Trayvon Martin case: All female jury picked---Verdict Not Guilty

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**CptJake**

Breotan wrote:
All I know is that Zimmerman was told not to pursue by the 911 dispatcher. He did. And we don't execute thieves in the USA and now thief or not, Martin is dead.

No, he wasn't. One of the first witnesses even testified 911 operators are NOT allowed to order a caller to do or not do anything. The 911 operator told Zimmerman he did not have to follow Martin. There is a difference

**Ouze**

CptJake wrote:
Breotan wrote:
All I know is that Zimmerman was told not to pursue by the 911 dispatcher. He did. And we don't execute thieves in the USA and now thief or not, Martin is dead.

No, he wasn't. One of the first witnesses even testified 911 operators are NOT allowed to order a caller to do or not do anything. The 911 operator told Zimmerman he did not have to follow Martin. There is a difference

One created solely by you, of course; because Breotan used the world told, not "ordered". So congratulations on refuting that nonexistent argument there.

Anyway, the really tragic thing about this case is that it's possible no laws at all were broken, and that while a young man is now dead, neither one of the parties was "wrong" in the legal sense. Hell, maybe not even the other sense either.

The only thing that was clearly wrong, IMO, was for the police not to have made an arrest. Zimmerman may be innocent (or at least not guilty) but there was pretty clearly an indictable offense here to my thinking.

**CptJake**

Ouze wrote:
CptJake wrote:
Breotan wrote:
All I know is that Zimmerman was told not to pursue by the 911 dispatcher. He did. And we don't execute thieves in the USA and now thief or not, Martin is dead.

No, he wasn't. One of the first witnesses even testified 911 operators are NOT allowed to order a caller to do or not do anything. The 911 operator told Zimmerman he did not have to follow Martin. There is a difference

One created solely by you, of course; because Breotan used the world told, not "ordered". So congratulations on refuting that nonexistent argument there.

Telling him "we don't need you to" is different than saying "don't." One is a suggestion, the other is a command. According to the witness, a 911 operator, it is not within the purview of 911 operators to give orders to callers.

So it was phrased as a suggestion, and you can't really argue it was a command, because 911 operators aren't allowed to give commands.

**Hulksmash**

Zimmerman pursued Martin. Zimmerman supposedly lost track of Martin and was returning to his truck. After evading a possible dangerous situation Martin supposedly initiated a physical confrontation with Zimmerman. Zimmerman, with documented photos showing damage to his nose and the back of his head, feared for his life and fired his weapon into the attacking Martin.

I'm failing to see, assuming Zimmerman was returning to his truck, how Martin should have been in fear for his life enough to initiate a physical altercation. And how, based on the damages Zimmerman took, he was wrong for fearing for his life.

But hey, I don't think this should have gone to trial in the first place. The more I hear the less I think it should have gone to trial. The way this has been handled by the media means that when Zimmerman is either let off for a hung jury or it's overturned at a higher level he's going to have a heck of a pay day coming.

**Ouze**

You're saying that you don't see how Martin should have been in fear for his life while literally, 2 sentences ago, saying that Martin evaded a possibly dangerous situation.

**d-usa**

If you use physical injuries as the basis for who was right, then would Martin have been legally allowed to kill Z if he would have survived the shot?

After all, if Z was right to fear M because he was beating him then M would have been right to fear Z because he was shooting him.

Being on the loosing end of a fight does not automatically give you a self defense excuse if there is still a legitimate question of whether you contributed to the cause of the fight.

**Chongara**

Ouze wrote:
You're saying that you don't see how Martin should have been in fear for his life while literally, 2 sentences ago, saying that Martin evaded a possibly dangerous situation.

Dude. It doesn't work that way. A man tracking and following you with a gun isn't a dangerous situation. Certainly when the person who has been stalking you with a weapon, gets back in their truck while you're on foot that is no threat to you. I mean like it's it's obvious how absolutely non-threatening having an armed man stalking you in his vehicle is! Some dude tracking you down in a truck with his gun, that.. that's harmless, nobody would have any reason to be worried about that.

Now, some random kid walking down street on the sidewalk. That my friends is some pants-gaking terrifying stuff right there.

**whembly**

Chongara wrote:
Ouze wrote:
You're saying that you don't see how Martin should have been in fear for his life while literally, 2 sentences ago, saying that Martin evaded a possibly dangerous situation.

Dude. It doesn't work that way. A man tracking and following you with a gun isn't a dangerous situation. Certainly when the person who has been stalking you with a weapon, gets back in their truck while you're on foot that is no threat. I mean like it's it's obvious. Dude tracking you down in a truck with his gun, that.. that's harmless have any reason to be worried about that.

Now, some random kid walking down street on the sidewalk. That my friends is some pants-gaking terrifying stuff right there.

How did Martin now that Z was armed?

**Hulksmash**

My point was the situation had been avoided. It could also have been avoided if he just went to his house. He was no longer in fear of his life, or shouldn't have been reasonably if he was to begin with, and he then assaulted Zimmerman.

See one is potentially dangerous. The other is actually dangerous as it's a physical altercation. If you can't see the difference then I'm sorry.

Side question. Does the neighborhood have a Neighborhood Watch sign posted? Because at that point it would be reasonable to assume someone following you at a distance might be part of that group and Martin would have even less reason to feel threatened.

**Ahtman**

Hulksmash wrote:
My point was the situation had been avoided. It could also have been avoided if he just went to his house. He was no longer in fear of his life, or shouldn't have been reasonably if he was to begin with, and he then assaulted Zimmerman.

It could also have been avoided if Zimmerman had taken every single bit of advice the neighborhood watch trainer gave (don't confront) or the advice the 911 Operator had given him (don't confront).

Hulksmash wrote:
Does the neighborhood have a Neighborhood Watch sign posted?

Considering the Homeowners Association didn't want one to begin with I doubt they also paid to put signs up for it, but maybe.

**CptJake**

Ahtman wrote:
Hulksmash wrote:
My point was the situation had been avoided. It could also have been avoided if he just went to his house. He was no longer in fear of his life, or shouldn't have been reasonably if he was to begin with, and he then assaulted Zimmerman.

It could also have been avoided if Zimmerman had taken every single bit of advice the neighborhood watch trainer gave (don't confront) or the advice the 911 Operator had given him (don't confront).
Does the neighborhood have a Neighborhood Watch sign posted?

.

**MrDwhitey**

No, he's making the assumption that Zimmerman pursued him.

Which he did.

**CptJake**

MrDwhitey wrote:
No, he's making the assumption that Zimmerman pursued him.

Which he did.

Until he lost track of Martin and went back towards his truck. Which he did, until confronted my a returned Martin.

**MrDwhitey**

Situation still would've been avoided if he hadn't pursued him, that is what was being said.

**Gentleman_Jellyfish**

MrDwhitey wrote:
Situation still would've been avoided if he hadn't pursued him, that is what was being said.

They both could have avoided the situation. Martin could have let Zimmerman leave, Zimmerman could have let Martin keep walking down the sidewalk.

**Hulksmash**

I'm confused as to how following someone is confronting them?

**Jihadin**

44 days till he arrested after the incident. Only after a "Special team" was created. Either Sanford Police are amateurs or it was a "legal" shooting. You know the 44 days coming up in court

Already Defense debunked the Prosecutions witnesses. I can't make the reach on him looking to shoot someone on proof of five phone calls at of 50 over a span of eight years.

**whembly**

Hulksmash wrote:
I'm confused as to how following someone is confronting them?

Because... it's harassment... or something.

**d-usa**

So all you wonderful people that have taken a CC course.

Don't even pretend to tell me that "somebody is following you in a car, then gets out of the car to follow you some more" would not be one of those scenarios that would raise a flag that something might be going down when talking about situation awareness?

What Zimmerman did is exactly the kind of behavior I was always told to watch out for in order to protect myself.

**Seaward**

d-usa wrote:
So all you wonderful people that have taken a CC course.

Don't even pretend to tell me that "somebody is following you in a car, then gets out of the car to follow you some more" would not be one of those scenarios that would raise a flag that something might be going down when talking about situation awareness?

What Zimmerman did is exactly the kind of behavior I was always told to watch out for in order to protect myself.

Absolutely true.

It's not advised against because it's illegal, though.

**d-usa**

Seaward wrote:
d-usa wrote:
So all you wonderful people that have taken a CC course.

Don't even pretend to tell me that "somebody is following you in a car, then gets out of the car to follow you some more" would not be one of those scenarios that would raise a flag that something might be going down when talking about situation awareness?

What Zimmerman did is exactly the kind of behavior I was always told to watch out for in order to protect myself.

Absolutely true.

It's not advised against because it's illegal, though.

Not illegal, that is true.

But if Zimmerman would be walking home from the store and Martin would have followed him in a car and then gotten out of his car to follow him some more, then I would have expected Z to already be mentally prepared to draw on a potential assailant. If M acted the same way as Z did, Z should have suspected that he was up to something. But often, things that we would find suspicious don't seem suspicious when we are the ones doing them.

He didn't do anything "wrong" by following M, but it helped create the situation they found themselves in.

**Jihadin**

Don't even pretend to tell me that "somebody is following you in a car, then gets out of the car to follow you some more" would not be one of those scenarios that would raise a flag that something might be going down when talking about situation awareness?

We don't give them a chance. If a vehicle moves up to the rear of the convoy going pretty fast we do one of the following;
1. Shoot pen flares at the vehicle
2. Throw water bottles
3. Laser light the windshield
4. Shoot the engine block
5. Pray its not a VIED and do nothing

If "followed" on patrol we turn around and apprehend the "teenager". After we're reasonably sure he was following us a good way. Then we can chalk it up to "suspected insurgent"

No if your referring to the case. As in a legal or illegal shoot. DO NOT reach for my holster weapon to start off with because I will shoot the weapon while in holster because your knee cap is right freaking there even if I have to twist a bit to the left to get the knee within range

**Breotan**

CptJake wrote:
MrDwhitey wrote:
No, he's making the assumption that Zimmerman pursued him.Which he did.
Until he lost track of Martin and went back towards his truck. Which he did, until confronted my a returned Martin.

The point is, Zimmerman should never have been there in the first place. The precipitating situation was created by Zimmerman and regardless of how the law winds up being interpreted, Martin is dead because of it. Let us not forget that Martin had broken NO law up to that point.

I'm a big gun rights guy but don't expect me to defend a person who buys himself a super-sized can of whoop-ass and then tries to claim self defense.

**LordofHats**

Ouze wrote:
You're saying that you don't see how Martin should have been in fear for his life while literally, 2 sentences ago, saying that Martin evaded a possibly dangerous situation.

Its also possible Martin feared that Zimmerman was approaching him directly and had found him. We don't really know. Only Zimmerman's word exists for what happened and whatever was going through Martin's head is lost. It's possible Martin was replying in a stereotypical gangsta thug reaction, simply attacking a man who he believed to be chasing him, but we can't really know.

Ultimately it still goes back to Zimmerman initiating the situation on an irrational basis and whether his actions constitute recklessness.

A man tracking and following you with a gun isn't a dangerous situation

Reread your own sentence and think about that for a few seconds.

It's not advised against because it's illegal, though.

That's what I think the court needs to decide though. The specific circumstances of the shooting are abnormal. I feel that what Zimmerman did should be illegal because he shouldn't be able to create a dangerous situation and then claim self defense after the fact, but I don't think what he did is specifically illegal. Its useful though for society to run the case through the courts and see if the current statutes cover what happened and if they need to be changed as a result.

Though now that I think of it, who wants to be money that Zimmerman is gonna get sued OJ style if he's acquitted XD

**Jihadin**

Hey if people think Z was brandishing that side arm in plain view the Jury might think that to. MISTRIAL

**whembly**

Guys... given what we know, is it enough to convict him of 2nd degree murder?

Remember second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as:

1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion"; or
2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life.

Second-degree murder may best be viewed as the middle ground between first-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter.

Florida's second degree murder statute:

In Florida, state laws establish several types of homicide, the unlawful killing of a human being. The state prosecutes homicides as murders and manslaughters -- it may be helpful to know the multiple types of murders established by state law and understand the differences among them. In particular, second degree murder lacks the premeditation often required for the prosecution of a first degree murder.

To prove second degree murder, a prosecutor must show that the defendant acted according to a "depraved mind" without regard for human life. Florida state laws permit the prosecution of second degree murder when the killing lacked premeditation or planning, but the defendant acted with enmity toward the victim or the two had an ongoing interaction or relationship. Unlike first degree murder, second degree murder does not necessarily require proof of the defendant's intent to kill.

State law specifically requires a charge of second degree murder if the victim dies during the commission of one of the felony crimes specified by statute. These felonies include burglary, home-invasion robbery, kidnapping, sexual battery, and a number of other offenses. To establish second degree murder, the prosecutor must show that the victim died as a result of an act committed by a non-participant in the felony. If the defendant or another criminal participant in the felony caused the unlawful killing, state law requires a charge of first degree murder rather than second degree murder. Florida uses this law to deter and punish unintended deaths as a result of felonious activities.

Defenses to Second Degree Murder Charges

-Justifiable use of deadly force to defend against a felony committed against a person or property
-Excusable homicide committed by accident
-Spontaneous or negligent killing that might qualify as manslaughter instead of murder

Penalties and Sentences
A second degree murder prosecuted as a first degree felony may result in a sentence of imprisonment for a term lasting up to thirty years. Florida laws also permit the state to request a term of life imprisonment. If the defendant has a prior record of felony convictions or has committed other homicides, the state may request an increased sentence of imprisonment for life.

Florida Second Degree Murder Statute
Florida Statutes Sections 782.02-782.36

**LordofHats**

Zimmerman's conduct leading up to his confrontation with Martin can be interpreted as fitting the statute. It's all about whether the Prosecution can prove Zimmerman's conduct was dangerous/reckless/depraved when he began to pursue Martin. Hence why the Prosecution wants his history of calling 911 admitted into evidence.

As an update on the testimony of the case that I'm loosely following:

Jane Surdyka another neighbor has testified that she saw the confrontation from her upstairs window, vaguely. She says she saw one man on top of the other and then three popping sounds. One man stood up and the other stayed on the ground. She's testified that she believes the "boy" was calling for help. This would back up the Prosecutions claim that Trayvon Martin can be heard calling for help in phone calls (this evidence was not allowed I think as the judge barred audio experts from testifying because they could not reach consensus on whether Zimmerman or Martin were calling for help). She's testified to hearing a confrontation before the fight broke out but was very unspecific about the events simply describing the 'man' as an aggressive voice yelling and the 'boy' as responding meekly.

Jeannee Manalo another neighbor has also testified to hearing cries for help but did not identify either Martin or Zimmerman as the voice. She also testified to hearing a verbal confrontation but did not specify either Martin or Zimmerman in any way.

Witnesses seem to disagree on who was on top of who. Two neighbors have testified to believing Zimmerman was on top of Martin and another to Martin being on top of Zimmerman.

**Jihadin**

Five 911 calls out of 50 over a span of eight years. That's a big leap

**whembly**

LordofHats wrote:
Zimmerman's conduct leading up to his confrontation with Martin can be interpreted as fitting the statute. It's all about whether the Prosecution can prove Zimmerman's conduct was dangerous/reckless/depraved when he began to pursue Martin. Hence why the Prosecution wants his history of calling 911 admitted into evidence.

Then the prosecution has a tall order.

**LordofHats**

Jihadin wrote:
Five 911 calls out of 50 over a span of eight years. That's a big leap

Not necessarily if those five bare a resemblance to Martin's case and the others do not as the prosecution has claimed (but of course as should be obvious by now I'm not a lawyer XD)