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**

Crimson wrote:
whembly wrote:

They were NOT.

Apparently this is from jury instructions.

I know that SYG was not actually used as defence by Zimmerman.

Edit:

It might have been to simply show that Zimmerman had a right to be out of his car in the same area as somebody suspicious, or something like that.

**whembly**

Crimson wrote:
That is just your (and Fox New's) version of what is happening. You cannot know their motivations for this. Why did you trust that the jury and the judge in the criminal case acted fairly and impartially, but do not trust DoJ to do the same?

Lay off the generalization there brah (the foxnews bit).

The Justice System is a separate entity and LARGELY isolated from political pressure.

The DOJ is part of the Execute Branch headed by a political appointee (via Presidential Appointments). If you paid any attention to the shenanigans the DoJ has done, you'd understand our point-of-view of having a healthy dose of skepticism whatever the current DoJ is doing...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Crimson wrote:
whembly wrote:

They were NOT.

Apparently this is from jury instructions.

I know that SYG was not actually used as defence by Zimmerman.

That was from the Judge.

Yes, the defense didn't use it. (I was getting the two mixed up briefly). And it is interesting that the instructions has the reference, but the defense did invoke it.

**Crimson**

whembly wrote:

Eh... give him a break. Who know's what news he get overseas and how it's filtered/analyzed.

I can read all the same news sites as you guys. Granted, I've not been following how this has been covered in American television.

Also, I've read commentary on this on several forums, not only on Dakka. Reactions here are way more understanding and even supportive of the verdict than they have been on certain other places.

**Jihadin**

Only thing I can see from Holder side of the fence is to "go along" with looking for any Civil Right violation (while actually not doing a "do or die" search for evidence). DoJ looks bad enough as it is but to take Z to trial after Sanford PD and the FBI investigation didn't come up with any hate or civil right violation would be quite a "up a mountain" battle.
General public scream bloody hell for wasting tax payer money if they do try. Then I can see it being mention that the government wouldn't do the same if a Caucasian was opted out by a African American since its not consider a civil rights violation or something way off the mark.

Bit more on CPT. Carter

Spoiler:

I almost couldn’t believe what I saw happen today in the courtroom.

Maybe I’m the only one who saw it this way, but when George Zimmerman’s former college criminal law instructor was called as a witness for the prosecution this morning, he was ostensibly supposed to give testimony that the state could use to help convict the accused of being a murderer–instead, U.S. Army JAG corps officer and attorney Alexis Carter basically, glibly, unabashedly sent trans-racial “dog-whistle code” to acquit and absolve his former student, right there in front of the jury and everybody.

Captain Carter did something which completely surprised me, and told me and anyone else who heard the whistle: This is a good guy, and he’s no murderer.

A rather dark-skinned, well-dressed black man, Carter presented a very relaxed, amiable demeanor as his testimony got underway. After spending awhile answering probative questions from the prosecutor about his professional background and the criminal litigation course he taught to Zimmerman at Seminole State College, he was asked if he saw Zimmerman there in the courtroom.

Carter’s face immediately began to break into a broad grin as he said “Yes,” and turned to look in the direction of where Zimmerman sat at the defense table. He didn’t even try to conceal his warm affection for his former student as he waved his hand at Zimmerman and greeted him, cutting right through the stuffiness and formality of the proceedings, saying “How ya doin,’ George!”

Translation: I know the Law, I teach the Law; George is my man, and he’s innocent. I vouch for him. Let him go!

In reaction, for the first time since the trial got underway, Zimmerman (who had stood up from his seat in order to be identified by the witness, as is the protocol) was visibly moved by the message sent, and displayed affection in kind–evidence of the special sort of relationship that can develop between student and teacher. His own face showed joy and relief, albeit somewhat forcibly suppressed for the sake of trying to stick to poker-faced decorum, as he fought to suppress his own grin by keeping his briefly smiling lips sealed tightly and contain his realization that his friend, Justice, had just made its principled presence felt. His entire countenance was momentarily awash with relief.

Carter then proceeded to describe further the course contents of criminal procedure which he had transmitted to Zimmerman. Asked in detail about legal theory applied in the state of Florida concerning justifiable use of deadly force as course material, Carter confirmed that Zimmerman not only had been instructed in things like “castle doctrine” and the newer “stand-your-ground” law, but that George had been one of his better, brighter students, and had earned an A in the class.

As the prosecuting attorney went on, querying Carter on a particular aspect of using deadly force in self defense, Carter’s wry, deadpan answer caused most of the courtroom to break into laughter. The live TV camera didn’t miss George joining in the mirth shared among those in attendance, as this time he actually dared let his teeth show for a moment as he fought back a broad grin and a hearty chuckle. Malik Zulu Shabazz must have been throwing furniture at his TV screen.

The intended tactic by the prosecution this morning was to try to show Zimmerman to be a vindictive, power-lusting, frustrated wannabe-cop who not only took the law into his own hands, but used his knowledge of legal theory to carefully craft a huge lie in order to conceal his murderous shooting of the angelic Trayvon Martin.

As with virtually every other witness in this horrible miscarriage of a kangaroo court, the state’s agenda again blew up in their faces–because it should have. Because their agenda is based not on deliberately investigating true probable cause of wrongdoing, but on sacrificing some unfortunate, barely-white-enough neighborhood watch volunteer with a European name, in the interest of malicious racial pandering and politics.

Edit

Captain Alexis Carter: “The fact that there were injuries, have a tendency to show, or support, the individual would feel that there was a ‘reasonable apprehension of fear’, but the fact that there wasn’t an injury at all doesn’t necessarily support that there was not an apprehension of fear”.

Don West - Question: “So,… you don’t have to wait until your almost dead in order to defend yourself”..

Carter - Answer: “No,.. oh no, I would advise… you probably don’t do that”.

Epic....

**cincydooley**

Hey Jihadin - I'm actually going to be getting my CCW soon and am looking at carries. I've got my eyes on the beretta px4 storm compact in 40. Thoughts?

**Jihadin**

What's comfortable in your hand? Which grip can you fully wrap your hand around? The 9mm or .40? Does both grips have removable "grip"? What's your ideal situation if you have to use? What's the worst situation you can think of to use? What type of area are you mostly in? Are you 110% capable of doing one shot to put down the target or multiple rounds to ensure you put down the target?

Before you start throwing answers back at me..

I will not talk you out of owning a weapon. Nor will I advocate for you to own a weapon.
I really want you and I'm dead serious understand Escalation of Force to Deadly Force not "what you think it entails"
I also want you to fully understand that once you squeeze that trigger to remove the human threat your life will change.
I also would like you to seriously do a gut check along with the mental check off are you capable to think, reason, and remain calm with your hand on the weapon while still in a holster while you assess the situation. As in not drawing the weapon and taking it to the next step.

I'm one of the very few on Dakka that has fired back in anger.
I'm one of the very few on Dakka that has combined fire with others to bring down a threat.
I'm one of the very few to have eyeball to eyeball contact with a threat as he opts out.

Me personally I go with the 40 being I want stopping power. Hollow point because I do not want my round to go though and hit someone else. I have never used my 9mm in actual combat. I do not like (possible) when I have to pump a bunch of rounds into a threat making me lose "Situational Awareness"

No PM's keep this open
1. It'll make people think I'm more of a murderer like its mention in my sig made at me
2. Maybe help educate a few more if they're looking to purchase a side arm for either shiats and grins or actual protection

**Crimson**

While Jihadin's response was actually really excellent in itself, could you people take this personal weapon discussion elsewhere? It seems rather distasteful her considering the topic of the thread.

**cincydooley**

I have a sig2022 that I quite like, but its basically a full sized and if I'm going to carry, I'd like it to be a bit smaller. I actually like the 226 a lot, but its a bit more than I want to spend. The 250 compact is closer to what I'm looking to spend, but I don't know much about it. I've fired the Springfield XDS and I'm not a fan of the grip. Same goes for the glock 22. I don't hate the M&P, but I really like how the storm fits my hand

Ideally, I'll only be carrying when we go out to some of the gentrified hood areas in Cincy. There's a lot of walking that goes on, and its not that well lit or safe in all of them. Ideally I'll never have to use it in that capacity, but you know.

Presently, I shoot typically once a week. I usually put 100 rounds through my sig and another 200-300 thru my beretta neos (22). I can consistently get 3" groupings with the sig and 2" with the neos. It's important for me to go regularly so I am comfortable firing them consistently.

Mentally, I like to think I'm perfectly capable of making rational decisions, but I imagine things aways change when the event happens. I've successfully pulled a drowning kid out of a lake and administered CPR (I renew my certification for that every year), so I like to at least pretend I can maintain a cool countenance under pressure.

I was just curious if you had any practical experience with a producer or particular sidearm you'd found particularly reliable. :-). Cheers.

**Jihadin**

Why distasteful. That JAG instructor would have said the same thing or similar in the class that Z took. Same that is taught me while in the military. Same as taking initiative. Z took the initiative to follow TM. A bad call but he did. A confrontation happen. Z took a beaten. TM says "Someone going to die tonight" when the weapon was exposed. TM is now dead.

He claimed SYG there

He did not use SYG during court
CAPT. Carter literally told Prosecution Zimmerman was in the right for self defense

Not Guilty for 2nd degree.
Not Guilty for Manslaughter.

Yet you Crimson still wants him put in jail. Why? Because he killed someone in Self Defense that he should automatically get the Manslaughter charge? If we start convicting people on manslaughter charges when defending themselves from actual bodily harm or death itself then the law failed us. Like I mention on the Manslaughter rant. I see you Crimson getting the crap beat out of you. I will not assist. I will not risk jail unless its my butt on the line.

edit
Right now Z is mentally screwed in the head. He probably is on Antivan, Celexa, and probably Xanax to till the Celexa is built up in his system. He coming to grips that he himself killed a young adult. He also coming to grips with how easy it was to opt M out.

**Crimson**

That self defence defence is bs. Zimmerman provoked the confrontation and then used excessive force. His story is implausible and kept changing. He refused to testify tso that shakiness of his account wouldn't be blatantly exposed. On tape we hear Martin screaming in horror when Zimmerman pulls his gun. At that point, at least, Zimmerman was no longer in danger. He didn't have to shoot.

And Cincudooley discussing what kind of gun he is going to carry in shady neighbourhood is massively disrespectful in this thread.

**Seaward**

Crimson wrote:
That self defence defence is bs. Zimmerman provoked the confrontation and then used excessive force. His story is implausible and kept changing. He refused to testify tso that shakiness of his account wouldn't be blatantly exposed. On tape we hear Martin screaming in horror when Zimmerman pulls his gun. At that point, at least, Zimmerman was no longer in danger. He didn't have to shoot.

This is some of the most hilariously uninformed gak I've ever read on Dakka, and that's saying something.

Zimmerman's story was so consistent the police investigators testified on the stand that they believed him to be truthful. It was so consistent he told it six different times before even getting a lawyer, including once when it was videotaped. It continues, even now, to match eye witness testimony.

We don't hear Martin "screaming in horror" while Zimmerman pulls his gun. Eye witnesses testified it was Zimmerman screaming. The screaming for help went on for quite some time; unless you're saying that Zimmerman pulled his gun, and Martin then screamed for 45 seconds before Zimmerman actually shot him, you're out of your fething mind.

Seriously, if you want to wade hip-deep into a discussion of this case, it might behoove you to actually learn something about it before commenting it, especially as the trial's been held and all the evidence is pretty easy to get ahold of. Jesus.

**Jihadin**

That self defence defence is bs. Zimmerman provoked the confrontation and then used excessive force. His story is implausible and kept changing. He refused to testify tso that shakiness of his account wouldn't be blatantly exposed. On tape we hear Martin screaming in horror when Zimmerman pulls his gun. At that point, at least, Zimmerman was no longer in danger. He didn't have to shoot.

Alrighty now
Zimmerman account of the incident jived with what prosecution witness's gave out.
-Detective Serino agreed that Zimmerman account did not change but stayed consistent
-The female LEO Officer agreed the same
-Injuries on Z right after the fight. None of TM but a bullet hole in the chest
-How many walk through did he do on TV with detectives. Also interviews on TV. So he pretty much already gave his testimony.
-Zimmerman pulled his weapon while TM was over him. DO believe it was mention that T went for the weapon while in holster.
-If your both struggling for the weapon then both are in danger. TM was over Zimmerman when the shot went off. The powder burns were on his cloths that was hanging off him hence there were hardly trace powder burn on TM skin.
-Zimmerman was on his back with no where to go.

Now ask yourself this. Are you letting your emotions convict Zimmerman? Is there evidence you think Prosecution didn't use to show Z committed 2nd degree and/or manslaughter.

Also ask yourself. Why did Prosecution not turn over evidence in Martin cell phone?

Do you not accept the fact that Sanford PD and the FBI did not find any evidence linking to a "Hate Crime" or a "Civil Right" violation?

Do you think its fair after the jurors came down with the two not guilty verdict that DoJ going to take a turn at possibly going to trial with Zimmerman?

What part of Zimmerman Self Defense you think he is lying about or changing?

How much of the trial have you watch?

edit

And Cincudooley discussing what kind of gun he is going to carry in shady neighbourhood is massively disrespectful in this thread.

Then you best put me on ignore because I have killed people who are darker skinned then me.
Write this down Dakka. Today I have admitted to actual using the word "killed" instead of my opting out analog

**Rotgut**

Crimson wrote:
That self defence defence is bs. Zimmerman provoked the confrontation and then used excessive force. His story is implausible and kept changing. He refused to testify tso that shakiness of his account wouldn't be blatantly exposed. On tape we hear Martin screaming in horror when Zimmerman pulls his gun. At that point, at least, Zimmerman was no longer in danger. He didn't have to shoot.

And Cincudooley discussing what kind of gun he is going to carry in shady neighbourhood is massively disrespectful in this thread.

I thought you were just ignorant of the case and laws here but after the last few pages I can say I believe your just trolling. Well, have fun with that, what I can't see won't hurt me eh?

**DeathReaper**

Crimson wrote:
That self defence defence is bs. Zimmerman provoked the confrontation and then used excessive force. His story is implausible and kept changing. He refused to testify tso that shakiness of his account wouldn't be blatantly exposed. On tape we hear Martin screaming in horror when Zimmerman pulls his gun. At that point, at least, Zimmerman was no longer in danger. He didn't have to shoot.

Have you ever been in that position?

Have you ever had people threatening your life, and had to shoot back?

It is not something I would wish on anyone, and you do not know the full situation, none of us do for certain. You do not know how George Zimmerman felt at the time he was having his head slammed into the ground causing it to bleed.

He was given a verdict of Not Guilty, and I would like to think that the court and legal system did its best to sort the case out in accordance with the laws of the land.

Martin did not have to initiate the attack. if he did not initiate he would still be alive today. Therefore the "self defence defence" is not "BS" The tape is not 100% clear, we can not tell who is screaming on the tape.

And Cincudooley discussing what kind of gun he is going to carry in shady neighbourhood is massively disrespectful in this thread.

Owning a gun is the right of every citizen of the United States of America. This is fact.

It is not Disrespectful to discuss gun ownership for the purposes of personal protection in a thread about a case that had Self Defense at its core...

**Jihadin**

And now God is involved....

An Ivy League professor blogged after George Zimmerman was found not guilty of murdering Trayvon Martin that the verdict shows God is a “white racist” who stalks “young black men.”

Anthea Butler, an associate professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Department of Religious Studies, made the unusual comments in a blog post released on Monday on ReligionDispatches.org, where she is a regular contributor.

“God ain’t good all of the time. In fact, sometimes, God is not for us,” she wrote in the post. “As a black woman in an [sic] nation that has taken too many pains to remind me that I am not a white man, and am not capable of taking care of my reproductive rights, or my voting rights, I know that this American god ain’t my god.

“As a matter of fact, I think he’s a white racist god with a problem. More importantly, he is carrying a gun and stalking young black men,” she added.

Butler adds that Trayvon Martin’s killing was the result of racism that was influenced by Christianity.

“As a historian of American and African-American religion, I know that the Trayvon Martin moment is just one moment in a history of racism in America that, in large part, has its underpinnings in Christianity and its history,” she wrote. “Those of us who teach American Religion have a responsibility to tell all of the story, not just the nice touchy-feely parts.”

“When the good Christians of America are some of its biggest racists, one has to consider our moral responsibility to call out those who clearly are not for human flourishing, no matter what ethnicity a person is. Where are you on that scale? I know where I am.”

According to her biography, Butler holds doctorate and masters degrees in religion from Vanderbilt University as well as a masters in theology from Fuller Theological Seminary. She is the author of a 2007 book titled "Women in the Church of God in Christ, Making A Sanctified World," published by University of North Carolina Press.

Butler, who did not respond to requests for comment, is also an associate chair for the school's religious studies department and is a regular contributor and guest on both MSNBC and CNN.

Josiah Ryan, editor-in-chief of Campus Reform, which first reported Butler's comments, said the professor's reaction to the verdict was bizarre.

"No amount of heartbreak over the Zimmerman acquittal justifies these hateful posts," Ryan said. "Professor Butler's remarks were clearly designed to hurt when Americans needed healing and to divide when we needed unity.”

"In tumultuous times students must be able turn to their professors for calm and wisdom. In stoking the flames of hatred, Professor Butler has betrayed her students' trust. UPenn administrators ought not to allow her back in the classroom."

Officials for the University of Pennsylvania declined to comment.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/16/upenn-professor-goes-on-blog-rant-over-zimmerman-verdict-claims-god-is-white/#ixzz2ZHaWrW6w

**Crimson**

Zimmerman's defence relies us believing his account of events. I don't believe Martin attacked him. Zimmerman was determined to stop the 'suspect.' He stalked Martin and accosted him trying to unlawfully detain him. This provoked the conflict. And yes, Martin was beating Zimmerman (witnesses disagree who was on top and who was screaming help.) But it is totally absurd standard of self defence if you can stalk someone, provoke a fight, and when it turns out that the other guy is better at fighting back than you assumed shoot them. And Zimmerman was not even in danger of being killed. He refused to go to hospital and even one of the police investigators testified that his story of being slammed against concrete didn't fit the evidence.

And it is funny how many of you seem to think my stance is unbelievable or even rolling. I' reading a thread on the matter on another forum, and there your views would be similarly received.

**Mr Hyena**

In any case, if this leads getting rid of SYG, that is great.

I don't see that being a good thing unless cops can actually RESPOND to confrontations/disturbances in at least the same amount of time it takes to pull a gun out.

**d-usa**

Crimson wrote:
Zimmerman's defence relies us believing his account of events. I don't believe Martin attacked him. Zimmerman was determined to stop the 'suspect.' He stalked Martin and accosted him trying to unlawfully detain him. This provoked the conflict. And yes, Martin was beating Zimmerman (witnesses disagree who was on top and who was screaming help.) But it is totally absurd standard of self defence if you can stalk someone, provoke a fight, and when it turns out that the other guy is better at fighting back than you assumed shoot them. And Zimmerman was not even in danger of being killed. He refused to go to hospital and even one of the police investigators testified that his story of being slammed against concrete didn't fit the evidence.

And it is funny how many of you seem to think my stance is unbelievable or even rolling. I' reading a thread on the matter on another forum, and there your views would be similarly received.

But the prosecution was unable to prove that Zimmerman started it. That doesn't mean that the jury believed Zimmerman's account, it just means that the prosecution couldn't prove that he lied.

**Crimson**

Mr Hyena wrote:
In any case, if this leads getting rid of SYG, that is great.

I don't see that being a good thing unless cops can actually RESPOND to confrontations/disturbances in at least the same amount of time it takes to pull a gun out.

Or you could just flee, instead of shooting people dead. And if you can't then it wasn't SYG case to begin with.

**Seaward**

And there was exactly zero disagreement as to who was on top of the struggle. The one witness who testified it was Zimmerman admitted she simply saw the "bigger" guy on top and concluded that it was Zimmerman from photos she saw on the news. Martin was considerably bigger than Zimmerman, and that changed her opinion of who was on top, as she revealed under cross.

**Crimson**

d-usa wrote:

But the prosecution was unable to prove that Zimmerman started it. That doesn't mean that the jury believed Zimmerman's account, it just means that the prosecution couldn't prove that he lied.

Which actually is where the problem seems to be with Florida law. In most places self defence is affirmative defence ie. you have to show that there actually was reason for you to fear for your life. If Florida the prosecutor have to show beyond reasonable doubt that you didn't. If you're the only one living to tell the story this is pretty damn difficult.

**reds8n**

I think this topic is all worked out now.