Support NeoGAF

[Pandaman]

Doing something legal doesn't disqualify you from being the aggressor.

It doesn't really matter, i believe you can be the aggressor and still stand your ground in florida as long as whatever started it wasnt an immediate life or death issue.

to use a silly example: you can push someone, insult them, dump your drink on their head and if they then try to beat you to death with a lead pipe, you can 'stand your ground'.

 

[Link]

You got to be kidding me.

Since it was Florida, if Trayvon had a gun and shot Zimmerman for following him, he could have been acquitted under Stand Your Ground, especially since Zimmerman was armed.

 

[Gold_Loot]

Lol why would she ever say that?

I think this is due to the fact that the case isn't about "why" GZ followed TM, but "why" GZ used his firearm... Sure GZ could have racialy profiled TM, but that's not why he was in court.

 

[Hari Seldon]

Yeah, I get that - but I guess I didn't word my previous post well. What would be reasonable in this case? All we have is one obviously fabricated story. So to me, that would believing that would be unreasonable. So what would be reasonable here?

The prosecution would have to present some evidence that derails that story, and they did not. The physical evidence, which in a serious case is always the most important, supported the story. So the prosecution had no physical evidence, just various disagreeing eye witness testimony. Not nearly enough.

I mean this is how a justice system is supposed to work. Sometimes you left off someone who is guilty, but the goal is to never convict someone who is not guilty, so it is biased towards not guilty.

 

[No Love]

from my understanding unless there is evidence of jury tampering or coercion then double jeopardy trumps all.

Wouldn't it be considered jury tampering that Juror B37 was working on a book deal with someone during the trial?

 

[Hari Seldon]

Since it was Florida, if Trayvon had a gun and shot Zimmerman for following him, he could have been acquitted under Stand Your Ground, especially since Zimmerman was armed.

I don't know Florida's law. In most states Stand your ground means like you have to be on your own property and not just out in some public space.

 

[Keri]

Yeah, I get that - but I guess I didn't word my previous post well. What would be reasonable in this case? All we have is one obviously fabricated story. So to me, that would believing that would be unreasonable. So what would be reasonable here?

At best, we have two contradictory stories that are each supported by some evidence. There was never going to be a way to prove either, beyond a reasonable doubt. No one can say for sure that Zimmerman acted in self-defense and no one can say for sure that he didn't. The appropriate decision in that scenario, is to acquit.

 

[mugurumakensei]

Can't stuff like this lead to a retrial? Some of her comments are absolutely ridiculous

Nope. The prosecution has to bring up potential jury misconduct before a verdict comes in. After the acquittal, nothing can be done aside from a civil wrongful death lawsuit.

 

[Maninthemirror]

TM was walking like a typical teen, stopping, starting, looking around

TM was zig zagging around like a lot of teens do

GZ sees this zig zagging movement and calls 911 for suspicious activity

911 tells GZ to not pursue but GZ does anyway

GZ confronts TM, both think each other is up to no good

GZ pushes in too deep in the situation, TM gets threatened and fight ensues

GZ gets beaten up by TM

GZ responds by shooting TM in the heart



Bolded are the Items Jury put the focus on, italics are the items Jury did not


If you look at it carefully the FIRST person to apply the stand your ground law is TM as he felt threatened. the 2nd person to apply the stand your ground law is GZ who shot TM.

 

[Link]

I don't know Florida's law. In most states Stand your ground means like you have to be on your own property and not just out in some public space.

That's Castle Doctrine in Florida. Stand Your Ground means you don't have to flee before using deadly force - even if you are able - if you believe your life is in danger.

 

[MThanded]

I don't know Florida's law. In most states Stand your ground means like you have to be on your own property and not just out in some public space.

Another interesting blurb from the juror interview concerns the use of stand your grown. She seemed to imply it was key to the acquittal. The language was still in the jury instructions even though this was not a stand your ground case because stand your ground is the law of the land in Florida.

More on that here

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...d-he-had-a-right-to-defend-himself/?mobile=nc

And here

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...o-george-zimmermans-case-after-all/?mobile=wt

While it was not a stand your grown case it seems that the language related to law has replaced the defacto self defense language on the jury instructions. Not saying this had any impact on the outcome of the case but it is interesting that the juror specifically mentioned "Stand Your Grown" in her interview.

 

[otapnam]

Why was he carrying a gun anyway?

Pitbull attack in his neighborhood a few years ago. He got the ccl and continued to use it as neighborhood watch.

Do any of you guys actually read up on the case before commenting?

 

[effzee]

Lol why would she ever say that?

She did and I guess because all three women believed race had nothing to do with it. How in the world that's possible is beyond me.

 

[Hari Seldon]

How is it self defense when you follow someone in your car WITH A GUN, and despite the authorities telling you "BACK AWAY, DON'T GET OUT OF THE CAR", you get out of your car and come up to someone and physically confront them? And then shoot them and claim "self defense/stand your ground"?

You wouldn't have to "stand your ground" if you weren't following someone and going up to them in the first place!

This must be a sick joke, or some people just live in an alternate reality. Makes my head spin.

Because nothing that anyone did up until the attack was illegal. Everyone was located in a place they were legally allowed to be, and doing things they were legally allowed to do.

So like someone else said, the only thing that matters is who attacked who. If the prosecution could have proved that GZ attacked Martin, and then Martin quickly turned the fight around (as the physical evidence shows) and then GZ shot him, then GZ would not have been able to use self defense.

But they couldn't prove this.

The perfectly reasonable doubt is that Martin initiated the fight. There was no evidence to suggest otherwise.

 

[remist]

Since it was Florida, if Trayvon had a gun and shot Zimmerman for following him, he could have been acquitted under Stand Your Ground, especially since Zimmerman was armed.

You have to "reasonably" fear for your life. I don't think that a jury would accept that someone simply following you is a definite threat to your life.

 

[Link]

Pitbull attack in his neighborhood a few years ago. He got the ccl and continued to use it as neighborhood watch.

Do any of you guys actually read up on the case before commenting?

Official Neighborhood Watch guidelines forbid carrying firearms.

You have to "reasonably" fear for your life. I don't think that a jury would accept that someone simply following you is a definite threat to your life.

Considering Zimmerman was armed, I doubt a jury would have trouble believing Trayvon reasonably feared for his life.

 

[User Name Here]

Newsflash dude. In some states you don't even need your weapon to be concealed.

Open carry is the greatest law invented. Hoo rah!



Why don't you break it down and show where an incongruity was made.

Huh? I was agreeing with you! Just making a little joke is all.

And I agree with this:

You're joking right?

I think this is why the case was lost. People think it's acceptable to sit in cars and chase kids around with guns because you know "previous crimes had happened in the area".

 

[No Love]

I wonder if Zimmerman is going to quietly move out of Florida. Based on the outcome of this case, people could stand outside his house/follow him around with guns, push him around and if he tries to defend himself they could shoot him dead and get away with it. I'm sure there's people out there angry enough that they'd be out to get him.

 

[MThanded]

She did and I guess because all three women believed race had nothing to do with it. How in the world that's possible is beyond me.

When you are subjected to profiling or racism it is easy to discount the importance of race in almost all aspects of life.

 

[KHarvey16]

Considering Zimmerman was armed, I doubt a jury would have trouble believing Trayvon reasonably feared for his life.

Did he see the gun?

 

[Zoe]

Official Neighborhood Watch guidelines forbid carrying firearms.

That is assuming they were actually affiliated with the national organization. Many people didn't even realize one existed until this case.

 

[No Love]

Because nothing that anyone did up until the attack was illegal. Everyone was located in a place they were legally allowed to be, and doing things they were legally allowed to do.

So like someone else said, the only thing that matters is who attacked who. If the prosecution could have proved that GZ attacked Martin, and then Martin quickly turned the fight around (as the physical evidence shows) and then GZ shot him, then GZ would not have been able to use self defense.

But they couldn't prove this.

The perfectly reasonable doubt is that Martin initiated the fight. There was no evidence to suggest otherwise.

Maybe he initiated the fight because he felt like his life was in danger because a man was following him around with a gun. And the only way to get out of the situation was to disable this guy because if you walk away, you might get shot dead.

So Martin was technically standing his ground, no?

 

[otapnam]

Official Neighborhood Watch guidelines forbid carrying firearms.

Yeah you're right on that.

 

[.GqueB.]

She did and I guess because all three women believed race had nothing to do with it. How in the world that's possible is beyond me.

I just feel like saying that would open another can of worms. Seems like something she would avoid saying.

Race is too complicated to just throw in here. I wish people would stop doing it.

 

[boiled goose]

I am in the camp that thinks 2nd degree murder was going to be hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt, but this juror has so many biases going into this that it is crazy.

How was race not discussed??? It seems pretty obvious that Zimmerman racially profiled Trayvon.

He did not use good judgement??? Does that not mean he led to the situation that resulted in Trayvon's death hence manslaughter?

 

[MThanded]

Did he see the gun?

Well at this point if TM legally had the right to own a gun and had shot GZ that night he would be the only one on the stand to testify what happened. I assume (whether it was true or not) that he would claim that GZ pulled his gun and threatened to shoot him.

However, I doubt the same jury would be equally as favorable to him.

In the actual fight that happened that night I believe the gun was out before they got on the ground. I'm still having a hard time how the gun could be retrieved from an internal holster when someone is mounting you on the ground. If someone can explain how it is possible to get a gun out of an internal holster when you are mounted MMA style I would love to see the theory.

 

[Nameless]

I can't picture a scenario where my bad judgment leads to the death of a teen and I'm not punished. My reckless zeal definitely wouldn't be lauded as going "above and beyond". A grown man is complimented for deeming a candy toting kid doing nothing wrong as a threat and taking complimentary action leading to his death , but it isn't about race because six cunts refused to acknowledge it during deliberation? Can she not even see that race is also informing her nauseating stance on all this?

Not saying I hope she's mauled by alligators or pack of pitbulls, but if she is , statues should be built in the heroic animals' honor.

 

[Pandaman]

Personally, I think both sides may have reasonably feared for their lives at one point or another, I don't think George has to be guilty here.

Trayvon may have been on top of George and beating him because he feared for his life, George likely shot him because Trayvon being on top of him and beating him may have caused George to fear for his life. The only happy ending was a prisoners dilemma.

 

[Link]

Did he see the gun?

Well, it'd be his word against a dead man's, so let's say yes.

 

[boiled goose]

I just feel like saying that would open another can of worms. Seems like something she would avoid saying.

Race is too complicated to just throw in here. I wish people would stop doing it.

I just feel like saying that would open another can of worms. Seems like something she would avoid saying.

Race is too complicated to just throw in here. I wish people would stop doing it.

We shouldn't discuss race because it is too complicated?? What kind of non reason is that? It quite possibly led to the death on an unarmed 17 year old. When should we discuss it???? I do not want to live in a society where someone carrying a gun can randomly shoot someone in the street without consequences (regardless of the circumstances and whether guilt or spur of the moment self defense is justifiable). I will discuss it. I will bring it up.

Personally, I think both sides may have reasonably feared for their lives at one point or another, I don't think George has to be guilty here.

Trayvon may have been on top of George and beating him because he feared for his life, George likely shot him because Trayvon being on top of him and beating him may have caused George to fear for his life. The only happy ending was a prisoners dilemma.

not guilty of second degree? maybe
but did his unnecessary action and bad judgement lead to the death of Trayvon? likely

Both sides made mistakes because they got into a physical altercation that should be avoided at all costs, especially now that if one is started you can get shot. Zimmerman made more. He was older, was informed by police to stop, and had a gun.

 

[KHarvey16]

Well at this point if TM legally had the right to own a gun and had shot GZ that night he would be the only one on the stand to testify what happened. I assume (whether it was true or not) that he would claim that GZ pulled his gun and threatened to shoot him.

However, I doubt the same jury would be equally as favorable to him.

In the actual fight that happened that night I believe the gun was out before they got on the ground. I'm still having a hard time how the gun could be retrieved from an internal holster when someone is mounting you on the ground. If someone can explain how it is possible to get a gun out of an internal holster when you are mounted MMA style I would love to see the theory.

If he mentioned seeing the weapon while being approached after a pursuit as the reason he killed him from the beginning I don't doubt for a second he would be acquitted.

 

[Hari Seldon]

Maybe he initiated the fight because he felt like his life was in danger because a man was following him around with a gun. And the only way to get out of the situation was to disable this guy because if you walk away, you might get shot dead.

So Martin was technically standing his ground, no?

This was a trial so the prosecution needs evidence for this theory, and a lot of it.

 

[User Name Here]

If a man with a gun is stalking me, running away is not an option if a confrontation arises. I keep seeing the same terrible logic that school administators use when kids react to bullies over and over in these threads.

Exactly. I had a cousin who used the "flight response" after initially overpowering the assailant in a confrontation. Guess what happened? Give up? He got shot in the back. And he only manged to live because he was near my aunt's house where my other cousin was sitting on a stool talking to someone.

The reason why he ran was due to him thinking the guy was going to get a gun.

 

[MThanded]

If he mentioned seeing the weapon while being approached after a pursuit as the reason he killed him from the beginning I don't doubt for a second he would be acquitted.

This specific jury would not have acquitted him if similar tactics used by the defense were used by the prosecutors. If they bring up a white female neighbor to state that their house was burglarized by black males and we have an all female majority white jury I find it very plausible he would have been convicted.

I could be wrong. Just an assumption here. As someone who has gotten the gut clutch purse reaction while walking in my own neighborhood to my own damn apartment I have a hard time those same people would acquit me if I was in this same situation.

 

[faust666]

In the actual fight that happened that night I believe the gun was out before they got on the ground. I'm still having a hard time how the gun could be retrieved from an internal holster when someone is mounting you on the ground. If someone can explain how it is possible to get a gun out of an internal holster when you are mounted MMA style I would love to see the theory.

If the prosecution was confident enough in their case they should have invited the defenses lethal force expert down on the ground to demonstrate but I think they were too afraid of it becoming their bloody glove moment.

 

[No Love]

This was a trial so the prosecution needs evidence for this theory, and a lot of it.

Theory? It seems like common sense. What would you do if a guy came up to you and got in your face with a gun, and you knew you could overpower him and disable him to possibly save your own life?

 

[KHarvey16]

This specific jury would not have acquitted him if similar tactics used by the defense were used by the prosecutors. If they bring up a white female neighbor to state that their house was burglarized by black males and we have an all female majority white jury I find it very plausible he would have been convicted.

I could be wrong. Just an assumption here.

I think that's ridiculous.

 

[gutter_trash]

I don't think he had the right to take his life. But he had the right to defend himself, and the problem is being in possession of a gun makes it too easy to take someone's life.

Martin had the right to defend himself IF Zimmerman attacked him, not if he was only following him. That's a pretty key distinction right there. As I said though, none of us know exactly how this played out.

GZ is the instigator. Creepily older guy following a younger person slowly by car.

If Trayvon was a girl, we would be all over GZ as a stalker nut.

 

[Nameless]

Personally, I think both sides may have reasonably feared for their lives at one point or another, I don't think George has to be guilty here.

Trayvon may have been on top of George and beating him because he feared for his life, George likely shot him because Trayvon being on top of him and beating him may have caused George to fear for his life. The only happy ending was a prisoners dilemma.

This is stupid.

So if I approach you armed(bonus points for ignoring law enforcement ordering against it), verbally or physically instigate an altercation, you're telling me im right in shooting you if I happen to start losing the fight?

You don't really believe this you?

 

[MThanded]

I think that's ridiculous.

As someone who has gotten the gut clutch purse reaction,double car lock or glares while walking in my own neighborhood to my own damn apartment I have a hard time those same people would acquit me if I was in this same situation. Especially if they think like the juror in question. She never really discussed a reasonable doubt.

My first year of my PhD program I would intentionally carry a text book as to not threaten people in my neighborhood. It prevented some of the behavior. I preferred the inconvenience to the reactions that I got before.

 

[bob_arctor]

Come on...

She said "we don't need you to do that". That doesn't imply needing in the other direction. You're really twisting words here.

?? "We don't need you to do that" implies not doing the action in question, especially said by a person in that position. I can't see how that would be interpreted any other way and especially not as "egging on" as the juror said. It's clinical and detached, the way an operator would say it, but the meaning is clear as day to anyone not named Zimmerman.

 

[.GqueB.]

We shouldn't discuss race because it is too complicated?? What kind of non reason is that? It quite possibly led to the death on an unarmed 17 year old. When should we discuss it???? I do not want to live in a society where someone carrying a gun can randomly shoot someone in the street without consequences (regardless of the circumstances and whether guilt or spur of the moment self defense is justifiable). I will discuss it. I will bring it up.

I just feel like injecting it into the conversation willy nilly is dangerous and shifts the conversation too much when we aren't even completely sure of what went down that night. I'd rather be sure then have the conversation than assume and go down that same road.

I'm just tired of people saying another white guy got away with murder.

 

[wildfire]

Huh? I was agreeing with you! Just making a little joke is all.

Ok I see what joke you were making once you clarified the context. Maybe you needed more props

This specific jury would not have acquitted him if similar tactics used by the defense were used by the prosecutors. If they bring up a white female neighbor to state that their house was burglarized by black males and we have an all female majority white jury I find it very plausible he would have been convicted.

I could be wrong. Just an assumption here.

Considering that in this scenario Martin would have an entirely different lawyer we wouldn't even have the same jury but the prosecution would still be as inept as ever so that's a plus that could have been in his favor.

 

[Keri]

This specific jury would not have acquitted him if similar tactics used by the defense were used by the prosecutors. If they bring up a white female neighbor to state that their house was burglarized by black males and we have an all female majority white jury I find it very plausible he would have been convicted.

I could be wrong. Just an assumption here. As someone who has gotten the gut clutch purse reaction while walking in my own neighborhood to my own damn apartment I have a hard time those same people would acquit me if I was in this same situation.

What exactly are you implying here? It seems like you're suggesting an all-female jury is incapable or less capable of rationally reviewing evidence?

 

[Hari Seldon]

Theory? It seems like common sense. What would you do if a guy came up to you and got in your face with a gun, and you knew you could overpower him and disable him to possibly save your own life?

Evidence evidence evidence. That is what matters in a trial.

 

[MThanded]

What exactly are you implying here? It seems like you're suggesting an all-female jury is incapable or less capable of rationally reviewing evidence?

No I'm saying that there is an interesting dichotomy in relation to white females and black males in the United States. Especially middle aged white women and younger black men.

I think in general that these 2 subsets of people are diametrically opposed much more than most in this country.

 

[ronito]

Well at least he learned his lesson. I guess we're all good now.

God, who is this lady?

 

[Septimius]

I get this image of the jury going "we're so not racist, we didn't even discuss race".

-"But, it might actually be important to this case?"
"Well, we don't see race the way normal people do"

 

[faust666]

?? "We don't need you to do that" implies not doing the action in question, especially said by a person in that position. I can't see how that would be interpreted any other way and especially not as "egging on" as the juror said. It's clinical and detached, the way an operator would say it, but the meaning is clear as day to anyone not named Zimmerman.

The comments she interpreted as egging on were made while Zimmerman was in the car. The dispatcher said we don't need you to do that after hearing audible clues from the phone call after he left his car. Once Zimmerman responded affirmatively to the suggestion to stop the audible clues to him following also stopped. You have to look at the timeline of what was said and not just the words themselves.

 

[Xenon]

This specific jury would not have acquitted him if similar tactics used by the defense were used by the prosecutors. If they bring up a white female neighbor to state that their house was burglarized by black males and we have an all female majority white jury I find it very plausible he would have been convicted.

I could be wrong. Just an assumption here.

Yes because you have been looking at this case as an either or situation where it was Trayvon or George at fault. In the end they both have some responsibility for what happened. Just because they found George not guilty doesn't mean they Trayvon guilty. It would completely flip things around. But, I guaranty in that case you would have no problem with the defense putting the victim on trial.