Zimmerman/Martin Jury

[Gameface]

Amoung other things. For example people saying it is Martins voice on the recording (his mom and friend). Well Zimmermans mom and best friend say it is Zimmerman's voice. So that is a wash.

Martin's best friend (prosecution witness), from what I have read, was a horrible witness. The defense shredded her.

Forensic expert saying that the shot was while zimmerman was on his back casts doubt on Martin being the one bottom and hence the attacker.

I think even manslaughter is questionable to be honest. Up until the point of conflict, fight and death of Martin no one did anything that had broken the law. Zimmerman getting out and confronting Martin is not against the law, Zimmerm/Martin hating the other due to skin tone is not against the law(as implied) and running from some guy following you is not against the law.

Also you can not double try for the same crime correct? So if Zimmerman walks, and I will be stunned if he doesn't, they cannot charge him with manslaughter correct?

I'd like clarification on that also. But what I'm wondering is if the jury has the option to convict of Manslaughter in this trial? If they don't was that the prosecutors decision or is it not an option if you go for 2nd to also go for manslaughter? I guess you might not want to give the jury the option of the lessor charge to pressure them to find him guilty of the greater charge? If they passed on the option of manslaughter I think they really messed up.

 

[candrew]

That cuts both ways. Zimmerman was, in his own mind, protecting his neighborhood. Zimmerman wasn't "doing anything wrong" either.

I should have prefaced my comments with the fact that other than the headlines I haven't really been following the trial and don't plan to. I have no formed opinion as to whether or not Zimmerman is guilty or innocent relative to the charges against him. All I was saying is at the end of the day some kid got killed for no good reason. No matter what happens, Zimmerman will carry that with him the rest of his life.

 

[Stoked]

People keep bringing up the rain, but I have no idea why that's relevant. It's not like humans melt in the rain and aren't capable of walking in it.

Depending on the intensity of the storm it can limit visibility, especially at night. Increases the chance of misjudging what you are seeing. Just creating the scenario.

 

[Nate505]

Depending on the intensity of the storm it can limit visibility, especially at night. Increases the chance of misjudging what you are seeing. Just creating the scenario.

Oh ok, I see what you're saying, that the rain clouded whether he realized he was following a kid.

I thought it was the narrative that I've seen (not by you I think but by others) that Martin walking in the rain is enough to make him suspicious. That's what bothers me the most about this case, is that while it was in a gated community it was in a gated community with many houses (and thus the potential for many visitors) and thus someone walking around the public areas shouldn't be an issue. Though the fact he was walking in the rain all of a sudden is a concern for some people, and that I just don't understand (that was Zimmerman's main complaint, and that he looked like he was "on drugs" even though only an extremely minimal amount of THC was found in Martin's system...kind of like saying I'm possessing cocaine because 80% of our paper currency contains it in some amount).

 

[Coloradojazzfan]

If the prosecution submits an alternative charge of manslaughter and then there is a hung-jury on the 2nd degree charge, then the case will be retried on the manslaughter conviction. If the jury unanimously dismisses the 2nd degree murder charge, then Zimmerman will not be convicted of either the manslaughter OR the 2nd degree charges and that's that.

This is my understanding after listening to some talking heads.

 

[franklin]

Wasn't this tried incorrectly? Which maybe the prosecutions downfall. There is no evidence to support the theory than Zimmerman didn't get attacked.
All the evidence against him was that his stupid actions, knowledge that he was a child, overzealous, and possibly prejudice(not even against blacks but against any kids up to no good, whoever "they" was in they always get away). He lied about why he left the car. It wasn't to obtain an address, it was after he told the non emergency number martin was running. Flat out he didn't have to get out of his car, and shouldn't of.

They should have went after manslaughter to begin with. That is what he is guilty of. His stupid actions were partly to blame for Martin dying.

I'm wondering if at any single instance you've considered Zimmerman's side of the case. You were against him since before any facts were known, against him now.

Also, overselling "stupid actions" and pounding it over and over obviously isn't convincing anyone (even though most have admitted this as a definite possibility). I'm very uncomfortable with him following the kid, but I'm not comfortable blaming him for following at a safe distance and getting jumped.

It's my opinion he acted irresponsibly by packing a gun and going solo on neighborhood watch. Not teaming up is just plane stupid for anyone without a badge and license to control or kill aggressors. It's stupid to follow kids around, unless it was like 1 a.m. or something... However, he tried to do the right thing, allegedly, by following at a safe distance and phoning the police. That alone tells me he wasn't going all John Wayne and had his mind in the right place.

 

[franklin]

The next is an example to the pro-gun crowd (of which I am a member). I've read a bit on gun related websites. I always found it highly distasteful to hear people excitedly talking about what they'd do if they were in a situation in which, in their eyes, lethal force was justified. One common notion was that if you do deploy your firearm in "self-defense" you should absolutely shoot the person until they're dead because otherwise they could testify against you and possibly take you to civil court for damages. That's plain disgusting. Another popular phrase was "two in the chest, one in the head" which is basically saying the same thing as shoot them 'till they're dead. Well, take a look at Zimmerman. He's living the lethal force/self-defense dream and it doesn't look very appealing to me. Deploying and using our privately owned firearms is not something any of us should be looking for opportunities to do. If there are other options we should do everything we can to make those other options work. If someone is about to make it out your window with your blu-ray player...let them go. The real life consequences of taking a life are not fun and will not be easy and will follow you for the rest of your life.

Excellent, excellent post all around, but I want to point out this part in particular. If I were ever in the horrible position to have to shoot someone and down them but not kill, I don't see how I "finish the job" to avoid legal repercussions. I get there are instances where you would, but it wouldn't be my desired first choice.

Also, defending my castle is about my family. If I were to wake up to someone robbing me, I wouldn't be interested in my possessions one bit at the moment, and wouldn't be crushed much over anything stolen outside of pictures.

 

[Stoked]

CNN is reporting that the Jury can consider manslaughter. That is a hit to Zimmerman.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

I'm wondering if at any single instance you've considered Zimmerman's side of the case. You were against him since before any facts were known, against him now.

Also, overselling "stupid actions" and pounding it over and over obviously isn't convincing anyone (even though most have admitted this as a definite possibility). I'm very uncomfortable with him following the kid, but I'm not comfortable blaming him for following at a safe distance and getting jumped.

It's my opinion he acted irresponsibly by packing a gun and going solo on neighborhood watch. Not teaming up is just plane stupid for anyone without a badge and license to control or kill aggressors. It's stupid to follow kids around, unless it was like 1 a.m. or something... However, he tried to do the right thing, allegedly, by following at a safe distance and phoning the police. That alone tells me he wasn't going all John Wayne and had his mind in the right place.

But we don't know if he was following at a safe distance, do we? All we have is Zimmerman's word on it, correct or incorrect?

I'm personally glad that the prosecution was allowed to introduce the lesser charges--I never felt comfortable with the second degree murder charge and felt it would be very difficult to prove (plus my reading of what happened makes me think it is far too severe a charge). I would like to have seen the manslaughter charge from the beginning. I have no dog in this fight, and whether Zimmerman is convicted or acquitted is a matter of indifference to me. I just wish to high heaven that Zimmerman would have demonstrated better judgment that night so that this whole horrible tragedy would have been avoided. If, however, it leads to a reconsideration and repeal of the asinine 'stand your ground' laws, then perhaps something good can come of this, though I don't think this likely.

 

[Stoked]

But we don't know if he was following at a safe distance, do we? All we have is Zimmerman's word on it, correct or incorrect?

I'm personally glad that the prosecution was allowed to introduce the lesser charges--I never felt comfortable with the second degree murder charge and felt it would be very difficult to prove (plus my reading of what happened makes me think it is far too severe a charge). I would like to have seen the manslaughter charge from the beginning. I have no dog in this fight, and whether Zimmerman is convicted or acquitted is a matter of indifference to me. I just wish to high heaven that Zimmerman would have demonstrated better judgment that night so that this whole horrible tragedy would have been avoided. If, however, it leads to a reconsideration and repeal of the asinine 'stand your ground' laws, then perhaps something good can come of this, though I don't think this likely.

The law itself is a good idea in principle.

 

[franklin]

But we don't know if he was following at a safe distance, do we? All we have is Zimmerman's word on it, correct or incorrect?

Is anyone claiming otherwise?

I'm personally glad that the prosecution was allowed to introduce the lesser charges--I never felt comfortable with the second degree murder charge and felt it would be very difficult to prove (plus my reading of what happened makes me think it is far too severe a charge). I would like to have seen the manslaughter charge from the beginning. I have no dog in this fight, and whether Zimmerman is convicted or acquitted is a matter of indifference to me. I just wish to high heaven that Zimmerman would have demonstrated better judgment that night so that this whole horrible tragedy would have been avoided. If, however, it leads to a reconsideration and repeal of the asinine 'stand your ground' laws, then perhaps something good can come of this, though I don't think this likely.

What does stand your ground law have to do with a case where a guy is allegedly on his back, getting beaten to death, and unable to retreat?

Anyway, "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife" Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. said it well enough for me. The desire of some to place blame upon the victim instead of the aggressor is beyond belief to me. Repealing SYG is as silly as blaming rape on the immodesty of the girl.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Is anyone claiming otherwise?

I don't know, that's why I'm asking. From what I've seen, all we have is Zimmerman's account of what happened. I don't know if he's a liar or if he's lying, but I do know that he has strong incentive to lie in this case. I am highly skeptical of anything he says, although absent other evidence that contradicts it, I'm not sure what else we can do.

What does stand your ground law have to do with a case where a guy is allegedly on his back, getting beaten to death, and unable to retreat?

Given that explaining his conduct under SYG law is (or at one point was) a part of Zimmerman's defense narrative, I think it has a great deal to do with the case.

We've hashed this out before, but IF Zimmerman was indeed on his back getting beaten to death, we don't know if he did anything to provoke it. For all we know, he initiative the conflict and Martin was defending himself force for force. Don't pretend we actually know what happened. We don't. (See point above.)

Anyway, "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife" Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. said it well enough for me. The desire of some to place blame upon the victim instead of the aggressor is beyond belief to me. Repealing SYG is as silly as blaming rape on the immodesty of the girl.

The Holmes quote is contextually relevant IF Martin assaulted Zimmerman unprovoked. But again, we don't know if that's the case. (See above.)

Your analogy about rape is poorly conceived. There is no circumstance under which a girl can 'provoke' rape. There are plenty of circumstances under which someone may justifiably meet force with force, or with threatened/perceived force, or defend him/her self if threatened (this applies to both Martin and Zimmerman). But again, we don't know what really happened. (See above.) More, the SYG law in Florida justifies deadly force in certain cases, which is why the Zimmerman defense team is invoking it as part of its defense. There are no laws I'm aware of in the US that justify rape in certain cases.