• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

George Zimmerman (killer of unarmed Florida teen Trayvon Martin) found not guilty

Status
Not open for further replies.
Daingurse said:
It's frustrating how inarticulate she is, but a lot of it is nerves. It is what is, I've known people with similar vernacular. However, she does come across as genuine.
Click to expand...

I think the defense's tendency to read her quotes in the vernacular is very rhetorically powerful, though. It almost implicitly tells the jury "look at how dumb she is; why would you believe anything she tells you?"
 
Zimmerman says Trayvon said "you got me." Which contradicted his statement that he got on top of Trayvon after the shot cause he wasn't sure he shot him...
 
dream said:
I think the defense's tendency to read her quotes in the vernacular is very rhetorically powerful, though. It almost implicitly tells the jury "look at how dumb she is; why would you believe anything she tells you?"
Click to expand...

The content of her quote was that she was unsure if the yelling was coming from Martin, when on the stand she said it WAS Martin. I think that was more of the point...
 
Zimmerman will walk, the freaking President made a comment on national telivision about this case. That alone is enough to argue that he cannot be given a fair trail.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
Zimmerman will walk, the freaking President made a comment on national telivision about this case. That alone is enough to argue that he cannot be given a fair trail.
Click to expand...

He didn't make a comment. He answered a question given by a reporter. Ridiculous that people think Obama politicized the issue.
 
She should have given the impression that she WANTS to be there to give Trayvon justice, instead of 'I'm here because I have to be.'

Also, apparently she called herself TM's GF at one point in an interview, which is where the title originated. Did anybody else get that? I think I may have misheard, but she seemed a bit embarrassed at that line of questioning and refused to give a clear statement when she was asked about that.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
Zimmerman will walk, the freaking President made a comment on national telivision about this case. That alone is enough to argue that he cannot be given a fair trail.
Click to expand...

I'm sure if they didn't know about this case beforehand, the President mentioning it once wasn't enough to grab their attention...
 
What she said:

5:11 p.m. ET: West reads part of the transcript where Jeantel is asked if the voice in the background of the 911 call belongs to Martin: "It could be. Like I said, I don't know but it could be. The dude sound kind of like Trayvon. Trayvon do got that soft voice and that baby voice sometimes, so it could be, I don't know." Jeantel admits she said that in the deposition.
Click to expand...

'It could be' and 'I don't know' make it a relatively meaningless statement that absolutely favors the defense.
 
GaimeGuy said:
All the details being argued over (who was on top, who threw the first punch, whether or not the fight was on grass, whether zimmerman was following trayvon or returning to his car) and the attacks on witness credibility, it's a dog and pony show that's just meant to confuse everyone and muddy the waters. The gaps are hazy, but it seems like Trayvon was under assault, and that at no point did Zimmerman attempt to identify himself to Trayvon and diffuse the situation, meaning that Trayvon was still, legally, under assault when the physical violence broke out, and if he was being assaulted, then there is no way, shape, or form, that zimmerman has a right to self-defense. In fact, it is Trayvon, not Zimmerman, who can defend himself here, so Trayvon would legally have the right to throw the first punch, or to pummel zimmerman to his death.

This trial is full of red herrings.
Click to expand...

I've underlined the problematic portions of your argument. I'm sorry, but this reasoning is completely wrong.

(1) We don't know whether Zimmerman assaulted Martin (or vice versa). An assault is an intentional act causing reasonable apprehension of imminent bodily harm or contact in another. There is no substantive evidence that either individual assaulted the other.

(2) Zimmerman was under no obligation to identify himself or defuse the situation. Technically and legally, he was driving down the same public road as Martin, and walking down the same public street.

(3) Martin does not have the "right to throw the first punch" or "pummel Zimmerman to death." Someone under attack is allowed to use the amount of force a reasonable person would have thought necessary to defend themselves in like situation.

This entire case hinges upon whether Martin grabbed/hit/punched Zimmerman first or not, or if Zimmerman was the first to grab/hit/punch, did Zimmerman exercise his duty to retreat.
 
Sayter said:
I see. Couldn't the defense lawyers raise the issue of destroying evidence after the fact?
Click to expand...

I don't know if it would constitute evidence? She's scrubbing her public image, not hiding information pertaining to the case - unless her entire life is now potential evidence.
 
GaimeGuy said:
because there's nothing to suggest that zimmerman identified himself to trayvon or that trayvon had any reason to beleive he WASN'T in danger.

All the details being argued over (who was on top, who threw the first punch, whether or not the fight was on grass, whether zimmerman was following trayvon or returning to his car) and the attacks on witness credibility, it's a dog and pony show that's just meant to confuse everyone and muddy the waters. The gaps are hazy, but it seems like Trayvon was under assault, and that at no point did Zimmerman attempt to identify himself to Trayvon and diffuse the situation, meaning that Trayvon was still, legally, under assault when the physical violence broke out, and if he was being assaulted, then there is no way, shape, or form, that zimmerman has a right to self-defense. In fact, it is Trayvon, not Zimmerman, who can defend himself here, so Trayvon would legally have the right to throw the first punch, or to pummel zimmerman to his death.

This trial is full of red herrings.
Click to expand...

No, actually, a lot of that is legally relevant, even though you wish it weren't. This post is mostly nonsense. "Legally under assault?"
 
GaimeGuy said:
How can people not put themselves in Trayvon's shoes?
Click to expand...

If I put myself in Trayvon's shoes, knowing what I know of the timeline and the layout of the area, I can't see myself in any position other than behind my locked front door before Zimmerman even gets off the phone with non emergency.
 
Nightstick11 said:
This entire case hinges upon whether Martin grabbed/hit/punched Zimmerman first or not, or if Zimmerman was the first to grab/hit/punch, did Zimmerman exercise his duty to retreat.
Click to expand...

Not legally, it doesn't. Who physically struck first is legally irrelevant. Reasonable apprehension is the key to self-defense. A person need not wait to be physically struck before the law legitimizes the use of force in defense of self.
 
Nightstick11 said:
I've underlined the problematic portions of your argument. I'm sorry, but this reasoning is completely wrong.

(1) We don't know whether Zimmerman assaulted Martin (or vice versa). An assault is an intentional act causing reasonable apprehension of imminent bodily harm or contact in another. There is no substantive evidence that either individual assaulted the other.

(2) Zimmerman was under no obligation to identify himself or defuse the situation. Technically and legally, he was driving down the same public road as Martin, and walking down the same public street.

(3) Martin does not have the "right to throw the first punch" or "pummel Zimmerman to death." Someone under attack is allowed to use the amount of force a reasonable person would have thought necessary to defend themselves in like situation.

This entire case hinges upon whether Martin grabbed/hit/punched Zimmerman first or not, or if Zimmerman was the first to grab/hit/punch, did Zimmerman exercise his duty to retreat.
Click to expand...

that kinda goes out the window when Zimmerman decided to ignore the instructions of the 911 operator and decided to pursue Martin. Had he followed those simple instructions we wouldn't be here right now.

that fact actually shows intent on his part to escalate the situation he was in. The decision to escalate it was in his hands and his hands alone.

You get into a verbal argument in a bar, bouncer steps in diffuses situation and tosses the other guy. It is your decision to either stay in the bar or go outside. You go outside then you decided to escalate it and are intent in something more happening.

basically the same thing.
 
empty vessel said:
Not legally, it doesn't. Who physically struck first is legally irrelevant. Reasonable apprehension is the key to self-defense. A person need not wait to be physically struck before the law legitimizes the use of force in defense of self.
Click to expand...

I know, but for the purposes of this case, who physically struck first is factually relevant. I just said grabbed/hit/punched because Zimmerman's whole account is that Martin approached and hit him first. Zimmerman's mere following of Martin doesn't constitute assault.

Vestal said:
that kinda goes out the window when Zimmerman decided to ignore the instructions of the 911 operator and decided to pursue Martin. Had he followed those simple instructions we wouldn't be here right now.

that fact actually shows intent on his part to escalate the situation he was in. The decision to escalate it was in his hands and his hands alone.

You get into a verbal argument in a bar, bouncer steps in diffuses situation and tosses the other guy. It is your decision to either stay in the bar or go outside. You go outside then you decided to escalate it and are intent in something more happening.

basically the same thing.
Click to expand...

Again, Zimmerman was under no obligation to listen to the 911 operator.

"Escalate the situation" is too vague, so I won't comment on that.

Basically, in my legal opinion, it boils down to this:

If Trayvon approached Zimmerman, hit Zimmerman, and chased Zimmerman after Zimmerman tried to flee, under Florida law Zimmerman is innocent.

If Zimmerman approached Trayvon, hit Trayvon, started losing the fight, ran away, and Martin still chased him to beat him down, under Florida law Zimmerman is innocent.

There are the only circumstances in which Zimmerman is innocent, in my opinion.
 
Vestal said:
that kinda goes out the window when Zimmerman decided to ignore the instructions of the 911 operator and decided to pursue Martin. Had he followed those simple instructions we wouldn't be here right now.

that fact actually shows intent on his part to escalate the situation he was in. The decision to escalate it was in his hands and his hands alone.

You get into a verbal argument in a bar, bouncer steps in diffuses situation and tosses the other guy. It is your decision to either stay in the bar or go outside. You go outside then you decided to escalate it and are intent in something more happening.

basically the same thing.
Click to expand...

The 911 operator told him to keep an eye on Martin and let them know what He was doing.
 
Vestal said:
that kinda goes out the window when Zimmerman decided to ignore the instructions of the 911 operator and decided to pursue Martin. Had he followed those simple instructions we wouldn't be here right now.
Click to expand...

The non-emergency operator cannot give instructions. SOURCE: The emergency operator.
 
The only reason people believe a 17 year old would be an aggressor (after being chased down by a vigilante with a gun) is because the 17 year old is black.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

George R R Martin developing multiple sequel projects to A Game of Thrones for HBO
2
65
1K
BennyBlanco replied
Hideo Kojima found guilty of nearly 100 documented instances of sexual misconduct, still keeps his job.
19
562
ReBurn replied
Will GRR Martin finish the books?
Opinion  2
69
600
Brazen replied
Ashley Buzzard is now a confirmed killer
19
410
KyoZz replied
  • Poll
If you found a Death Note, would you use it?
2
55
549
Lambogenie replied
Top Bottom