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.

**d-usa**

So the guy who followe the black kid has not a shred of responsibility?

**whembly**

d-usa wrote:
So the guy who followe the black kid has not a shred of responsibility?

What do you mean?

I believe it's just a bunch of unfortunate circumstances that led to Tayvon's death.

Do I think Zimmerman when full on KKK mode to skin some black kid? No...

Do I think Zimmerman is guilty of 2nd degree murder? Not based on the evidence so far...

Do I think Zimmerman could be charged under involuntary manslaugter? Absolutely. Z's defense from that is SYG.

**Rented Tritium**

sourclams wrote:
djones520 wrote:

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.

Uhh, what?

**d-usa**

whembly wrote:
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?

**djones520**

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.

**whembly**

Rented Tritium wrote:
sourclams wrote:
djones520 wrote:

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.

Uhh, what?

Yeah... not quite following you sourclam....

**d-usa**

djones520 wrote:
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 is what the jury is deciding now.

**daedalus**

sourclams wrote:

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.

It's not a racial thing. It's a "stupid" thing:

**Rented Tritium**

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.

**sourclams**

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.

**d-usa**

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?

**whembly**

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.

**Seaward**

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.

Guess what? They didn't.

**Monster Rain**

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.

**whembly**

Monster Rain wrote:
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.

**Rented Tritium**

whembly wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
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.

**d-usa**

So if you are being followed in the middle of the night you have no right to stand your ground and defend yourself?

**whembly**

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?

**daedalus**

whembly wrote:

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.

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**

whembly wrote:
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?

**whembly**

d-usa wrote:
whembly wrote:
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.

**d-usa**

daedalus wrote:
whembly wrote:

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.

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..

It's not exactly just a black thing:

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/12/video_homeless_man_beaten_in_w.html

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
d-usa wrote:
whembly wrote:
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.

**Seaward**

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.

**Monster Rain**

Seaward wrote:
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.

**Cypher-xv**

[quote
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?

**d-usa**

Monster Rain wrote:
Seaward wrote:
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.

**Seaward**

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.

**daedalus**

d-usa wrote:
daedalus wrote:
whembly wrote:

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.

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..

It's not exactly just a black thing:

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/12/video_homeless_man_beaten_in_w.html

Never said it was. "Scumbag" is a hobby that transcends race.

Link is really appalling though. :(

**KalashnikovMarine**

As a side note to the trial check out the class act the local PD are!

http://blogs.militarytimes.com/battle-rattle/2013/07/01/navy-cross-recipient-jeremiah-workman-questions-cops-ribbons-in-trayvon-martin-case/

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.

**Monster Rain**

d-usa wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
Seaward wrote:
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.