jordan0386
Member
Jury didnt believe he was instigator of 'fight' so its not on him.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Juror says Zimmerman went "above and beyond" and has "learned a good lesson"
- Thread starter MThanded
- Start date
- Status
Jury didnt believe he was instigator of 'fight' so its not on him.
I think the system should be based strictly on the law, with emotion separated from it. Sadly, this happens too often.
EDIT: Fair enough, you are saying this poster is doing that when people aren't discussing the law.
Just to summarize, this started when I asked which laws should be changed and how to address the problems people feel are highlighted by this case. Nib responded by saying the self defense laws, and specifically the law regarding the use of deadly force, should be more like other major countries. He listed the UK as an example of that which led to my response and this whole discussion about what the laws in the UK actually say. This started 100% as a discussion about the law.
Because Zimmerman physically attempted to detain him? Zimmerman could ask a question then attack for a variety of reasons, Trayvon turns his back and keeps walking for one?
Trayvon being on top is irrelevant unless your position is he doesn't have rights. The injuries are minor and non life threatening. They're essentially something a lot of people have gotten in a fight at school. I've gotten injuries like that in a fight in middle school before. They're not a reason you pull out a gun and kill someone for.
Trayving having the gun and Zimmerman wrestling it away? sure. Except DNA evidence and Zimmerman's alterations don't corroborate that story. Trayvon punching Zimmerman 25 times? Sure, except injuries don't corroborate that story.
Does Trayvon have an obligation to lose that fight? If he doesn't, why is his murder justified because he was winning it?
The bigger, stronger, more martial arts trained, pursuer, with a lethal weapon, killed an unarmed kid, when the unarmed kid was winning the fight, and this bigger stronger guy sustained a couple minor injuries, and without any visible attempt at fighting back, immediately took out the gun and shot Trayvon. And that is the best case for Zimmerman scenario you can actually accept based on objective scientific evidence.
Another alternate possibility. Trayvon got the upper hand in the fight early on, Zimmerman took out his gun but didn't want to kill Trayvon. He was pointing it at Trayvon as Trayvon was screaming for help, perhaps on the ground as Zimmerman was standing up, Zimmerman got flustered that someone might come out and see what's happening, panicked, and leaned in and shot Trayvon in the heart. That would explain Trayvon yelling for help and sounding like he thought his life was in danger.
Unless you have a way to make evidence into formal logic as well as laws there is no way in hell this would be possible. People write laws and interpret laws. We don't have an automated provable way to ensure that any case comes out correctly and we never will. When a jury is made of a humans, emotions/biases/assumptions will always be part of the case.
B37 is a great example of that. Her assumptions about the case were commonly not based on evidence but gut reaction. She clearly planned on writing a book and quickly found herself on CNN's set to give an interview. I highly doubt that the possibility of immediate fame or infamy had any impact on her verdict.
While I agree, I think if there if is a lack of evidence or any shred of reasonable doubt (and the prosecution fails to do this), I do not think a jury should ever convict someone, even if they feel it's the right thing to do, or if emotionally they feel it needs to happen.
That said, I missed the point of your post with regards to Kharvey. So I apologize.
Spirit of Jazz
Banned
Because maybe Zimmerman instantly initiated the scuffle after he asked the question? Maybe Zimmerman was brandishing his firearm and Trayvon saw the opportunity to take it off him?
The fact is there's no solid evidence when it comes to who started the fight. However Zimmerman on the other hand ignored police orders and was armed as he engaged with the man he was told to stop following. The only thing objective was neglect Zimmerman's behalf and the fact he killed a kid, later lying to the court shouldn't have helped his cause.
gutter_trash
Banned
an all female jury was a big big mistake IMO, then need to alt east a few males on board.
women who live prissy perfect lives never get into school fights who into many scrappy situations.
they need a few men in there with experience of what it is like to grow up as boy in our school system and typical playground scuffles
Problem is that humans can interpret the word "reasonable doubt" differently. So in general the barrier changes for different people. Hence when juries come in a room they commonly have people who want different verdicts. Then someone dominates the conversation or talks others down until the verdict they want occurs.
I was talking about the stuff with vahagn(sp?)
I was on a jury once on a civil lemon law case. That person was me. I won. lol.
In 2011 when Britain had the riots we weren't allowed to wear hoddies up when indoors since that's what the people who were causing riots used to wear it like, and anyone who did had it up was likely asked to keep their hood down. This by no means meant the people assumed others (the ones with hoodies up) to be a member of the riot causing group. What I'm trying to say is that it's not about "Blacks can't dress like this without avoiding prejudices" or "It's shameful if a black man has to exclusively wear suits to not appear a criminal etc etc".
I mean if I witness a burglar running away from a house in my neighbourhood, and then a few days/weeks later I see a man who even remotely resembles the burglar I saw a couple of days ago then I am pretty sure I will be curious too and won't simply ignore it. This might include profiling the person on the basis of their appearance as well (how else would you note the resemblance?), but I simply cannot see how that automatically makes me racist or equates to being racist.
I believe on this jury it was B37. I imagine the one to command the room would be the same one rushing to write a book or get on CNN.
He tried to join the conversation mid way through and change the focus. I was discussing the law in response to him because that was the whole topic of the discussion he joined.
The person who's car it was, was a rich Persian kid who bought a sports tuned version of the Dodge Charger.
After the evidence was presented and we went to deliberate an old white lady said she didn't think Dodge was guilty because "these people always want stuff but never want to pay for it when they break it. She knows people of that same race, They usually raise punk kids that always throw parties in the neighborhood and they're irresponsible. She thinks the car problems were his fault"
I was floored.
Edit: Nevermind that his family made all the car payments despite not driving it for the past 18 months except once or twice and taking it to the Dodge dealership to get fixed over 25 times and them not being able to permanently fix the problem. She still suggested he doesn't pay for stuff and was irresponsible. Some people just come in with pre-conceived notions and are unwilling to listen to any of the evidence.
From my understanding this is just in FL. In other states the murderer has to prove it was self defense not the other way around.
No, I don't think thats correct.
Neither Gender, nor Race would change much. Well... no Race would have changed some things.
I think it comes down specifically to life experiences, I don't think anyone in the jurors table could seriously relate to Trayvon, maybe I'm oversimplifying it but it comes down to having ever been in Trayvons circumstance.
If anyone of them had been affected by people following them or non-authorities confronting them in a manner like an authority. Maybe, just maybe, they'd empathize with Trayvons feel of fear and confusion and not automatically assume he took a defensive approach because of pride and some reputation he was trying to keep.... :/
Joel Was Right
Member
I would encourage people to view the entire interview with the woman as the quotes in the OP do not give a full reflection of what was said.
Some of her reasoning in response to questions was odd. I realise she was only 1 of six, and that they could have favoured the prosecution in the end, but is it unfeasible to have jurors picked from a pool of more capable people? By capable I mean those that can demonstrate more cognitive awareness.
We have a society where we have people who can decide the fates of not only individuals in court proceedings but the course of nations through electoral ballots when they arguably aren't qualified to do so.
Some of her reasoning in response to questions was odd. I realise she was only 1 of six, and that they could have favoured the prosecution in the end, but is it unfeasible to have jurors picked from a pool of more capable people? By capable I mean those that can demonstrate more cognitive awareness.
We have a society where we have people who can decide the fates of not only individuals in court proceedings but the course of nations through electoral ballots when they arguably aren't qualified to do so.
I think race clearly has a lot to do with more than "some things". I think it was the determining factor in this case, and considering that chart, it's the determining factor in a great deal many cases. White on Black crimes are acquitted at like 4 times the rate of Black on White crimes (in Stand Your Grand States, i.e. gun rights/conservative states)
Maninthemirror
Banned
For all those who think jury wasnt biased
Tweet today
Wow
Tweet today
Wow
All of those scenarios could of happened, but there is no proof. So why should he be convicted?
His version of the fight (at least the final moments) is the only one backed up by evidence. He was being attacked and feared for his life. He was on his back and shot Trayvon in the chest. You can't just say well it could of happened this way without proof.
I can't say for sure what actually went down. I do think he bears some responsibility. But murder 2? I don't see it based on the facts we do know.
I do think he should lose his carry permit, but I am not sure how they can legally take it form him without him being convicted of a crime.
Maninthemirror
Banned
Another tweet
And
And
I think race clearly has a lot to do with more than "some things". I think it was the determining factor in this case, and considering that chart, it's the determining factor in a great deal many cases. White on Black crimes are acquitted at like 4 times the rate of Black on White crimes (in Stand Your Grand States, i.e. gun rights/conservative states)
Sorry I meant the jury make up.
Race has a lot to do with it.
I just meant, or maybe its just my wishful thinking, that anyone who has gone through a similar stalking experiences that Trayvon went through might not automatically sympathize with ZImmerman in this trial, regardless of their racial background.
Probably wishful thinking.
I'm curious would you answer a strangers question who had been following you for the past 3-4 minutes? Why did trayvon need to answer anything zimmerman to say? I'm 28 years old and I don't answer strangers fucking questions when they ask me for money yet alone after they stalked me.
Joel Was Right
Member
She referred to him as "Trayvon" in other segments of her interview. And whilst Zimmerman did not take the stand, he did provide a statement in the form of a letter addressing the court.
Zoe
Member
That's exactly what people were saying in the other thread to excuse the cracker line.
Maninthemirror
Banned
She was talking about him directly not the defense. Her rendition was prosecution said this and george said that.
As I've said many times. That is a subjective call. That's clearly, look at the chart, afforded to, and accepted from white people who commit murder against black people in a way it's not accepted from black people who kill white people.
This is because the same conservative leaning states who pass SYG laws, also tend to have certain images of aggressive, angry, irrationally prideful, black people.
His injuries didn't corroborate his story, but the only reason anyone believed his story is because they thought Trayvon capable of that kind of irrational, continuous, aggression. The type to want to kill a random person in the middle of the street just for fucks sake. No one would accept that shit if Trayvon was Trevor, a skinny ass 158 pound 5'11 white kid with spikes and green eyes and a button up shirt.
They wouldn't believe that he said "You're gonna die tonight Muthafucker" and grabbed the gun.
There are plenty of juries who would think A)dude's lying based on the DNA evidence and severity of the injuries B) dude didn't even try any other method of attack, his flashlight, his fists, his head for a headbutt etc. and C) When you follow, chase, pursue, and accost someone you think of as an asshole or a fucking punk, that it means you have something against them. Not that you just say it "as a matter of fact with no ill will"
This all white jury, in a southern state, with conservative laws. thought Zimmerman was justified in murdering Trayvon for a bloody nose and some scrapes on his head because they believed in the monster that Zimmerman described Trayvon to be.
BigDaddyFatSack
Banned
You guys should try following the case closely rather than act like you know everything after reading a short article.
Can Crusher
Banned
I don't want to jump to assumptions but.... this woman looks like a walking stereotype. Just sayin.
Trayvon asked the 1st question. Not an unreasonable one.
"Why are you following me?" I would probably say the same thing.
Zimmerman then says "What are you doing here?" To which I would say "none of your business"
I always say "sorry don't have any" to beggars. It's pretty rude to just ignore people, and they seem to just keep asking unless you say something.
Yuck.
Okay guys, this is a legitimate, non-rhetorical question that I genuinely am curious about everyone's answer. I don't know the answer myself.
How do you feel about the police doing their normal profiling over their radios to find unknown suspects? So, how do you feel about each of the following:
So given that context, I re-pose my question, and I really do want to hear people's opinions: Where along that spectrum does the profiling become unacceptable? And would the environment make a difference? For example, when I was one of two white guys within 100 miles in the Philippines, would the police have been okay to say, "Be on the lookout for a white male?" Or is that type of profiling so inherently wrong that, even given the accuracy of it in my environment, it is still a social cost too great to allow?
How do you feel about the police doing their normal profiling over their radios to find unknown suspects? So, how do you feel about each of the following:
- Be on the lookout for a 6'2" white male between the ages of 25 and 35, with red hair and freckles, wearing a green jacket and khakis, and driving a blue Honda.
- Be on the lookout for a 6'2" white male between the ages of 25 and 35, with red hair, wearing a green jacket and driving a blue Honda.
- Be on the lookout for a 6'2" white male between the ages of 25 and 35, with red hair, driving a blue Honda.
- Be on the lookout for a 6'2" white male between the ages of 25 and 35, with red hair, driving a Honda.
- Be on the lookout for a 5'10" to 6'4" white male between the ages of 25 and 35, with red hair.
- Be on the lookout for a white male between the ages of 25 and 35, with red hair.
- Be on the lookout for a white male with red hair.
- Be on the lookout for a white male.
- Be on the lookout for a white person.
- Be on the lookout for a person.
So given that context, I re-pose my question, and I really do want to hear people's opinions: Where along that spectrum does the profiling become unacceptable? And would the environment make a difference? For example, when I was one of two white guys within 100 miles in the Philippines, would the police have been okay to say, "Be on the lookout for a white male?" Or is that type of profiling so inherently wrong that, even given the accuracy of it in my environment, it is still a social cost too great to allow?
Because a judge can easily be bribed lol
What kind of question is this?
What evidence are you relying on that he was being attacked? What you describe is him being in a fight (which is undisputed) and on his back losing (disputed). The word attack depends on who started the fight, which is what the case really hinged on. The person claiming the homicide was justifiable can't be the aggressor. I think you will find most TM supporters will argue that stalking and then chasing down a kid doing nothing wrong was the act of aggression that started the fight. While it was argued back and forth who was on top, it doesn't really matter. The defense's main claim was that GZ stopped pursuing TM and then TM came out of nowhere and attacked him, to which there is zero evidence
You mean when a crime has just been committed, the suspect is at large, and you get a physical description of the subject? Whatever is the most efficient and effective way to catch the correct person.
I would imagine you learn this in law enforcement, how to appropriately describe a suspect, what features to describe and what not to, in order to increase the likelihood that the correct suspect can be detained as quickly as possible.
Obviously if the crime just happened and you just saw the suspect you should be as specific as possible regarding clothes and such, but if the crime happened a while ago you should stick to the essentials.
Nailed it in so many ways.
Trayvon's biggest mistakes were.
A. Being Black
B. Not carrying a weapon to kill Zimmerman with first.
Sorry state of fucking affairs.
Many people knew he was going to be found not guilty based on the laws and some of you guys are blaming it on the jury?
Right.
People need to go back and watch the walk through Zimmerman did the next day before he found out Trayvon was on the phone for an additional 2 minutes after he hung up
He claimed he hung up with the 911 dispatcher at the end of the T, immediately walked back, and Trayvon came out approximately 10 seconds later. Trayvon was on the phone for an additional 2 minutes after he hung up, but he didn't know this fact yet so he lied, and as usual it just slipped through the cracks.
The night of the event he claimed he saw Trayvon first in front of one address, the next day he said he saw Trayvon in front of another house further back and not in the direction of Trayvon's path and said it was significant because that one address had vandalism before. So by changing which house he saw Trayvon in front of, he pinned him to the recent attacks and attempted to justify his profiling. There are like 30 more lies/changes I can go through.
DragonSworne
Banned
If Martin killed Zimmerman he would be facing first degree murder.
Imagine the headlines: Black teen thug kills innocent neighborhood watchman.
Fixed
Read up on the case before making comparisons
While you're making a fool of yourself, why don't you go through all these cases as well
Prove to us that this isn't race based. That it really is about the cases themselves and the evidence therein. Because you look like a desperate fool right now ignoring a mountain of evidence over thousands of cases that show a distinct and clear pattern of racial prejudice.
This is half true. Whilst it would be based on the defendants subjective fear, the jury would objectively judge whether the use of force was reasonable or disproportionate. The UK law goes to lengths to address the fact that in the heat of the moment, nearly all defendants think their actions are reasonable at the time, and thus whilst the fear is subjectively decided, the use of force needs to be objectively judged.
Which is why I brought up Zimmerman's injuries. In a UK court of law I just don't see there being any way the Jury would buy ZM's account of the threat he faced, and even if they did, based off his injuries and misguided fear, his use of force is still completely unreasonable. In-fact, in many actual cases in the UK, people have done far less in self defence in response to more in terms of the provocation or attack, and done much more time than Zimmerman is (none).
Add to that, under UK law, the defendant can not have created the situation which required his self defence in the first place. Not necessarily just provoking someone or starting a fight etc, but even following someone, as ZM did with TM. In-fact, I'm pretty sure there's a case I read about where a man did exactly that, followed a guy who he believed to be a thief, and his defence thrown out because the danger was believed to be his own making.
Then there's the issue of weapons. In the UK particularly dangerous self defence weapons are not permitted full stop. So things such as knives, and especially guns, being used out in the open in public would not be permitted for self defence use. Normal regular to carry items, or household items if you're in your home etc are permitted. A friend of mine was pulled over once and had a baseball bat in his boot. The officer told him that unless he could prove he actually uses it to play baseball, if he got in a fight that he didn't even start and used the bat on someone, his couldn't use reasonable force as self defence and would probably do time.
Lastly, say his reasonable force on self defence argument fell through, which it would for numerous reasons outlined, with respect to fear leading to a loss of control and unreasonable force and death, it'd only be a partial defence. The defendant would still be tried for manslaughter, so there's that too.
In summary.
UK law > US law ten fold, in both criminal and commercial. Except when it comes to dealing with people who run their mouths off on social networking sites...
I'd rather be fighting charges and potentially rot in jail after killing a scumbag than be in a body bag myself.
Why don't you read the specific case I was commenting on before you try to belittle someoneWhile you're making a fool of yourself, why don't you go through all these cases as well
Prove to us that this isn't race based. That it really is about the cases themselves and the evidence therein. Because you look like a desperate fool right now ignoring a mountain of evidence over thousands of cases that show a distinct and clear pattern of racial prejudice.
And take this strawman graph with you too
Edit: lol I just took another look at this graph and wtf are you even trying to prove
This is not relevant to the case at all
This is grossly out of context.... a "boy of color" was her response during juror selection when asked what race the boy who was killed was. And she referred to both George and Trayvon by their first names in the Anderson Cooper interview. You could try and watch it yourself and come to your own conclusions, y'know, instead of relying on misleading tweets.
None of these are profiling. Racial profiling is about coming up with a racist profile to determine who is likely to be committing a crime and using that as a reason to question them. eg Disproportionately pulling over black people because you think you will probably find drugs. Searching for suspect of a specific based on a given witness description (however bad) isn't profiling, but it also isn't want GZ was doing, and GZ is not a cop anyway. GZ created a profile that a young black kid in a hoodie is probably up to no good, and confronted him for that reason. He created that profile based on what happened to the other girl, but didn't stop TM because he thought TM was the same guy
The difference is "This person is suspicious because black people around here are up to no good" versus "This black person is suspicious because he matches the description of the suspect I am looking for in this area"
I think race clearly has a lot to do with more than "some things". I think it was the determining factor in this case, and considering that chart, it's the determining factor in a great deal many cases. White on Black crimes are acquitted at like 4 times the rate of Black on White crimes (in Stand Your Grand States, i.e. gun rights/conservative states)
Why is this graph being posted everywhere? Where's the source, the citation, the numbers to back it up?
Funny enough I think it's from the young Turks lol
His injuries to me seem like they could of happened from someone on top of you punching you in the face. Grass stains on Zimmerman's back and Trayvon's knees. I don't really buy the slamming his head against the concrete 30 times, that is pretty ridiculous.
The medical examiner said the shot was from someone on his back. I dunno how they can determine that but I see no reason to not believe it.
I also don't believe Trayvon ambushed him from out of nowhere. From his GF's testimony it was a verbal confrontation that turned physical. I can't say for certain who threw the 1st punch. But I don't believe that following someone and questioning them is justification for a fight.
To me there is enough reasonable doubt to acquit of murder. The defense doesn't have to prove their version, they have to give a reasonable alternate theory which I think they did.
- Status