. The Prosecution's evidence is doing more to acquit than convict him.
What he said on the 911 call combined with what the officers found on the scene and what zimmerman told them is enough for probable cause right there. At that point, you collect all the evidence you can and let the DA decide to drop the charges or not.
Police should not be making prosecutorial decisions on their own. They are not trained to determine anything beyond probable cause and they shouldn't be. If you have probable cause for murder, you make the arrest and let people above your pay grade sort it out.
We allow all kinds of leeway for smaller crimes, but this is murder. You don't give cops the ability to just decide not to charge on murder. In most places, murder and domestic violence must be charged as soon as PC is achieved. We've specifically taken that out of the hands of the police for a good reason.
Rented Tritium wrote: What he said on the 911 call combined with what the officers found on the scene and what zimmerman told them is enough for probable cause right there. At that point, you collect all the evidence you can and let the DA decide to drop the charges or not.
Police should not be making prosecutorial decisions on their own. They are not trained to determine anything beyond probable cause and they shouldn't be. If you have probable cause for murder, you make the arrest and let people above your pay grade sort it out.
You mean that there was someone suspicious in his community? And that there had been a spate of break ins recently?
All the evidence like the witnesses who testified that Martin was on top of Zimmerman assaulting him while the witness was on the phone to 911?
That Martin seemed to have a racial motive by describing Zimmerman as a "creepy ass cracker"?
The Police consult with the DA before there is a decision to charge based on the available evidence. The available evidence is so flimsy for a prosecution that it could be spat through.
Rented Tritium wrote: We allow all kinds of leeway for smaller crimes, but this is murder. You don't give cops the ability to just decide not to charge on murder. In most places, murder and domestic violence must be charged as soon as PC is achieved. We've specifically taken that out of the hands of the police for a good reason.
Wrong.
This was a homocide. There is a very big difference between a homocide (which may be justifiable etc.) and murder.
Police don't have the ability "to just decide not to charge on murder". They don't have this leeway with most crime. It has to be done on the basis of evidence. In this case that evidence is sorely lacking.
Based on what the police knew that night, he absolutely should have been charged.
I'd really like to know what you base this on. It seems to me that the authorities actually put a fair bit of work into establishing the chain of events and creating a picture of what happened to lead up to the shooting. Watching the proceedings, I've never gotten the impression that Z was let go because he's got a german last name and the dude that got shot was black.
I think this trial is illustrating exactly how many professional people checked out this incident and ruled that there wasn't enough to go on.
Rented Tritium wrote: Based on what the police knew that night, he absolutely should have been charged.
I would love to hear your reasons for this, because on the evidence available (and what has been shown) it's looking more and more like charging and prosecuting Zimmerman was a mistake. The Prosecution's evidence is doing more to acquit than convict him.
What he said on the 911 call combined with what the officers found on the scene and what zimmerman told them is enough for probable cause right there. At that point, you collect all the evidence you can and let the DA decide to drop the charges or not.
Police should not be making prosecutorial decisions on their own. They are not trained to determine anything beyond probable cause and they shouldn't be. If you have probable cause for murder, you make the arrest and let people above your pay grade sort it out.
We allow all kinds of leeway for smaller crimes, but this is murder. You don't give cops the ability to just decide not to charge on murder. In most places, murder and domestic violence must be charged as soon as PC is achieved. We've specifically taken that out of the hands of the police for a good reason.
The DA was the one who didn't pursue it. What are you on about? The state had to bring in a whole new one.
And frankly you said these things have to go to trial, no to the DA earlier. Which is it?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: DA had to go with it. That it became a race issue and the POTUS making a silly ass comment.
Correction NEW SPECIAL DA did. this is not the original DA.
sourclams wrote: Watching the proceedings, I've never gotten the impression that Z was let go because he's got a german last name and the dude that got shot was black.
As long as you're actively trying to paint me as a reactionary arguing about race, I have no reason to engage with you. I'm on the record on these forums as being HIGHLY pro-police, thanks.
I don't think he'll get convicted, but there was absolutely sufficient grounds to charge him on the night of. The things that hurt the case came from interviews that weren't even MADE until after they had already decided not to charge him.
I'm getting the perception the detective likes the defense better then prosecution. Defense literally went over the entire police procedure on him handling info of witness's and shooter. Now the word "Pristine" is stuck in everyone head. Its funny how they handling or labeling that Z might have PTSD now
Rented Tritium wrote: I don't think he'll get convicted, but there was absolutely sufficient grounds to charge him on the night of. The things that hurt the case came from interviews that weren't even MADE until after they had already decided not to charge him.
Charge him with what? Remember SYG is also applicable here. They may not be able to even arrest him based on that.
Rented Tritium wrote: As long as you're actively trying to paint me as a reactionary arguing about race, I have no reason to engage with you. I'm on the record on these forums as being HIGHLY pro-police, thanks.
No, I just honestly don't see how you can make some of the statements that you have unless you're operating from a point of NSA-like superior information to the various professionals who reviewed the facts available and made the initial call that they did.
Rented Tritium wrote: I don't think he'll get convicted, but there was absolutely sufficient grounds to charge him on the night of. The things that hurt the case came from interviews that weren't even MADE until after they had already decided not to charge him.
The original DA would seem to disagree with you. And the facts as they are emerging seems to be supporting his position.
At times I'm glad I have a flat demeaner...those twitter tweets are a bit funny IMO I say Z is guilty but Prosecution just ate up from the floor up like a soup sandwich I would love to see Prosecution resumes for their jobs and reverify their education does not look it came from a cereal box
Z has to live with himself knowing he killed a kid. Just not in General Population
I do think that the "this is all about race" crowd is just as wrong as the "race didn't have anything to do with this" crowd.
Race is always a factor, and to think that we are past that as a society is naive. That doesn't mean that it is the only factor, or even a major factor. But race still contributes to situations like this.
d-usa wrote: Race is always a factor, and to think that we are past that as a society is naive. That doesn't mean that it is the only factor, or even a major factor. But race still contributes to situations like this.
Can't someone just kill someone these days without being called a racist?
d-usa wrote: Race is always a factor, and to think that we are past that as a society is naive. That doesn't mean that it is the only factor, or even a major factor. But race still contributes to situations like this.
Can't someone just kill someone these days without being called a racist?
Race can be a factor in deciding to follow him, but doesn't have to be.
Race can be a factor in the killing, but doesn't have to be.
Race can be a factor in the investigation, but doesn't have to be.
Race can be a factor in deciding to press charged, but doesn't have to be.
Race can be a factor in the news coverage, but doesn't have to be.
Race can be a factor in jury selection, but doesn't have to be.
Race can be a factor in the jury decision, but doesn't have to be.
Race can be a factor in the sentencing by the judge or jury, but doesn't have to be.
Etc, etc, etc.
It doesn't have to be a major factor, or a concious bias by any specific person. But it is usually still there.
That is what i do not get about hate crimes. If im white and i kill another white guy because he slept with my daughter, that means i hate him, but no hate crime.
But if i kill a black guy i get charged with a hate crime?
hotsauceman1 wrote: That is what i do not get about hate crimes. If im white and i kill another white guy because he slept with my daughter, that means i hate him, but no hate crime.
But if i kill a black guy i get charged with a hate crime?
Your own question answers it pretty well actually.
Interracial killings don't automatically become a hate-crime either.
djones520 wrote: I saw they had a voice analysis expert as a witness today. What was up with that, I thought the judge ruled they weren't allowed to do that?
The judge barred experts from testifying as to who's voice was calling for help in the call recording because they couldn't agree. Other experts I think were always going to testify about other things.
djones520 wrote: I saw they had a voice analysis expert as a witness today. What was up with that, I thought the judge ruled they weren't allowed to do that?
The judge barred experts from testifying as to who's voice was calling for help in the call recording because they couldn't agree. Other experts I think were always going to testify about other things.
Seems like the plan was "if we can't get experts to say 'it was M', then we can try to get expert to back up the family testimony that it was M". Not sure how successful they were with that based on the cross.
d-usa wrote: I do think that the "this is all about race" crowd is just as wrong as the "race didn't have anything to do with this" crowd.
Race is always a factor, and to think that we are past that as a society is naive. That doesn't mean that it is the only factor, or even a major factor. But race still contributes to situations like this.
I'd say that the biggest part race played in this was from Trayvon's point of view. Unless you buy the idea that "creepy ass cracka" is a common saying, and not meant to be derogatory at all.
I have my own opinion about how and why this happened, but I don't think much good will come of voicing it right now.
But did Z follow every white kid that roamed the neighborhood? Both Z and M are a good example that race relations are not the utopia that some people like to prevent they are.
I don't think that race, on either side, is the reason for a dead kid and the current trial. But race is weaved in threads throughout this story, contributing here and there to the fabric of this whole event. Ignoring it would be unwise, but claiming that it is the biggest part of the fabric is unwise as well.
d-usa wrote: Race can be a factor in deciding to follow him, but doesn't have to be.
Race can be a factor in the killing, but doesn't have to be.
Race can be a factor in the investigation, but doesn't have to be.
Race can be a factor in deciding to press charged, but doesn't have to be.
Race can be a factor in the news coverage, but doesn't have to be.
Race can be a factor in jury selection, but doesn't have to be.
Race can be a factor in the jury decision, but doesn't have to be.
Race can be a factor in the sentencing by the judge or jury, but doesn't have to be.
Etc, etc, etc.
It doesn't have to be a major factor, or a concious bias by any specific person. But it is usually still there.
So even when someone is not being racist, there is still racism there folks
d-usa wrote: Race can be a factor in deciding to follow him, but doesn't have to be.
Race can be a factor in the killing, but doesn't have to be.
Race can be a factor in the investigation, but doesn't have to be.
Race can be a factor in deciding to press charged, but doesn't have to be.
Race can be a factor in the news coverage, but doesn't have to be.
Race can be a factor in jury selection, but doesn't have to be.
Race can be a factor in the jury decision, but doesn't have to be.
Race can be a factor in the sentencing by the judge or jury, but doesn't have to be.
Etc, etc, etc.
It doesn't have to be a major factor, or a concious bias by any specific person. But it is usually still there.
So even when someone is not being racist, there is still racism there folks
There is a difference between somebody doing something because they are racist or something happening because of an unconscious racial bias. Sometimes something happens because somebody is making a conscious effort to not be racist, and ends up in the opposite end and expressing a favorable bias. You can have race becoming an influence without anybody being racist.
d-usa wrote: But did Z follow every white kid that roamed the neighborhood? Both Z and M are a good example that race relations are not the utopia that some people like to prevent they are.
I don't think that race, on either side, is the reason for a dead kid and the current trial. But race is weaved in threads throughout this story, contributing here and there to the fabric of this whole event. Ignoring it would be unwise, but claiming that it is the biggest part of the fabric is unwise as well.
Do we know he didn't? Z didn't even know he was black until a while into the call he made to the police.
All we know is this, Martin used racial slurs to portray Z. Z was unsure of Martins race when he made the initial call to the police.
The hell with it, I'll just throw it out there. I do feel race was responsible for Martin's death. I believe that Martin went back after Zimmerman because he wanted to kick his ass and claim some street cred. He probably thought Z was some yuppie white guy and if he got the drop on him, he'd be easy prey. Then when he got home he could tell his friends about how he beat some "creepy cracka's" ass. Unfortunately for Martin, Z was armed, otherwise the plan would have gone off without a hitch.
The evidence presented in this trial, along with the information we know of Martin's life that has been suppressed from the trial, has led me to that conclusion. Take of it what you will. I feel that this entire affair is just sad. It resulted in one loss of a life, and many completely destroyed lives. Many choices could have been made, by all parties, that wouldn't have had this result. It's a shame, but in the end it happened the way it did.
I've seen a ton of arguments that if Zimmerman had never gotten out of his truck, it never would have happened. Well to me that is nothing more then blaming the real victim of that scenario. Just like telling a drunk girl who was raped that if she hadn't drank so much, she wouldn't have been raped.
Edit: I'm fully aware that this post may start some fires. I'm just going to make it very clear right now, I am in no way a racist, never have been, never will be. I am a realist though, and I do understand how things out there do tend to work in certain social circles.
d-usa wrote: But did Z follow every white kid that roamed the neighborhood? Both Z and M are a good example that race relations are not the utopia that some people like to prevent they are.
I don't think that race, on either side, is the reason for a dead kid and the current trial. But race is weaved in threads throughout this story, contributing here and there to the fabric of this whole event. Ignoring it would be unwise, but claiming that it is the biggest part of the fabric is unwise as well.
Do we know he didn't? Z didn't even know he was black until a while into the call he made to the police.
All we know is this, Martin used racial slurs to portray Z. Z was unsure of Martins race when he made the initial call to the police.
The hell with it, I'll just throw it out there. I do feel race was responsible for Martin's death. I believe that Martin went back after Zimmerman because he wanted to kick his ass and claim some street cred. He probably thought Z was some yuppie white guy and if he got the drop on him, he'd be easy prey. Then when he got home he could tell his friends about how he beat some "creepy cracka's" ass. Unfortunately for Martin, Z was armed, otherwise the plan would have gone off without a hitch.
The evidence presented in this trial, along with the information we know of Martin's life that has been suppressed from the trial, has led me to that conclusion. Take of it what you will. I feel that this entire affair is just sad. It resulted in one loss of a life, and many completely destroyed lives. Many choices could have been made, by all parties, that wouldn't have had this result. It's a shame, but in the end it happened the way it did.
I've seen a ton of arguments that if Zimmerman had never gotten out of his truck, it never would have happened. Well to me that is nothing more then blaming the real victim of that scenario. Just like telling a drunk girl who was raped that if she hadn't drank so much, she wouldn't have been raped.
Edit: I'm fully aware that this post may start some fires. I'm just going to make it very clear right now, I am in no way a racist, never have been, never will be. I am a realist though, and I do understand how things out there do tend to work in certain social circles.
d-usa wrote: There is a difference between somebody doing something because they are racist or something happening because of an unconscious racial bias. Sometimes something happens because somebody is making a conscious effort to not be racist, and ends up in the opposite end and expressing a favorable bias. You can have race becoming an influence without anybody being racist.
So even when race isn't a factor, it's a factor? I hope you'll excuse my skepticism, I make an effort to treat everyone the same.
d-usa wrote: Race is always a factor, and to think that we are past that as a society is naive. That doesn't mean that it is the only factor, or even a major factor. But race still contributes to situations like this.
Can't someone just kill someone these days without being called a racist?
Race can be a factor in deciding to follow him, but doesn't have to be.
Race can be a factor in the killing, but doesn't have to be.
Race can be a factor in the investigation, but doesn't have to be.
Race can be a factor in deciding to press charged, but doesn't have to be.
Race can be a factor in the news coverage, but doesn't have to be.
Race can be a factor in jury selection, but doesn't have to be.
Race can be a factor in the jury decision, but doesn't have to be.
Race can be a factor in the sentencing by the judge or jury, but doesn't have to be.
Etc, etc, etc.
It doesn't have to be a major factor, or a concious bias by any specific person. But it is usually still there.
Is this kind of like the "everyone is a little gay"?
d-usa wrote: There is a difference between somebody doing something because they are racist or something happening because of an unconscious racial bias. Sometimes something happens because somebody is making a conscious effort to not be racist, and ends up in the opposite end and expressing a favorable bias. You can have race becoming an influence without anybody being racist.
So even when race isn't a factor, it's a factor? I hope you'll excuse my skepticism, I make an effort to treat everyone the same.
You would be the first person to be completely free of any bias or prejudice IMO.
d-usa wrote: You would be the first person to be completely free of any bias or prejudice IMO.
So do I get a prize? I'll make it really simple. I have lived with gays, bisexuals, lesbians, Socialists, Conservatives, Loyalists, Republicans, Independents, Protestants, Muslims, Atheists, Buddhist, Christians, Africans, Koreans, French, Lithuanians, Chinese, and many more besides. I've worked with people of many different races, creeds, and colours. I grew up in a society where being singled out for violence based on perceived religion was a daily occurrence. And in all that time I haven't felt the need to treat anyone differently based on some arbitrary difference.
kronk wrote: I treat everyone with equal contempt, to keep it fair.
Bingo I hate everyone equally so no one feels left out, or discriminated against
d-usa wrote: But did Z follow every white kid that roamed the neighborhood? Both Z and M are a good example that race relations are not the utopia that some people like to prevent they are.
I don't think that race, on either side, is the reason for a dead kid and the current trial. But race is weaved in threads throughout this story, contributing here and there to the fabric of this whole event. Ignoring it would be unwise, but claiming that it is the biggest part of the fabric is unwise as well.
Do we know he didn't? Z didn't even know he was black until a while into the call he made to the police.
All we know is this, Martin used racial slurs to portray Z. Z was unsure of Martins race when he made the initial call to the police.
The hell with it, I'll just throw it out there. I do feel race was responsible for Martin's death. I believe that Martin went back after Zimmerman because he wanted to kick his ass and claim some street cred. He probably thought Z was some yuppie white guy and if he got the drop on him, he'd be easy prey. Then when he got home he could tell his friends about how he beat some "creepy cracka's" ass. Unfortunately for Martin, Z was armed, otherwise the plan would have gone off without a hitch.
The evidence presented in this trial, along with the information we know of Martin's life that has been suppressed from the trial, has led me to that conclusion. Take of it what you will. I feel that this entire affair is just sad. It resulted in one loss of a life, and many completely destroyed lives. Many choices could have been made, by all parties, that wouldn't have had this result. It's a shame, but in the end it happened the way it did.
I've seen a ton of arguments that if Zimmerman had never gotten out of his truck, it never would have happened. Well to me that is nothing more then blaming the real victim of that scenario. Just like telling a drunk girl who was raped that if she hadn't drank so much, she wouldn't have been raped.
Edit: I'm fully aware that this post may start some fires. I'm just going to make it very clear right now, I am in no way a racist, never have been, never will be. I am a realist though, and I do understand how things out there do tend to work in certain social circles.
*Slow Clap*
ditto... exalted.
I'll take it a step further. It only became a race issue when the usual crowd made it so (media, black panther, the rev, etc...). This whole situation is sad... one dude lost his life, and the other most likely suffer from this whole ordeal. That's all.
Where's the outrage from places like Chicago or DC?
The hell with it, I'll just throw it out there. I do feel race was responsible for Martin's death. I believe that Martin went back after Zimmerman because he wanted to kick his ass and claim some street cred. He probably thought Z was some yuppie white guy and if he got the drop on him, he'd be easy prey. Then when he got home he could tell his friends about how he beat some "creepy cracka's" ass. Unfortunately for Martin, Z was armed, otherwise the plan would have gone off without a hitch.
Honestly I think you have to take it even further.
Race was responsible for Martin's death because the overall acceptance of "urban" culture has made it "acceptable" to be a thuggish gangsta.
The hell with it, I'll just throw it out there. I do feel race was responsible for Martin's death. I believe that Martin went back after Zimmerman because he wanted to kick his ass and claim some street cred. He probably thought Z was some yuppie white guy and if he got the drop on him, he'd be easy prey. Then when he got home he could tell his friends about how he beat some "creepy cracka's" ass. Unfortunately for Martin, Z was armed, otherwise the plan would have gone off without a hitch.
Honestly I think you have to take it even further.
Race was responsible for Martin's death because the overall acceptance of "urban" culture has made it "acceptable" to be a thuggish gangsta.
d-usa wrote: So the guy who followe the black kid has not a shred of responsibility?
What do you mean?
If M was a white kid walking through the neighborhood, would Z have done exactly the same thing? Would he have been suspicious of him and followed him? How often has he called 911 to report white kids in the neighborhood?
M says cracker, it's a racial thing. But Z reporting black kids he finds suspicious and following one of them is not a racial factor?
d-usa wrote: So the guy who followe the black kid has not a shred of responsibility?
The one who elevated the circumstances to violence is the one who bears responsibility. I think it's been more then proven that Martin had no need at all to do so, period. He had ample time to get to the house he was staying in. Some accounts have him getting to the house, and then turning around. Zimmerman lost site of him, and was no longer pursuing him. The matter could have, should have, ended right there. Why does Zimmerman deserve to bear any responsibility for it going beyond that point. Martin came back, Martin was looking for the fight. The responsibility rests on his shoulders.
If any evidence can be provided that he continued to search for Martin, that he instigated the violence, or anything like that, then this would squarely be on Zimmerman, but he didn't, so it shouldn't.
The hell with it, I'll just throw it out there. I do feel race was responsible for Martin's death. I believe that Martin went back after Zimmerman because he wanted to kick his ass and claim some street cred. He probably thought Z was some yuppie white guy and if he got the drop on him, he'd be easy prey. Then when he got home he could tell his friends about how he beat some "creepy cracka's" ass. Unfortunately for Martin, Z was armed, otherwise the plan would have gone off without a hitch.
Honestly I think you have to take it even further.
Race was responsible for Martin's death because the overall acceptance of "urban" culture has made it "acceptable" to be a thuggish gangsta.
d-usa wrote: So the guy who followe the black kid has not a shred of responsibility?
The one who elevated the circumstances to violence is the one who bears responsibility. I think it's been more then proven that Martin had no need at all to do so, period. He had ample time to get to the house he was staying in.
Why does that matter? Under SYG Martin had no duty to retreat, that is the cornerstone of SYG.
Some accounts have him getting to the house, and then turning around. Zimmerman lost site of him, and was no longer pursuing him. The matter could have, should have, ended right there. Why does Zimmerman deserve to bear any responsibility for it going beyond that point. Martin came back, Martin was looking for the fight. The responsibility rests on his shoulders.
Zimmerman looks for Martin, that's cool. Martin looks for Zimmerman, that's not cool. There is no evidence other than conflicting statements about Zimmerman no longer following him.
If any evidence can be provided that he continued to search for Martin, that he instigated the violence, or anything like that, then this would squarely be on Zimmerman, but he didn't, so it shouldn't.
Just because Zimmerman says he was no longer actively looking for him doesn't mean that Martin no longer felt threatened by him and had the right to defend himself against that perceived threat by standing his ground and using deadly force.
For me both parties can claim self defense in this case. The question to me has always been if you can claim self defense and use deadly force against somebody that is also claiming self defense and using deadly force.
That's kind of the problem with SYG, you can have instances where two people have it because neither one has perfect information about the situation. It's a really badly designed law.
I think it's too complex to fully lay out without writing an entire book, but the TLDR version of my thoughts are that we now have an entire subculture dedicated to exalting what is more or less a narcissistic angry violent anarchist, i.e. the 'gangstas'.
Zimmerman is called the vigilante 'hunter' but in actuality this is exactly what Martin's actions reflect. When he found himself being followed, he didn't head into the nearest residence/call the police, he physically accosted the guy after jumping him from the bushes.
I think there is a tragedy here, and it is that Trayvon Martin is dead. His death didn't begin as a result of Zimmerman's actions, though. That path was laid when his parents allowed him to become the violent gangsta thug stereotype that Z saw walking in the dark.
sourclams wrote: I think it's too complex to fully lay out without writing an entire book, but the TLDR version of my thoughts are that we now have an entire subculture dedicated to exalting what is more or less a narcissistic angry violent anarchist, i.e. the 'gangstas'.
Zimmerman is called the vigilante 'hunter' but in actuality this is exactly what Martin's actions reflect. When he found himself being followed, he didn't head into the nearest residence/call the police, he physically accosted the guy after jumping him from the bushes.
And Zimmerman didn't head to the nearest residence when he noticed somebody in the streets. Can we describe him as the narcissistic angry violent anarchist i.e. the "taking the law into my own hands neighborhood watchman"?
I think there is a tragedy here, and it is that Trayvon Martin is dead. His death didn't begin as a result of Zimmerman's actions, though. That path was laid when his parents allowed him to become the violent gangsta thug stereotype that Z saw walking in the dark.
So the fact that he jumped the guy following him was not caused by the guy following him?
sourclams wrote: I think it's too complex to fully lay out without writing an entire book, but the TLDR version of my thoughts are that we now have an entire subculture dedicated to exalting what is more or less a narcissistic angry violent anarchist, i.e. the 'gangstas'.
Zimmerman is called the vigilante 'hunter' but in actuality this is exactly what Martin's actions reflect. When he found himself being followed, he didn't head into the nearest residence/call the police, he physically accosted the guy after jumping him from the bushes.
I think there is a tragedy here, and it is that Trayvon Martin is dead. His death didn't begin as a result of Zimmerman's actions, though. That path was laid when his parents allowed him to become the violent gangsta thug stereotype that Z saw walking in the dark.
Ah... I see now.
There's merit* to that, but I'm not so sure it applies to this case.
* In St. Louis, there's rampant cases of mainly black youths in the city do the"Knock Out Games" on unsuspecting people. It's a national phenomenon, but here in St. Louis, for some it's a required gang initiation.
Rented Tritium wrote: What he said on the 911 call combined with what the officers found on the scene and what zimmerman told them is enough for probable cause right there. At that point, you collect all the evidence you can and let the DA decide to drop the charges or not.
What on earth are you talking about? That's exactly what happened. The prosecutor decided no.
Police should not be making prosecutorial decisions on their own.
d-usa wrote: So the guy who followe the black kid has not a shred of responsibility?
Whoever started the physical altercation has more responsibility.
Right there... I think is the crux of this case.
If the prosecution can convince the jury that Zimmerman started the physical altercation, the Z is toast.
If not... Z would walk.
The prosecution can actually still lose even if they convince the jury of that. The defense just has to convince the jury that there were two separate and distinct incidents with that gap in between.
There's merit* to that, but I'm not so sure it applies to this case.
* In St. Louis, there's rampant cases of mainly black youths in the city do the"Knock Out Games" on unsuspecting people. It's a national phenomenon, but here in St. Louis, for some it's a required gang initiation.
Wow. I've never heard of this.
Nothing says "I'm fething hard, mang" like having a small group of people beat the gak out of a person they caught off guard though. That's tuff, dawg.
Maybe if we attacked them with Beethoven's Ninth, this wouldn't be an issue..
There's merit* to that, but I'm not so sure it applies to this case.
* In St. Louis, there's rampant cases of mainly black youths in the city do the"Knock Out Games" on unsuspecting people. It's a national phenomenon, but here in St. Louis, for some it's a required gang initiation.
Wow. I've never heard of this.
Nothing says "I'm fething hard, mang" like having a small group of people beat the gak out of a person they caught off guard though. That's tuff, dawg.
Maybe if we attacked them with Beethoven's Ninth, this wouldn't be an issue..
d-usa wrote: So if you are being followed in the middle of the night you have no right to stand your ground and defend yourself?
So, if you're followed in the middle of the night... do you have the right to follow your follower and throw the first punch?
If he thought he was still a threat to him, why not?
Why does everybody say "he should have just walked away" when under Stand Your Ground M had zero responsibility to walk away from a threat?
Ah... I see now...
Still, I think it's a grey area here.
Which was my initial question when it first happened, and is still my main question now.
1) Did M have reason to feel like Z was a threat, and was he justified in standing his ground against him and attack somebody in self defense?
2) Did Z have reason to feel like M was a threat to him and was he justified in standing his ground against him and fight back?
3) Can you claim self defense if you are defending yourself against somebody else that is defending himself against you?
I'm not saying Z is guilty or that it is all his fault. But I do feel that Z contributed to the situation and I am glad that a jury is taking a look at it.
d-usa wrote: Because we know for a fact that M just jumped out of nowhere and proceeded straight to "head against sidewalk" bashing.
There is absolutely zero room for the possibility that it started out as a verbal confrontation that then turned physical.
We don't know that, and we're never going to.
However, your argument that someone following someone else represents what a reasonable person would interpret as a threat of death or grievous bodily injury is, if I'm understanding you correctly, intended to give Martin the benefit of SYG coverage in his assumed actions. If he didn't in fact strike first, we hardly need to have the argument.
There's merit* to that, but I'm not so sure it applies to this case.
* In St. Louis, there's rampant cases of mainly black youths in the city do the"Knock Out Games" on unsuspecting people. It's a national phenomenon, but here in St. Louis, for some it's a required gang initiation.
Wow. I've never heard of this.
Nothing says "I'm fething hard, mang" like having a small group of people beat the gak out of a person they caught off guard though. That's tuff, dawg.
Maybe if we attacked them with Beethoven's Ninth, this wouldn't be an issue..
My fellow jarhead and bad ass Navy Cross recipient Jeremiah Workman apparently knows his ribbon racks when he sees them, enough to stop this cop's weird looking ribbon rack!
Workman, a Navy Cross recipient who left the Marine Corps in 2010, posted a photo of Singleton to his Facebook page after he saw her take the stand. He said he heard her say that she served three years in the Army, but the ribbon rack on her chest didn’t match that of someone who served so few years — or even of this generation.
Two in particular stood out, he said: the World War II Army of Occupation Medal and the Defense Distinguished Service Medal.
“Am I going blind or is this police officer in the Zimmerman -Martin trial wearing ribbons that she doesn’t rate?” he wrote alongside the photo he posted to Facebook.
“I worked at the Pentagon with Sergeant Major [Carlton] Kent and General [James] Conway for two years and I was around every general in the Marine Corps,” Workman told Marine Corps Times. “I know these high ribbons, I know just about all the ribbons anyways.”
The Sanford Police Department could not immediately be reached for comment. But Workman got a hold of them and said they told him they didn’t have their own awards system, so they went to the Army-Navy store around the corner and picked out Defense Department military ribbons to fit their own format. The WWII was selected, the police department official told Workman, because they knew there weren’t many veterans from that period alive so they didn’t think people would notice.
“At the end of his explanation I thought to myself, ‘So that makes it all better now because these guys are dead?’ ” Workman said. ”The fact that that was their response is still pretty shameful, I think.”
Workman said police departments allowing military veterans to wear ribbons they earned while serving on their new uniform is fine with him. If they earned it, they should be able to wear it, he said.
“But what kind of professional police department would send Bob the patrolman around the corner to go pick out some ribbons for our officers to wear when they do something heroic or have good service over the years?” he asked.
Workman said the police department official told him that they’re going to change to their own ribbon system, which he was glad to hear. Now he hopes other police departments doing the same will think about their own regulations and change them too, he added.
d-usa wrote: If he thought he was still a threat to him, why not?
Why does everybody say "he should have just walked away" when under Stand Your Ground M had zero responsibility to walk away from a threat?
What could reasonably be believed to be a threat. That's the key part that everyone seems to forget in this discussion.
Exactly. Being followed isn't the same as having your head bashed against a sidewalk.
I'm sad I had to say that.
Because we know for a fact that M just jumped out of nowhere and proceeded straight to "head against sidewalk" bashing.
There is absolutely zero room for the possibility that it started out as a verbal confrontation that then turned physical.
Holy strawman!
Granting for the sake of argument that your imagined scenario is correct, it doesn't change the fact that whoever threw the first punch is more wrong than the other party involved.
My fellow jarhead and bad ass Navy Cross recipient Jeremiah Workman apparently knows his ribbon racks when he sees them, enough to stop this cop's weird looking ribbon rack!
Workman, a Navy Cross recipient who left the Marine Corps in 2010, posted a photo of Singleton to his Facebook page after he saw her take the stand. He said he heard her say that she served three years in the Army, but the ribbon rack on her chest didn’t match that of someone who served so few years — or even of this generation.
Two in particular stood out, he said: the World War II Army of Occupation Medal and the Defense Distinguished Service Medal.
“Am I going blind or is this police officer in the Zimmerman -Martin trial wearing ribbons that she doesn’t rate?” he wrote alongside the photo he posted to Facebook.
“I worked at the Pentagon with Sergeant Major [Carlton] Kent and General [James] Conway for two years and I was around every general in the Marine Corps,” Workman told Marine Corps Times. “I know these high ribbons, I know just about all the ribbons anyways.”
The Sanford Police Department could not immediately be reached for comment. But Workman got a hold of them and said they told him they didn’t have their own awards system, so they went to the Army-Navy store around the corner and picked out Defense Department military ribbons to fit their own format. The WWII was selected, the police department official told Workman, because they knew there weren’t many veterans from that period alive so they didn’t think people would notice.
“At the end of his explanation I thought to myself, ‘So that makes it all better now because these guys are dead?’ ” Workman said. ”The fact that that was their response is still pretty shameful, I think.”
Workman said police departments allowing military veterans to wear ribbons they earned while serving on their new uniform is fine with him. If they earned it, they should be able to wear it, he said.
“But what kind of professional police department would send Bob the patrolman around the corner to go pick out some ribbons for our officers to wear when they do something heroic or have good service over the years?” he asked.
Workman said the police department official told him that they’re going to change to their own ribbon system, which he was glad to hear. Now he hopes other police departments doing the same will think about their own regulations and change them too, he added.
Just straight up classy. Nasty feth heads.
Two things:
1. she is not representing herself as a military vet. the ribbons are being used to represent law enforcement awards
2. the department's sloppy decision to use military ribbons for law enforcement awards has no bearing on this officer's testimony.
To be fair, I have known a few departments (both fire and police) that did something similar. They do award ribbons for certain actions, and many of them don't have custom ribbons designed for their department awards. Instead they just pick some generic ribbons out of a book, and say "this one is for X award".
So while whoever made the decision to use that badge for whatever award may have been a bit slowed, it doesn't mean that the cop wore it in order to pretent he was a WW2 veteran.
Edit: only noticed their explanation to that effect on my second read through
My old department was looking at ribbons for awards, but we were looking at generic "Blue with different stripes for EMS awards" and "Red with different stripes for Fire awards".
I'm no military man, and I'll be among the last to justify any military action we've taken in a long, long time.
Having that been said, what utter sleeze. It's kind of disgusting you can even just go out and buy those.
I bought a bunch without having to show any kind of proof of service.
I got Desert Storm ribbons, including the Saudi and Kuwait versions, different Army ribbons, etc. I got them for a good reason (surprised my step dad by replacing his ribbon bar that I lost as a teenager), but for all effective purposes I was just a stranger buying random ribbons that I didn't earn.
daedalus wrote: Having that been said, what utter sleeze. It's kind of disgusting you can even just go out and buy those.
How else would you get them? Ribbons, rank insignia, etc. get lost all the damn time. Need to be able to replace 'em quickly.
I guess I just figured there'd be a little more to it.
When I ordered the ones for my dad I had two options:
Buy plain ribbons from some store.
Or take his discharge papers, send them to the Army with more paperwork, and then receive officials medals with his name engraved in them in a fancy box with the ribbons and mini-metals as well which would take months.
I don't think "I send my paperwork into DC, they are still processing it" will get you out of trouble during uniform inspections if you are in active service though
To be clear, I'm not saying it has any relevance of the fethhead in question's testimony or ability as a LEO, but rather taking awards that are in one case in active use, and in other cases legacies belonging solely to WW2 veterans and "re-purposing them" and knowing exactly what you're doing is down right heinous behavior. I get that not every department outside of major outfits if they use a ribbon system at all will have custom ribbons made, the generic set up your EMS/FD department had sounds great d-usa and I'm sure other such generic ribbon systems exist specifically for this purpose. Running down to the local surplus store... there's just no excuse.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: To be clear, I'm not saying it has any relevance of the fethhead in question's testimony or ability as a LEO, but rather taking awards that are in one case in active use, and in other cases legacies belonging solely to WW2 veterans and "re-purposing them" and knowing exactly what you're doing is down right heinous behavior. I get that not every department outside of major outfits if they use a ribbon system at all will have custom ribbons made, the generic set up your EMS/FD department had sounds great d-usa and I'm sure other such generic ribbon systems exist specifically for this purpose. Running down to the local surplus store... there's just no excuse.
Yeah, until my second reading I didn't realize that they actually knew what ribbons they were using.
This ribbon thing as the outrage of the moment is pretty dumb. It's a piece of cloth and metal that signifies something different on one uniform than another. If anything, the real irritation is that the police are wearing military-style ribbons at all - you're civilians enforcing the law, you don't need all the tacticool paramilitary accoutrements.
d-usa wrote: So if you are being followed in the middle of the night you have no right to stand your ground and defend yourself?
DEFEND YOURSELF FROM WHAT?
I am honestly surprised how many of you either had crappy training in the military or in your concealed carry classes.
Apperantly none of you were ever taught situational awareness, and that somebody following you in their car and then getting out of the car to follow you some more should be something that activates your flight or fight responses.
Or maybe there are quite a few guys that are willfully ignoring things that they have been taught because it doesn't suit them in this particular situation.
And quit yelling, bad enough you pretent that it is perfectly normal to be stalked in the night and that you wouldn't think twice about anybody doing the same to you.
d-usa wrote: So if you are being followed in the middle of the night you have no right to stand your ground and defend yourself?
DEFEND YOURSELF FROM WHAT?
I am honestly surprised how many of you either had crappy training in the military or in your concealed carry classes.
Apperantly none of you were ever taught situational awareness, and that somebody following you in their car and then getting out of the car to follow you some more should be something that activates your flight or fight responses.
Or maybe there are quite a few guys that are willfully ignoring things that they have been taught because it doesn't suit them in this particular situation.
And quit yelling, bad enough you pretent that it is perfectly normal to be stalked in the night and that you wouldn't think twice about anybody doing the same to you.
I like the insult, but you conveniently DIDN"T ANSWER THE fething QUESTION DEFEND YOURSELF FROM WHAT?
d-usa wrote: So if you are being followed in the middle of the night you have no right to stand your ground and defend yourself?
DEFEND YOURSELF FROM WHAT?
I am honestly surprised how many of you either had crappy training in the military or in your concealed carry classes.
Apperantly none of you were ever taught situational awareness, and that somebody following you in their car and then getting out of the car to follow you some more should be something that activates your flight or fight responses.
Or maybe there are quite a few guys that are willfully ignoring things that they have been taught because it doesn't suit them in this particular situation.
And quit yelling, bad enough you pretent that it is perfectly normal to be stalked in the night and that you wouldn't think twice about anybody doing the same to you.
I like the insult, but you conveniently DIDN"T ANSWER THE fething QUESTION DEFEND YOURSELF FROM WHAT?
What Criminal act doughboy?
Yelling and cursing, don't you have a dachshund to feed?
How about you answer the questions, that is if you can take your finger of the Caps Lock button for a while:
1) Do you know what happened when Martin confronted Zimmerman? Didn't think so. I know that people love to pretent that Martin came out of nowhere and instantly started bashing Z's head into the ground, but we have absolutely no idea that is what happened. 2) If somebody was following you in a vehicle, and then got out of the vehicle to follow you more, you wouldn't stand your ground at that time? Big old Texas old cranky guy would just run away? I don't think so. 3) Martin had every right to stand his ground and confront Zimmerman. We have absolutely zero clue what happened during that confrontation and when and how it turned physical.
So Caps Lock some more if it makes you feel tough, and pretend that you know what happened. But fact is that M had zero obligation to walk away from this situation and had the right to confront the man following him. That's SYG. It's not "I'm scared, I should run" it is "I feel threatened, I will stand my ground".
M doesn't have to know if Z was commiting a criminal act. What criminal act was M in the proccess of when Z decided to follow him? All that matters for M is that if he felt threatened, then he was allowed to stand his ground and confront Z. If that confrontation started with "What do you want you creepy ass cracker" than that would be perfectly fine. If Z said anything that could be constituted as a threat to M then he had the right to defend himself.
But you know exactly what happened and you would either not feel threatened if somebody was following through or you would just run away and go home.
Z would have had to do something that threatened death or grievous bodily injury in order for M to legally be able to use deadly force. I'm not saying that it's impossible that that might have happened, but it's not as simple as Z saying or doing anything that could be constituted as a threat. Unless Florida's laws are radically different, to use deadly force that threat has to be immediate and be a threat of death or grievous bodily injury. Being followed is neither of those things. SYG might remove a duty to retreat, but that by itself does not justify an escalation to deadly force.
Now if Z was following M with a drawn weapon, then that would likely change things, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
Hordini wrote: Z would have had to do something that threatened death or grievous bodily injury in order for M to legally be able to use deadly force. I'm not saying that it's impossible that that might have happened, but it's not as simple as Z saying or doing anything that could be constituted as a threat. Unless Florida's laws are radically different, to use deadly force that threat has to be immediate and be a threat of death or grievous bodily injury. Being followed is neither of those things.
Now if Z was following M with a drawn weapon, then that would likely change things, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
Thank you. Exactly.
Just following someone is not sufficient grounds for self defense or SYG. Thats sufficient grounds to call the PoPo and have them check out the fat guy, but not you to put on your blue bandanna and go Crip on him.
Frazzled wrote: You keep saying TM could defend himself. You have to have a very specific set of items to defend yourself against.
Again. WHAT CRIMINAL ACT WOULD HE HAVE BEEN DEFENDING HIMSELF FROM.
You like to insult other's when you don't seem to have a grasp of the basic facts.
Seriously dude, back away from the Caps Lock, you are going to have a stroke.
If you tried some reading comprehension I actually said two different things:
1) TM had no Duty to Retreat. He was perfectly within the law to stand his ground against a person that he believed to be a threat. All this "If TM would have just went home, nothing would have happened" talk is stupid because of that. TM was perfectly legal to stand his ground and confront Z.
2) Unless the great Dachshund in the sky told you what happened, then you don't have a grasp of the basic facts of what happened when M confronted Z either. You can caps lock all you want, but you know exactly zero about what happened once M stood his ground against Z. What did Z say, what did M say, what did Z do, what did M do. If Z made a sudden movement after M verbally confronted him then that could have been enough to make M fear for his life and would have given him justification to use deadly force. You don't know what happened and neither do I. But M might have been perfectly justified in using deadly force against Z, and Z migiht have been perfectly justified in using deadly force against M. Or both might have been justified to use deadly force, or maybe neither.
You can caps look all you want, but your refusal to admit that your basic CC course most likely taught you that somebody doing what Z did while following you should be considered a threat to your safety speaks volumes.
d-usa wrote: And quit yelling, bad enough you pretent that it is perfectly normal to be stalked in the night and that you wouldn't think twice about anybody doing the same to you.
I'd think twice about it. I'd probably think about it a lot more than that. I'd also make sure I kept an eye on him and knew what he was up to until either he or I was off the scene. I wouldn't haul off and start slugging the guy or draw on him, though. Because that's remarkably illegal.
Apparently my military and concealed carry training was pretty deficient, because we never got to the, "if someone looks suspicious, fething shoot them," stage.
Hordini wrote: Z would have had to do something that threatened death or grievous bodily injury in order for M to legally be able to use deadly force. I'm not saying that it's impossible that that might have happened, but it's not as simple as Z saying or doing anything that could be constituted as a threat. Unless Florida's laws are radically different, to use deadly force that threat has to be immediate and be a threat of death or grievous bodily injury. Being followed is neither of those things. SYG might remove a duty to retreat, but that by itself does not justify an escalation to deadly force.
Now if Z was following M with a drawn weapon, then that would likely change things, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
Like I said, SYG covers M confronting Z about why he was following him. Whatever happened after that might have justified either, both, or neither to use deadly force. We don't know that.
But this whole "If M would have just gone home" talk is BS.
d-usa wrote: 1) TM had no Duty to Retreat. He was perfectly within the law to stand his ground against a person that he believed to be a threat. All this "If TM would have just went home, nothing would have happened" talk is stupid because of that. TM was perfectly legal to stand his ground and confront Z.
You keep bringing this up, and I have no idea where you're getting it from. The only way duty to retreat/stand your ground shenanigans come into play is if Martin was in immediate, reasonable fear for his life. If you're concluding that someone following someone else represents that, then all I can say is that your findings do not match with any case law in history that I'm aware of.
People are allowed to follow you, and you're not allowed to use deadly force to get them to stop. Them's the breaks, kiddo.
d-usa wrote: So if you are being followed in the middle of the night you have no right to stand your ground and defend yourself?
DEFEND YOURSELF FROM WHAT?
I am honestly surprised how many of you either had crappy training in the military or in your concealed carry classes.
Apperantly none of you were ever taught situational awareness, and that somebody following you in their car and then getting out of the car to follow you some more should be something that activates your flight or fight responses.
Or maybe there are quite a few guys that are willfully ignoring things that they have been taught because it doesn't suit them in this particular situation.
And quit yelling, bad enough you pretent that it is perfectly normal to be stalked in the night and that you wouldn't think twice about anybody doing the same to you.
Oh this is just outright grand.
Please explain to me where in million or so dollars the military has spent in my training over the last 11 years I missed this nugget, that I was allowed to attack people who were following me.
I want an answer to this right now, you called my military service into it, so I want you to clearly lay it out. I've never been presented with ROE that entitled me to do that. I just completed my annual LOAC training yesterday, and I saw no reference of that. Explain to me how my "crappy military training" has let me down. Because if I'm totally justified kicking the gak out of everyone who follows me, then I'm just going to go on a spree next time I'm in Walmart.
Frazzled wrote: You keep saying TM could defend himself. You have to have a very specific set of items to defend yourself against.
Again. WHAT CRIMINAL ACT WOULD HE HAVE BEEN DEFENDING HIMSELF FROM.
You like to insult other's when you don't seem to have a grasp of the basic facts.
Seriously dude, back away from the Caps Lock, you are going to have a stroke.
If you tried some reading comprehension I actually said two different things:
1) TM had no Duty to Retreat. He was perfectly within the law to stand his ground against a person that he believed to be a threat. All this "If TM would have just went home, nothing would have happened" talk is stupid because of that. TM was perfectly legal to stand his ground and confront Z.
2) Unless the great Dachshund in the sky told you what happened, then you don't have a grasp of the basic facts of what happened when M confronted Z either. You can caps lock all you want, but you know exactly zero about what happened once M stood his ground against Z. What did Z say, what did M say, what did Z do, what did M do. If Z made a sudden movement after M verbally confronted him then that could have been enough to make M fear for his life and would have given him justification to use deadly force. You don't know what happened and neither do I. But M might have been perfectly justified in using deadly force against Z, and Z migiht have been perfectly justified in using deadly force against M. Or both might have been justified to use deadly force, or maybe neither.
You can caps look all you want, but your refusal to admit that your basic CC course most likely taught you that somebody doing what Z did while following you should be considered a threat to your safety speaks volumes.
Evidently your knowledge of the law consists of knowing the headline "no duty to retreat"
You have to have a crime to retreat from. Strangely enough people can't walk into a mall full of people and open up with a gatling gun, because they have no duty to retreat. All "no retreat" means is that he doesn't have to perform statistcial perfection in running, jumping, and parallel bars to evade attack (thank you NY courts for that) before he can defend himself. but there still has to be a specific thing he's defending himself from. SO...
So again smithy smithe WHAT CRIME DOES HE HAVE NO DUTY TO RETREAT FROM?
Hordini wrote: Z would have had to do something that threatened death or grievous bodily injury in order for M to legally be able to use deadly force. I'm not saying that it's impossible that that might have happened, but it's not as simple as Z saying or doing anything that could be constituted as a threat. Unless Florida's laws are radically different, to use deadly force that threat has to be immediate and be a threat of death or grievous bodily injury. Being followed is neither of those things. SYG might remove a duty to retreat, but that by itself does not justify an escalation to deadly force.
Now if Z was following M with a drawn weapon, then that would likely change things, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
Like I said, SYG covers M confronting Z about why he was following him. Whatever happened after that might have justified either, both, or neither to use deadly force. We don't know that.
But this whole "If M would have just gone home" talk is BS.
d-usa wrote: 1) TM had no Duty to Retreat. He was perfectly within the law to stand his ground against a person that he believed to be a threat. All this "If TM would have just went home, nothing would have happened" talk is stupid because of that. TM was perfectly legal to stand his ground and confront Z.
You keep bringing this up, and I have no idea where you're getting it from. The only way duty to retreat/stand your ground shenanigans come into play is if Martin was in immediate, reasonable fear for his life. If you're concluding that someone following someone else represents that, then all I can say is that your findings do not match with any case law in history that I'm aware of.
People are allowed to follow you, and you're not allowed to use deadly force to get them to stop. Them's the breaks, kiddo.
So according to you, if I am scared for my live I am allowed to attack somebody with deadly force.
But if I am simply worried about somebody following me I have to retreat and I am not allowed to say "why are you following me"?
d-usa wrote: So if you are being followed in the middle of the night you have no right to stand your ground and defend yourself?
DEFEND YOURSELF FROM WHAT?
I am honestly surprised how many of you either had crappy training in the military or in your concealed carry classes.
Apperantly none of you were ever taught situational awareness, and that somebody following you in their car and then getting out of the car to follow you some more should be something that activates your flight or fight responses.
Or maybe there are quite a few guys that are willfully ignoring things that they have been taught because it doesn't suit them in this particular situation.
And quit yelling, bad enough you pretent that it is perfectly normal to be stalked in the night and that you wouldn't think twice about anybody doing the same to you.
Oh this is just outright grand.
Please explain to me where in million or so dollars the military has spent in my training over the last 11 years I missed this nugget, that I was allowed to attack people who were following me.
I want an answer to this right now, you called my military service into it, so I want you to clearly lay it out. I've never been presented with ROE that entitled me to do that. I just completed my annual LOAC training yesterday, and I saw no reference of that. Explain to me how my "crappy military training" has let me down.
If you had reading comprehension then you would have seen that it was an either/or question.
If you military training didn't let you down, then I stand by my statement that I think you guys are lying when you pretent that somebody doing what Z did would not be something that you would consider suspicious if it happened to you. Because your military training should have taught you that it was suspicious behavior and should warrant investigation, even though everybody likes to pretent that it was normal and M should have just gone home.
Because if I'm totally justified kicking the gak out of everyone who follows me, then I'm just going to go on a spree next time I'm in Walmart.
If you guys want to keep on pretenting that confronting somebody and saying "why are you following me" is the same as "beating the gak ouf of everyone who follows me" then maybe it was wasted training after all.
Do you guys just go firing off your rifles whenever you investigate something, or will you admit that they are separate events.
Because if I'm totally justified kicking the gak out of everyone who follows me, then I'm just going to go on a spree next time I'm in Walmart.
Have you seen some of the 'people' at Walmart? We're talking neanderthals and ape men. I know - Frazzled is good customer there. NOG!
(Child sees Frazzled in the sporting goods section, looking longingly at the 900 inch TVs)
"Mommy is that Bigfoot?"
"Dearie don't be redicul...oh..uh why yes yes it is dearie. Time to go."
There's a reason there's no mass shooting in Walmarts...
d-usa wrote: So according to you, if I am scared for my live I am allowed to attack somebody with deadly force.
No.
If you are facing or reasonably believe yourself to be facing an immediate threat of death or grievous bodily injury, you are allowed to defend yourself with deadly force under SYG laws, without a requisite attempt to escape first.
But if I am simply worried about somebody following me I have to retreat and I am not allowed to say "why are you following me"?
Interesting.
No, you're allowed to do that.
You're not allowed to start attacking the person following you, though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: If you guys want to keep on pretenting that confronting somebody and saying "why are you following me" is the same as "beating the gak ouf of everyone who follows me" then maybe it was wasted training after all.
You're talking about Stand Your Ground laws, which cover the use of deadly force in self-defense. You keep saying that Trayvon had a right to "stand his ground" under SYG laws in response to Zimmerman following him.
I was not aware you meant "by asking him a question," which has abso-fething-lutely nothing at all to do with SYG laws. If your argument is that Trayvon had a right to ask Zimmerman what he was up to, you really need to stop invoking SYG, because it has absolutely nothing to do with the right to speak to another person in a public space.
d-usa wrote: So according to you, if I am scared for my live I am allowed to attack somebody with deadly force.
No.
If you are facing or reasonably believe yourself to be facing an immediate threat of death or grievous bodily injury, you are allowed to defend yourself with deadly force under SYG laws, without a requisite attempt to escape first.
But if I am simply worried about somebody following me I have to retreat and I am not allowed to say "why are you following me"?
Interesting.
No, you're allowed to do that.
You're not allowed to start attacking the person following you, though.
And we have absolutely zero knowledge that this is what happened. There is a pretty big grey area between the moment M confronted him and the time he ended up beating him and the time he ended up dead.
d-usa wrote: And we have absolutely zero knowledge that this is what happened. There is a pretty big grey area between the moment M confronted him and the time he ended up beating him and the time he ended up dead.
D, if I am in an unfamiliar place being "followed" by an unfamiliar person who is making me "uncomfortable" let me tell you exactly what the military has taught me to do, and this came up just two weeks ago.
Retreat. Move to a public or secure place, contact authorities if I feel it is necessary.
This was the exact guidance I was given after a couple of service members here on base was robbed at gun point last week after they were followed by some strangers, and stopped to find out why.
Now, if you are trying to conflate how we handle things in the AOR, while fully armed and on a specific mission outside the wire, to the mean streets of suburban Florida... well your just barking up the wrong tree already.
If you guys want to keep on pretenting that confronting somebody and saying "why are you following me" is the same as "beating the gak ouf of everyone who follows me" then maybe it was wasted training after all.
Confronting someone is neither Self Defense nor using Self Defense with the Stand Your Ground doctrine. This is where you are confused.
As long as neither party touches the other and the terms of assault (or the specific charge in Florida) or fear of imminent harm or offensive touching, then neither side is committing a crime. Rememebr following someone is not a crime. Calling someone a jerk or asking why they are being followed is also not a crime.
The moment one party touches the other however, absent the above assault already occurring, commences the crime of battery. They cannot then claim self defense in most jurisidictions (and I am sure Florida is the same). You start the fight, you can't pull a gun in the fight when you start to lose. That is the essential crux of this case.
Anyway. I think the point d-usa was trying to make was that just as Zimmerman had the right to follow Martin, Martin had the right to ask Zimmerman why the hell he was being followed. Absolutely true. It doesn't have anything to do with SYG, but it's absolutely true.
Put another way, neither of them committed a crime until the first punch was thrown (assuming Zimmerman didn't brandish or something stupid like that). And we're never going to have a way of knowing who threw that first punch, from the looks of it.
A lawyer I work with told me, though, that even that may not matter, according to Florida law. Apparently, even if you started the fight, if it suddenly gets into "fear of death or grievous yada yada" territory you can still resort to deadly force and have a valid self-defense claim.
Anyway. I think the point d-usa was trying to make was that just as Zimmerman had the right to follow Martin, Martin had the right to ask Zimmerman why the hell he was being followed. Absolutely true. It doesn't have anything to do with SYG, but it's absolutely true.
True on all points. Due to a lack of evidence though, it does lend weight to who could have started the physical part of the altercation.
Put another way, neither of them committed a crime until the first punch was thrown (assuming Zimmerman didn't brandish or something stupid like that). And we're never going to have a way of knowing who threw that first punch, from the looks of it.
True again. This is why the prosecution has a bit of an uphill battle. You have the Z testimony, but have to show evidence against it. I am not certain of the burden of proof in Florida for claiming self defense. Its usually an affirmative defense, but may have special requirements in Florida (or lesser requirements for that matter). The closest statement so far was from the GF, but even that stops before the event, and her testimony has been heavily impugned at this point. if I were on the jury I would not find her statements at the event credible as she was caught in multiple lies, and testified that after the phone suddenly hangs up, she goes off to do her hair. WTF? "crazy ass cracker" does help show mental state though.
A lawyer I work with told me, though, that even that may not matter, according to Florida law. Apparently, even if you started the fight, if it suddenly gets into "fear of death or grievous yada yada" territory you can still resort to deadly force and have a valid self-defense claim.
Edit: Frazzled ninja'd me. :(
That’s extremely difficult to prove as it hits against the “reasonable” standard. In Texas if you start a fist fight with Muhammad Ali, you can’t pull a machine gun when MA very quickly takes your head off, unless there’s a break in the chain of events (after starting to get your head pounded you manage to disengage. You can then claim self defense if he pursues and continues the attack).
What Frazzled thinks happened.
TM makes way to house but doesn’t get all the way there Z has continued –despite saying he turned around. He is in the open area near the main road. He loses TM. TM may have turned around at this point or is hanging near the building, in semi hiding. Z THEN turns around. TM either turns around then or sees him coming back. TM stops Z. They have words. Both puff up. TM goes into attack mode as its his nature highlighted by evidence not admitted in the trial. TM attacks Z. Z shoots TM.
Alternatively it could be
TM makes way to house but doesn’t get all the way there Z has continued –despite saying he turned around. He is in the open area near the main road. He loses TM. TM may have turned around at this point or is hanging near the building, in semi hiding. Z THEN turns around. TM either turns around then or sees him coming back. TM stops Z. They have words. Both puff up. Z tries to grab TM or a mutual pushy shovie evolves They scuffle TM starts to win handily Z shoots TM.
Scenario 2 can’t be proven with the evidence at hand however.
On another note, if anybody didn't catch Serino's cross-examination yesterday, you should watch it if you get the opportunity.
Of particular note is how Serino was pressured to do a "challenge meeting" with Zimmerman, which I guess is a meeting where the police try to get a suspect to change his story, by revealing some new piece of evidence or something like that. Serino said the trouble with the challenge meeting with Zimmerman was that he "didn't have much to challenge him with."
He did, however, decide to try and fake Zimmerman out by telling him at the challenge meeting that full video of the events leading up to and including the shooting had been discovered. Serino's testimony was that Zimmerman's response was, "Thank God."
Last question of the day to Serino: "Do you think Zimmerman was telling the truth?"
Frazzled wrote: Hey testified to that on the stand you say? My 'who really did it meter" is pointing more towards innocence to Z.
Indeed he did. According to Serino, the full Zimmerman response to being lied to about the 5-0 having finally located video of the altercation and subsequent shooting was, "Thank God. I hope they got it all."
Edit: And one of the first things up this morning was the prosecution objecting to the final question re: Serino's opinion on if Zimmerman was telling him the truth or not. They've squabbled about it for a while, and objection was sustained. Judge has told jury to disregard question - "Did you believe Zimmerman?" - and answer - "Yes."
Frazzled wrote: Hey testified to that on the stand you say? My 'who really did it meter" is pointing more towards innocence to Z.
Indeed he did. According to Serino, the full Zimmerman response to being lied to about the 5-0 having finally located video of the altercation and subsequent shooting was, "Thank God. I hope they got it all."
Seaward wrote: On another note, if anybody didn't catch Serino's cross-examination yesterday, you should watch it if you get the opportunity.
Of particular note is how Serino was pressured to do a "challenge meeting" with Zimmerman, which I guess is a meeting where the police try to get a suspect to change his story, by revealing some new piece of evidence or something like that. Serino said the trouble with the challenge meeting with Zimmerman was that he "didn't have much to challenge him with."
He did, however, decide to try and fake Zimmerman out by telling him at the challenge meeting that full video of the events leading up to and including the shooting had been discovered. Serino's testimony was that Zimmerman's response was, "Thank God."
Last question of the day to Serino: "Do you think Zimmerman was telling the truth?"
Serino: "Yes."
Well then! That just made the Prosecution's day all sorts of interesting. You don't usually say "Thank God" if someone just turned up incriminating video of you in a homocide investigation.
Frazzled wrote: On another board it appears the prosecution objected to this testimony this morning and the judge told the jury to ignore the statement.
Sure they will.
The prosecution objected only to the, "Did you believe him?" question and answer. All the stuff about the challenge interview and the "Thank God!" response stands.
What's funny about the objection is that the judge read the question and response out to the jurors again before telling them to ignore it.
Prosecution just scored some points on redirect, though. Serino said evidence indicated Zimmerman was in fact following Martin rather than looking for a street address.
Defense is now on...whatever it's called. Re-cross? I dunno.
Got Serino to admit that dispatch asking Zimmerman, "What direction is he going?" could be taken as an implied request to follow.
Defense: "What crime occurs if I walk up to you on a street and say, 'Get out of here!'?"
Serino: "None."
Defense: Was Zimmerman wrong to follow Martin?
Serino: "Legally speaking, no."
And now it turns out Serino based his 'Zimmerman was following Martin after saying otherwise' assumption on evidence of where they ended up, and defense is using a map to impeach memory. To good effect.
Defense just got Serino to admit it was "reasonable" for Zimmerman to call the cops on Martin.
Seaward wrote: The prosecution objected only to the, "Did you believe him?" question and answer. All the stuff about the challenge interview and the "Thank God!" response stands.
What's funny about the objection is that the judge read the question and response out to the jurors again before telling them to ignore it.
From Serino testimony: Medical examiner's report (regarding powder burns, type of wound, trajectory, etc.) supports Zimmerman's account of the circumstances of the actual shooting, not the state's. ME report indicates Martin was over Zimmerman at the time of shooting.
With all this evidence stacking up in Zimmerman's favour it's looking like charging him, much less prosecuting him, was the wrong decision.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: Defense is now on...whatever it's called. Re-cross? I dunno.
I think it's a re-direct
Seaward wrote: Got Serino to admit that dispatch asking Zimmerman, "What direction is he going?" could be taken as an implied request to follow.
Defense: "What crime occurs if I walk up to you on a street and say, 'Get out of here!'?"
Serino: "None."
Defense: Was Zimmerman wrong to follow Martin?
Serino: "Legally speaking, no."
And now it turns out Serino based his 'Zimmerman was following Martin after saying otherwise' assumption on evidence of where they ended up, and defense is using a map to impeach memory. To good effect.
Defense just got Serino to admit it was "reasonable" for Zimmerman to call the cops on Martin.
So the Prosecution's uphill battle now resembles trying to climb Everest
I don't know. It certainly seems that way to me, but I'm no lawyer. The prosecution is making points, but they're points that we all already know - Zimmerman might have profiled Martin, etc.
I also don't think that the prosecution having had to end two straight testimonies (Singleton, the first investigator to interview Zimmerman, and Serino, the lead investigator) with attacks is really helping them.
State's final question to Serino: "It could be raining outside right now, right? You have no way of knowing?"
Because naturally if you have a strong case you have to be aggressive to your own witnesses.....
I do like the irony that the Prosecution is trying to show that Zimmerman might have profiled Martin, and then start to question their own witness about his speculations
Dreadclaw69 wrote: With all this evidence stacking up in Zimmerman's favour it's looking like charging him, much less prosecuting him, was the wrong decision.
Perhaps a precedent will be set regarding countermanding the lawful decisions of law enforcement officials based on the antics of a howling internet mob?
Monster Rain wrote: Perhaps a precedent will be set regarding countermanding the lawful decisions of law enforcement officials based on the antics of a howling internet mob?
I'd like to think so, but we've had howling braying mobs since time immemorial
Dreadclaw69 wrote: With all this evidence stacking up in Zimmerman's favour it's looking like charging him, much less prosecuting him, was the wrong decision.
Perhaps a precedent will be set regarding countermanding the lawful decisions of law enforcement officials based on the antics of a howling internet mob?
Even if that howling mob is working with Jesse Jackson.
NOW I have a bone to pick with this thread. Stop freaking bringing up Stand Your Ground.
It is not, in any way, shape or form relevant to this case, NOR has it been invoked in George Zimmerman's defense. The ONLY individuals howling about SYG in the Zimmerman trial are papers like the New York Times, and the NYT has admitted they got it wrong. A fine article from the nice people at reason.com http://reason.com/blog/2013/06/20/the-new-york-times-admits-its-reporting
A New York Times story about jury selection in George Zimmerman's trial says the case is "spotlighting Florida's Stand Your Ground law." In the very next sentence, however, the Times concedes "that law has not been invoked in this case." As I have been saying since this story began attracting national press attention, Zimmerman's defense does not hinge on the right to stand your ground when you are attacked in a public place because he claims he shot Trayvon Martin during a violent struggle in which there was no opportunity to retreat. So why is "Florida's Stand Your Ground law" relevant? According to the Times, because it "was cited by the Sanford police as the reason officers did not initially arrest Mr. Zimmerman." But the provision cited by police, although it was included in the same 2005 bill that eliminated the duty to retreat, has nothing to do with the "stand your ground" principle.
The police said they did not charge Zimmerman right away because of a provision that prohibits a law enforcement agency from arresting someone who claims to have used deadly force in self-defense "unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful." In other words, the fact that Zimmerman killed Martin (which he has always admitted) was not enough; the police also needed reason to doubt his self-defense claim. We can argue about whether that is a reasonable requirement, but it is completely distinct from the right to stand your ground. Even a state that imposes a duty to retreat could still require police to meet this test before arresting someone who claims self-defense.
From the beginning press coverage of this case has routinely conflated these issues, implying that Florida's definition of self-defense is so broad that it gave Zimmerman a license to kill in circumstances that did not justify the use of deadly force. The New York Times has been one of the worst offenders in this respect, running one story after another that either obscured or misstated the legal issues while suggesting that both Martin's death and the delay in arresting Zimmerman somehow hinged on the absence of a duty to retreat. Now the Times is implicitly admitting that its reporting was based on a fundamentally mistaken premise.
Bolds my own. D-usa I don't know about what kind of substandard concealed carry training you've received in Oklahoma, but I've been followed before. I've even had a vehicle follow me all the way home from some point on the freeway. It turns out they were friends of one of my neighbors. They found it amusing our destinations LITERALLY were next door to each other. Did my threat awareness go up a peg from yellow to orange? Yes. Did I look at some potential defensive options and keep an eye on them? Yes. Did I have the right to violently attack them in any way shape or form, despite having no duty to retreat here in Colorado? (especially once I was on my own property) No. No I fething did not. As has been stated above thanks to reason.com, the NYT and a whole host of posters in this thread, SYG/No Duty to Retreat solely applies on the application of lethal force in a self defense situation. Being followed is a shady/suspicious situation, but it is not at the point where you can turn around and shoot someone, or go and physically attack them in any way.
In every martial arts class I've ever TAUGHT on self defense, including with you know "adults" who like me carry a gun every day and do hand to hand training in the name of fun, exercise and more options then drawing a sidearm have I ever told my students, or been told by my own masters "If some dude is following you, go rough him up 'cause that's a threat. I in fact teach the same methods djones received. If you are being followed by a shady individual. get to a well lit public area (if you're driving, drive to your local police station), formulate a defensive strategy in your head and if you're extremely concerned call in the LEOs. If the following individual escalates the situation, by threatening or attacking you in some way, THEN and only then does your force curriculum begin to open up.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: With all this evidence stacking up in Zimmerman's favour it's looking like charging him, much less prosecuting him, was the wrong decision.
Perhaps a precedent will be set regarding countermanding the lawful decisions of law enforcement officials based on the antics of a howling internet mob?
Much like charging Z was brought about by a howling mob led by a few "Reverends". I use that term loosely.
Prosecution just had its first witness hostile to Zimmerman in a long time. A medical examiner. Not the medical examiner who actually did Martin's autopsy, but one who saw photographs of it.
The moneyshot takeaways:
It looks to her like Zimmerman was "punched once." His head wounds were consistent with striking concrete, but again, "only once." Zimmerman's injuries "not life-threatening."
Defense is now mauling her over her close ties to Corey (special prosecutor) and past problems as ME in other districts.
Edit: And pretty effortlessly getting her to admit that yeah, sure, she supposes it could've been more than one blow.
Second Edit: Abrasions on Martin's hands consistent with striking someone. No other injuries on Martin aside from gunshot.
Why is this a problem? Are they somehow less qualified to render a verdict than men? Is this not a statistical inevitability when using a random segment of the population? Are they in real danger of messing this up? Or letting him off the hook?
bibblles wrote: Why is this a problem? Are they somehow less qualified to render a verdict than men? Is this not a statistical inevitability when using a random segment of the population? Are they in real danger of messing this up? Or letting him off the hook?
You are about 18 pages behind, and the jury just seems to be a strange one, when you hear a jury of your peers, you assume a mix of men, a mix of women, a mix of whites, blacks, asians, etc... A jury of all women could easily see this as an older man bullying a young kid who did nothing wrong (especially with how Trayvon had been presented by the mainstream media), whereas a jury of all men could just as easily see Zimmerman as a man protecting his neighborhood from some punk kid.
The prosecutor needs to make George look like the aggressor in this case, and it's a little easier to do this with women than it men. Though I feel my comments are bordering on sexist. The women are not less likely to get Zimmerman off the hook, they may be more likely to find him guilty..
bibblles wrote: Why is this a problem? Are they somehow less qualified to render a verdict than men? Is this not a statistical inevitability when using a random segment of the population? Are they in real danger of messing this up? Or letting him off the hook?
You are about 18 pages behind, and the jury just seems to be a strange one, when you hear a jury of your peers, you assume a mix of men, a mix of women, a mix of whites, blacks, asians, etc... A jury of all women could easily see this as an older man bullying a young kid who did nothing wrong (especially with how Trayvon had been presented by the mainstream media), whereas a jury of all men could just as easily see Zimmerman as a man protecting his neighborhood from some punk kid.
The prosecutor needs to make George look like the aggressor in this case, and it's a little easier to do this with women than it men. Though I feel my comments are bordering on sexist. The women are not less likely to get Zimmerman off the hook, they may be more likely to find him guilty..
Who knows! Not me though.
Not me. For a jury of my peers I expect twelve rum swilling wiener transporting neadnerthals with delusions of coherence!
bibblles wrote: Why is this a problem? Are they somehow less qualified to render a verdict than men? Is this not a statistical inevitability when using a random segment of the population? Are they in real danger of messing this up? Or letting him off the hook?
You are about 18 pages behind, and the jury just seems to be a strange one, when you hear a jury of your peers, you assume a mix of men, a mix of women, a mix of whites, blacks, asians, etc... A jury of all women could easily see this as an older man bullying a young kid who did nothing wrong (especially with how Trayvon had been presented by the mainstream media), whereas a jury of all men could just as easily see Zimmerman as a man protecting his neighborhood from some punk kid.
The prosecutor needs to make George look like the aggressor in this case, and it's a little easier to do this with women than it men. Though I feel my comments are bordering on sexist. The women are not less likely to get Zimmerman off the hook, they may be more likely to find him guilty..
Who knows! Not me though.
Not me. For a jury of my peers I expect twelve rum swilling wiener transporting neadnerthals with delusions of coherence!
I would be honored to serve on your jury, I would hope to extend the scratching post of peace by having a "dirty cat lover" help find you innocent.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: With all this evidence stacking up in Zimmerman's favour it's looking like charging him, much less prosecuting him, was the wrong decision.
You're watching too much law and order if you think DAs should drop cases just because they're weak. You drop them when they are impossible. A lot of these witnesses are falling apart just now from the looks of it.
"Your honor, thanks to the prosecution's excellent summary of our arguments over the last week, I don't think we need to go through this again. The defense rests"
That is just pathetic. So the Prosecution is trying to smear the Defense Attorney for something that his daughter did, the day before a certain witness testified. I hope the Defense Attorney makes a formal complaint to the State Bar Council about that sort of conduct by the DA.
Seaward wrote: Prosecution just had its first witness hostile to Zimmerman in a long time. A medical examiner. Not the medical examiner who actually did Martin's autopsy, but one who saw photographs of it.
The moneyshot takeaways:
It looks to her like Zimmerman was "punched once." His head wounds were consistent with striking concrete, but again, "only once." Zimmerman's injuries "not life-threatening."
Defense is now mauling her over her close ties to Corey (special prosecutor) and past problems as ME in other districts.
Edit: And pretty effortlessly getting her to admit that yeah, sure, she supposes it could've been more than one blow.
Second Edit: Abrasions on Martin's hands consistent with striking someone. No other injuries on Martin aside from gunshot.
So a potentially biased witness, giving evidence in her field, contrary to what the ME who carried out the autopsy concluded, working off photographs only, who then admits that part of her own testimony many be incorrect.
Rented Tritium wrote: You're watching too much law and order if you think DAs should drop cases just because they're weak. You drop them when they are impossible. A lot of these witnesses are falling apart just now from the looks of it.
Really? "[T]oo much [L]aw and [O]rder" was the best you could come up with? I've seen (note that word, as in first hand seen) much stronger cases get dropped for being unlikely to get a conviction.
"Your honor, thanks to the prosecution's excellent summary of our arguments over the last week, I don't think we need to go through this again. The defense rests"
The Florida jury is six people. That increases the possibility of it being all male or female. I don't see a problem with an all male or an all female jury. A jury of your peers doesn't mean the people selected should be similar race and gender to the defendant. I think it is pretty insulting to jurors everywhere to assume their deliberations will be swayed by emotion.
Kilkrazy wrote: The Florida jury is six people. That increases the possibility of it being all male or female. I don't see a problem with an all male or an all female jury. A jury of your peers doesn't mean the people selected should be similar race and gender to the defendant. I think it is pretty insulting to jurors everywhere to assume their deliberations will be swayed by emotion.
Agreed. I hope that the jury remains as objective as possible when examining the evidence as they deliberate. Regardless of verdict, an impartial examination of the evidence does not require the examiners to possess testicles. If I were George Zimmerman, I would be praying to god that I had a fair and impartial jury - regardless of gender, race, creed, religion, or orientation.
Kilkrazy wrote: The Florida jury is six people. That increases the possibility of it being all male or female. I don't see a problem with an all male or an all female jury. A jury of your peers doesn't mean the people selected should be similar race and gender to the defendant. I think it is pretty insulting to jurors everywhere to assume their deliberations will be swayed by emotion.
Agreed. I hope that the jury remains as objective as possible when examining the evidence as they deliberate. Regardless of verdict, an impartial examination of the evidence does not require the examiners to possess testicles. If I were George Zimmerman, I would be praying to god that I had a fair and impartial jury - regardless of gender, race, creed, religion, or orientation.
As a defendant there's no way I would want an impartial jury. I want a jury that leans my way.
Nope. But I do know that they are legally trained to know when they have strong evidence that is likely to convict, and weak evidence that is likely to result in an acquittal (like the first DA who was replaced)
Nope. But I do know that they are legally trained to know when they have strong evidence that is likely to convict, and weak evidence that is likely to result in an acquittal (like the first DA who was replaced)
And if there is a change that there will be a conviction then you can, and should, still push for a trial. If you are not convinced that there is no case, then let 6 people decide.
d-usa wrote: And if there is a change that there will be a conviction then you can, and should, still push for a trial. If you are not convinced that there is no case, then let 6 people decide.
You understand that there has to be a prima fascia case for an accused to answer right? As well as a reasonable prospect for a conviction. Because based on the evidence presented at trial both these seem to be missing, and just serves to highlight why the first DA did not prosecute.
d-usa wrote: And if there is a change that there will be a conviction then you can, and should, still push for a trial. If you are not convinced that there is no case, then let 6 people decide.
You understand that there has to be a prima fascia case for an accused to answer right? As well as a reasonable prospect for a conviction. Because based on the evidence presented at trial both these seem to be missing, and just serves to highlight why the first DA did not prosecute.
The bolded part is the problem. Cross examined witnesses who appear to have waited until the actual trial to fall apart and lose credibility are not the right thing to determine prima facie with. You are still looking at this with advance knowledge of the trial.
DA got screwed when the race card got played and Obama making that silly ass comment. I wonder what would happen if neither have happen....better yet...if Obama had not made that comment. Now I wonder if the race card would have been played if Zimmerman was not named Zimmerman but instead named say Hinjosa or something Hispanic sounding....
Rented Tritium wrote: The bolded part is the problem. Cross examined witnesses who appear to have waited until the actual trial to fall apart and lose credibility are not the right thing to determine prima facie with. You are still looking at this with advance knowledge of the trial.
Like those witnesses who said Martin was on top?
Or the Medical Examiner who also confirmed that Martin was on top when he was shot? And that Martin has bruising on his hands? And that Zimmerman had injuries to his face and head?
Or the interviewing officer who testified that Zimmerman was relieved to hear the lie that they had CCTV footage of the entire incident?
All that evidence that the previous leading investigator, and previous DA, had available and decided not to prosecute? All that evidence that the Prosecution is relying on that is strengthening the Defense's position?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Now I wonder if the race card would have been played if Zimmerman was not named Zimmerman but instead named say Hinjosa or something Hispanic sounding....
Remember how Zimmerman went from "White", to "White Hispanic"?
Rented Tritium wrote: The bolded part is the problem. Cross examined witnesses who appear to have waited until the actual trial to fall apart and lose credibility are not the right thing to determine prima facie with. You are still looking at this with advance knowledge of the trial.
I think it would be wrong to assume that because we haven't heard about them through the media that these accounts were not known by the police/prosecution.
You guys are aware that the prosecution had to go through a hearing to establish prima facie before moving forward with this, right? It's not just a matter of what we saw in the media. They showed their evidence to a judge and the judge said they had prima facie and could go to trial.
This case has an extra political dimension, however, which is the whole "black kid shot by white policeman" thing.
I know Zimmerman is not white as American people count it, and that he was a community watch person not a badged officer. Even so, the impression given to the black community was that a white authority figure got away with shooting dead a black kid who had gone out to buy sweets, probably due to racism on behalf of Zimmerman and the police who arrested him.
Under such circumstances a trial may be justified to prove the issue in open court, even if the evidence is weak. Otherwise it risks giving an extra push to the conspiracy theory.
Rented Tritium wrote: You guys are aware that the prosecution had to go through a hearing to establish prima facie before moving forward with this, right? It's not just a matter of what we saw in the media. They showed their evidence to a judge and the judge said they had prima facie and could go to trial.
HAHAHAHAHA Where they even brave enough to take it to a grand jury? I don't think so.
Rented Tritium wrote: You guys are aware that the prosecution had to go through a hearing to establish prima facie before moving forward with this, right? It's not just a matter of what we saw in the media. They showed their evidence to a judge and the judge said they had prima facie and could go to trial.
Kilkrazy wrote: This case has an extra political dimension, however, which is the whole "black kid shot by white policeman" thing.
I know Zimmerman is not white as American people count it, and that he was a community watch person not a badged officer. Even so, the impression given to the black community was that a white authority figure got away with shooting dead a black kid who had gone out to buy sweets, probably due to racism on behalf of Zimmerman and the police who arrested him.
Under such circumstances a trial may be justified to prove the issue in open court, even if the evidence is weak. Otherwise it risks giving an extra push to the conspiracy theory.
Oh, that's undoubtedly why people are riled up. But the notion that we should prosecute someone merely because it makes us feel better, despite the evidence not supporting it, is incredibly dangerous.
Seaward wrote: But the notion that we should prosecute someone merely because it makes us feel better, despite the evidence not supporting it, is incredibly dangerous.
Except they had prima facie. You cannot base "did they have prima facie" on things you see in the trial.
Seaward wrote: But the notion that we should prosecute someone merely because it makes us feel better, despite the evidence not supporting it, is incredibly dangerous.
Except they had prima facie. You cannot base "did they have prima facie" on things you see in the trial.
Neither of us are lawyers, but my understanding is that, given self defense cases require affirmative defenses, the prima facie bar is remarkably low. Was Trayvon Martin killed? Yes. Did George Zimmerman shoot him? Yes.
Seaward wrote: But the notion that we should prosecute someone merely because it makes us feel better, despite the evidence not supporting it, is incredibly dangerous.
Except they had prima facie. You cannot base "did they have prima facie" on things you see in the trial.
Neither of us are lawyers, but my understanding is that, given self defense cases require affirmative defenses, the prima facie bar is remarkably low. Was Trayvon Martin killed? Yes. Did George Zimmerman shoot him? Yes.
Boom. Prima facie evidence barrier hurdled
Exactly.
And when someone is dead and you have Prima Facie, you should go ahead and make the charge.
Rented Tritium wrote: You guys are aware that the prosecution had to go through a hearing to establish prima facie before moving forward with this, right? It's not just a matter of what we saw in the media. They showed their evidence to a judge and the judge said they had prima facie and could go to trial.
HAHAHAHAHA
See above. Hit enter before finishing. I don't think they even convened a grand jury on this one.
We all know the initial hearing is irrelevant here.
And when someone is dead and you have Prima Facie, you should go ahead and make the charge.
Unless you're facing an affirmative defense that you have no contrary evidence to disprove.
You're the prosecutor. You don't know what their defense will be yet. You're just deciding if you need to bring the charges. You're putting the cart before the horse.
Rented Tritium wrote: You're the prosecutor. You don't know what their defense will be yet. You're just deciding if you need to bring the charges. You're putting the cart before the horse.
I'm the prosecutor. I know I don't have enough evidence to get a manslaughter conviction. I know this because the police have told me. I've also looked the entire case over and came to that conclusion myself. Manslaughter's the least I could charge, but I can't win it, and I know this, so I don't.
You know, exactly like what happened. Before the special prosecutor decided that it was actually murder 2.
Rented Tritium wrote: You're the prosecutor. You don't know what their defense will be yet. You're just deciding if you need to bring the charges. You're putting the cart before the horse.
I'm the prosecutor. I know I don't have enough evidence to get a manslaughter conviction. I know this because the police have told me. I've also looked the entire case over and came to that conclusion myself. Manslaughter's the least I could charge, but I can't win it, and I know this, so I don't.
You know, exactly like what happened. Before the special prosecutor decided that it was actually murder 2.
Except that when the special prosecutor took it to a judge, the judge said he had prima facie for murder 2.
So if you want to keep arguing this, you need to establish that the judge was wrong or the prosecutor straight up lied to him. You don't get to keep claiming over and over that they didn't have a case when it was found in a hearing that they did.
And for the record, I think the murder 2 charge was stupid and needlessly difficult even if they did have prima facie. They absolutely should have gone with some flavor of manslaughter, but they had prima facie either way.
And when someone is dead and you have Prima Facie, you should go ahead and make the charge.
Unless you're facing an affirmative defense that you have no contrary evidence to disprove.
You're the prosecutor. You don't know what their defense will be yet. You're just deciding if you need to bring the charges. You're putting the cart before the horse.
Unless you've had no intereaction with the atty or the defendant, but that would be weird, almost like you're the second DA, brought in because the first one refused to prosecute...
Rented Tritium wrote: Except that when the special prosecutor took it to a judge, the judge said he had prima facie for murder 2.
So if you want to keep arguing this, you need to establish that the judge was wrong or the prosecutor straight up lied to him. You don't get to keep claiming over and over that they didn't have a case when it was found in a hearing that they did.
And for the record, I think the murder 2 charge was stupid and needlessly difficult even if they did have prima facie. They absolutely should have gone with some flavor of manslaughter, but they had prima facie either way.
You just learned that term, didn't you? It hasn't appeared in your arguments prior to today, so I'm going to assume you hit up a blog.
Rented Tritium wrote: Except that when the special prosecutor took it to a judge, the judge said he had prima facie for murder 2.
So if you want to keep arguing this, you need to establish that the judge was wrong or the prosecutor straight up lied to him. You don't get to keep claiming over and over that they didn't have a case when it was found in a hearing that they did.
And for the record, I think the murder 2 charge was stupid and needlessly difficult even if they did have prima facie. They absolutely should have gone with some flavor of manslaughter, but they had prima facie either way.
You just learned that term, didn't you? It hasn't appeared in your arguments prior to today, so I'm going to assume you hit up a blog.
It doesn't mean what you think it means.
It didn't appear in my arguments until someone decided to argue that they didn't have it. Why would I need to bring it up before you guys claimed the prosecution didn't have it.
And considering I was the first person in the thread to actually spell it correctly, I'm probably the only one who didn't get it from law and order.
And how on earth is "you just learned it" a valid point? How is that anything but a personal attack?
Rented Tritium wrote: And considering I was the first person in the thread to actually spell it correctly, I'm probably the only one who didn't get it from law and order.
So because a few of us spelled it wrong (I always had difficulty remembering how to spell "facie") and didn't use Google to double check it then we only learned it from TV? Picking on spelling is just barely a step above picking on grammar, and it doesn't often show that you have the strongest argument or want to be taken seriously.
Rented Tritium wrote: And how on earth is "you just learned it" a valid point? How is that anything but a personal attack?
That's a personal attack now? I mean it's not like saying what someone posted was "dumb"?
Rented Tritium wrote: And considering I was the first person in the thread to actually spell it correctly, I'm probably the only one who didn't get it from law and order.
So because a few of us spelled it wrong (I always had difficulty remembering how to spell "facie") and didn't use Google to double check it then we only learned it from TV? Picking on spelling is just barely a step above picking on grammar, and it doesn't often show that you have the strongest argument or want to be taken seriously.
Double standard much?
I picked on spelling in response to someone straight up claiming I learned the term yesterday. Either both of those are wrong or neither are.
Rented Tritium wrote: And how on earth is "you just learned it" a valid point? How is that anything but a personal attack?
That's a personal attack now? I mean it's not like saying what someone posted was "dumb"?
Yep. Saying a post is dumb is not a personal attack. Saying a person is dumb is. Claiming that your argument is dumb is very different from claiming you only just googled a concept.
If you honestly believe that saying what someone posted is "dumb" is not a personal attack, but saying that you just Googled something is a personal attack then there really isn't any point in trying to reason with you.
Shame I Google things I'm not familiar with, I must have pretty low self esteem and want to keep insulting myself
sourclams wrote: It's almost like there should have never been a trial....
Yeah, but then they'd have to have the riots early. Throwing off all the looters' busy schedules. This way they'll have them after the verdict, as planned.
"You just learned it, let the big boys talk" is a personal attack. That's what one is saying when they make a post claiming that I only just googled Prima Facie.
Saying that what someone posted is dumb is not talking about the person, it's talking about the post. It's blunt, but it's not personal because it's talking about the post, not the person. Might I direct you to the definition of "personal" and the distinct lack of "of or related to the posts one makes" as a definition.
Initial hearing is merely a minimal evidence standard, Considering he is arguing self defense (an affirmative defense) the crime is effectively proven.
Rented Tritium wrote: "You just learned it, let the big boys talk" is a personal attack. That's what one is saying when they make a post claiming that I only just googled Prima Facie.
What you read and what was actually said were too very different things.
Rented Tritium wrote: Saying that what someone posted is dumb is not talking about the person, it's talking about the post. It's blunt, but it's not personal because it's talking about the post, not the person. Might I direct you to the definition of "personal" and the distinct lack of "of or related to the posts one makes" as a definition.
Good thing then that the post wasn't made by the person then, right? Especially as the post contained my personal opinion, and was communicated by me (a person). You're attempting to thread a fine line, and it does not appear that you're doing a good job of it.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Good thing then that the post wasn't made by the person then, right?
In argument, personal attack has a specific meaning. Attacking something that a person said is not a personal attack unless you are unclear on what these terms mean and are intended for.
By your logic here, regular old arguing is a personal attack. "this post is dumb" is just a more blunt way of saying "your argument does not hold water" which is obviously not an attack.
Well, to clarify, suggesting that you had just looked up prima facie wasn't intended to suggest you were dumb, but more that you had just looked up prima facie. You appear to be lending more weight to it than the current circumstances actually suggest it has, given the affirmative defense, which suggested to me you were unfamiliar with it, as I myself largely am.
Disagree with me all you want, point out the flaws in my argument. Show me what I said was incorrect or factually wrong. But calling what I said "dumb" is crossing the line, it is not legitimate criticism. It's a thinly veiled slight.
Saying you just learned something is not a personal attack, because it is clearly not an attack no matter how much you might wish it to otherwise be.
Maybe the defense can ask for a dismissal after the prosecution rests it's case based on no actual evidence of what they are attempting to charge? Don't know enough about legal proceedings to know if this is possible and it's not worth a text to my buddy
kronk wrote: Back to the TM vs Z case. Can a judge, at some point in a trial, say "Enough" and throw it out?
Good question. I'm not certain how it works in Florida but if evidence crucial to the Prosecution's case is inadmissible then the Judge as finder of law can say that the Prosecution have not established a case against the Defendant and rule that there is no case to answer. I think it's more common for the Prosecution to withdraw the charges though.
Given media cover and public attention I think it's unlikely to happen in this instance.
Hulksmash wrote: Maybe the defense can ask for a dismissal after the prosecution rests it's case based on no actual evidence of what they are attempting to charge? Don't know enough about legal proceedings to know if this is possible and it's not worth a text to my buddy
it would avoid having to put Z on the stand. Thats the big weakness at this point, that Z screws up in the cross.
Rented Tritium wrote: Yeah, they're going to play it through to acquittal and most people will go home satisfied.
I see. Still a roll of the dice, but for Z, getting an acquittal is probably better than a dismissal. I suppose.
He has to go through a bunch of rigmarole disproportionate to his actual mistake (following martin away from the street like an idiot), but his silver lining is going to be a book deal.
Regular readers know I have been following the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman trial from the beginning. I wrote an appropriately nerdy analysis of how self-defense law applied to the case entitled Reasonable Beliefs: Prejudice, Myth and Reality in the Trayvon Martin Shooting (Or “Why Han Solo Had the Right to Shoot Greedo First”) that has proven fairly durable, although there might be more evidence besides Zimmerman’s word (and so far that evidence has all collaborated his word). And regular readers know that I also identified strongly with Zimmerman in this situation because 1) I myself had to exercise force in self-defense (though it consisted of taking an electronic device away from a convicted terrorist without harming him), and 2) it seemed like George Zimmerman was being charged with no good reason. The parallels to my life seemed obvious and if you think it colored my analysis, fair enough.
...
So I found one portion on Monday’s warp up and analysis post on the trial to be pretty stunning. To give a little background, Defense Council Mark O’Mara was discussing the practice he described as “challenge interviews” with Lead Investigator Chris Serino (pictured). A challenge interview is when an investigator leans on inconsistencies in the story to put some stress on the witness: “You said X, but the physical evidence says Y, how do you explain that Mr. Z?” The idea is to break down the witness’ story and maybe get at a truth that person is hiding—if they are hiding something. The description Andrew gives is a little inaccurate, but what happened was that Serino suggested to Zimmerman that there might be video of the incident.
... O’Mara pointed out that Mr. Martin’s phone was retrieved. It was dead at the moment, but O’Mara suggested that when they charged it and could start retrieving data from it, that there was a strong probability that there was video footage of the whole thing. The idea was to make it clear to Zimmerman that if there was something he needed to say, that now was the time to say it.
This was a line of questioning designed to panic a guilty man. But that was not what happened in this case. According to Serino, Zimmerman said, “Thank God. I was hoping someone would videotape it.”
...
Of course for George Zimmerman things went another way. They never did find video from the altercation on Martin’s phone (unless it was destroyed). But it is here where, yes, I think my experiences are educational. I understand, just like Investigator Serino, what an innocent man says at the hope that his actions were videoed. He hopes you can see everything. He might even assume it will be his salvation before he learns about the quality of the thing. He will believe the truth shall set him free.
...
And even if we assume he is not a sociopath, this only means that Zimmerman would believe the truth would set him free. But if he misunderstood when force was justified, it might have still indicted him.
Still his reaction, as recounted by Investigator Serino, is extremely powerful evidence presented by a defense witness that is...
Wait, whaaaaa?! This is a witness for the state?
Of course I am joking. I told a similar joke on twitter a few days ago, but there have been so many times when prosecutorial witnesses ended up helping the defense score points that it has given rise to the theory that the state is intentionally bricking the case.
If true, this would seem to be highly unethical. A prosecutor should not bring a case unless 1) they actually think the defendant is guilty and 2) they have a reasonable chance of success. A prosecutor’s job isn’t to convict people, but to do justice, striking their sword ruthlessly at the guilty but sparing the innocent. But I could picture one scenario where I could see a prosecutor rationalizing trying Zimmerman when they feel they will inevitably lose.
There is, after all, some concern that there might be a riot if Zimmerman is acquitted. I am not sure how realistic that fear is, but it definitely exists and the prosecutors in this case might share it. Further, Zimmerman himself probably would have to worry about vigilante violence if he is set free. One has to wonder if he will ever be able to get back to something like normal life at this point. So prosecutors might rationally believe that if they simply announce they are not charging him, that a riot will explode. On the other hand, if the trial drags on for weeks with witness after witness demonstrating that Zimmerman is innocent—or at the very least he is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt—there can be hope that the anger will be blunted, for two reasons.
First, facts do matter. For instance, it was long alleged that the Birthers—those convinced that Barrack Obama was born in a foreign country and thus ineligible to be president—would always believe their theories. People commonly believed they were immune to facts. And then Obama released his long-form birth certificate, and birtherism was cut in half overnight. So it turned out that a large number of people really were waiting for that piece of evidence. “Facts are stubborn things” as our Second President once said, as a defense attorney, and if most Americans cannot be convinced by facts, then we might as well give up on this democracy concept.
Second, even for that hard core that cannot accept Zimmerman’s innocence, they are going to see the verdict coming a mile away which might blunt the blow when it comes.
So a prosecutor who thinks similarly might believe that a full trial might have a positive effect on public order, otherwise justifying a trial when that person knows they are going to lose.
I will admit I don’t buy the theory I have just outlined, but the incompetence of their presentation so far makes me wonder if it might be true.
Still, unless I am suddenly surprised by some testimony or evidence thus far unheard of, I don’t see how the state can believe for one moment it has proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman didn’t act in lawful self-defense. This is not to say he is necessarily innocent. Because OJ Simpson was found to be liable for the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman I can write that he was guilty of their murder without fear of a defamation suit. But while the evidence was sufficient to meet the burden of proof in civil suits, it was not enough for criminal law, so he was found not “innocent” but simply “not guilty” which is shorthand for “not guilty beyond a reasonable dount.” Our system is designed to err on the side of letting the guilty go free over the innocent, because we fear government oppression more than criminal conduct by our fellow citizens. So I can believe he should go free, while not being convinced that he is innocent. I don’t know the man and therefore I cannot say what is in his heart.
But unless you believe George Zimmerman is actually a sociopath—and I would have to ask what you would base that assessment on—there can be little doubt today that Zimmerman at least had an “innocent heart.” He genuinely believes he did nothing wrong.
He be making statements up north instead of down south. 
