Making Sense of the Zimmerman Verdict

[Jackson]

Martin’s Twitter feed reads as a parody of poor grammar and an even more impoverished vocabulary. There, he’s a “No Limit N-gga,” girls he knows are "bitc**s" and “hoes,” and the primary extracurricular activity he immerses himself in is marijuana. The gold-teeth smile, the tattoos, the ten-day suspension from school, and all the rest appear as pathetic attempts to assert his virility. Yet, as his supporters point out, Trayvon also liked Skittles and Chuck E. Cheese’s.

The marijuana never came in, don't know about school suspension, but that was irrelevant, as is the rest of your post. The thing is, he was walking along, not bothering a soul, and he was being followed and it unnerved him as it would you and I. And that is a reality check. That is where the problem started.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Can we discuss the Zimmerman verdict without the vitriol and sarcasm?

Do you expect racial strife?

Do you understand the verdict although you did not agree with it?

Can you understand the viewpoints of others who disagreed with you? although the verdict validated your viewpoint?

Can you agree to disagree with others without being rude?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I still say that Zimmerman could have stayed in his truck and the life of TM could have been spared. Is there anyone out there who wanted an acquittal agree with me on that one small point?

I also understand, that if someone is being beat you up, defending yourself is a natural progression of the altercation, even shooting the person who is beating you.

Can you agree with the other side on the on the points of argument?

Can we discuss the Zimmerman verdict without the vitriol and sarcasm?

Likely not.

Do you expect racial strife?

No.

Do you understand the verdict although you did not agree with it?

Yes. It was the correct verdict, it was the charge that was wrong.

 

[wavingrl]

I agree with the verdict based on the State's failure to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Beyond that, there is nothing for me to consider as far as the verdict.

The case was sensationalized, politicized and homogenized into a race on race situation.

I see two poor souls who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. I hope their families can find some peace and rest in the years to come.

yes--nicely synthesized.

GA has--'use of deadly force in/at your home to protect yourself or property'

How that came to be the law I don't know but if it works well enough to keep national, international attention away --I am satisfied.

Other than that anyone I know with a CCP wouldn't have bothered to use it. Which I suppose the point that many were making throughout the case. Not a man and haven't 'fought' myself. I think I could have protected myself sufficiently. 'nuff said.

So tired of this case.

 

[Jackson]

Can we discuss the Zimmerman verdict without the vitriol and sarcasm?

Do you expect racial strife?

Do you understand the verdict although you did not agree with it?

Can you understand the viewpoints of others who disagreed with you? although the verdict validated your viewpoint?

Can you agree to disagree with others without being rude?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I still say that Zimmerman could have stayed in his truck and the life of TM could have been spared. Is there anyone out there who wanted an acquittal agree with me on that one small point?

I also understand, that if someone is being beat you up, defending yourself is a natural progression of the altercation, even shooting the person who is beating you.

Can you agree with the other side on the on the points of argument?

Can we discuss the Zimmerman verdict without the vitriol and sarcasm?

Likely not.

Do you expect racial strife?

No.

Do you understand the verdict although you did not agree with it?

Yes. It was the correct verdict, it was the charge that was wrong.

You're an honest person.

 

[OODA_Loop]

What would you do if he'd killed your son? Under the exact same circumstances?

If my son were trying to kill him he gets what coming.

Moral = Teach your children run and call 911 ...not confront and attack.

 

[OODA_Loop]

The marijuana never came in, don't know about school suspension, but that was irrelevant, as is the rest of your post. The thing is, he was walking along, not bothering a soul, and he was being followed and it unnerved him as it would you and I. And that is a reality check. That is where the problem started.

Your reality is skewed if you don't come around to Trayvon went at Zimmerman twice.

Once in the truck.

You cannot account for his time when he ran, how Jeantel testified he went to his crib and where he ultimately lay dead.

He came back again.

 

[Oddball]

"What if he were your son?"

Martin: Although aggrieved that my progeny had died far too young, I'd eventually be forced to face and deal with the fact that this is what happens, far often than not, to wannabe gangster hooligans...If he had been offed by a rival gang or even one of his own, this would have been page 7 news.

Zimmerman: After relief that justice had indeed been served, I'd be behind every effort my son made to see to it that those who lied, slandered and tried to affect the potential jury pool against him got prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

 

[Sarah G]

Can we discuss the Zimmerman verdict without the vitriol and sarcasm?

Do you expect racial strife?

Do you understand the verdict although you did not agree with it?

Can you understand the viewpoints of others who disagreed with you? although the verdict validated your viewpoint?

Can you agree to disagree with others without being rude?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I still say that Zimmerman could have stayed in his truck and the life of TM could have been spared. Is there anyone out there who wanted an acquittal agree with me on that one small point?

I also understand, that if someone is being beat you up, defending yourself is a natural progression of the altercation, even shooting the person who is beating you.

Can you agree with the other side on the on the points of argument?

I feel like it's over and doesn't need to be discussed anymore. I stopped talking about Casey Anthony pretty quickly after she was found not guilty as well. It's so futile, I am not angry even. Disappointed but we'll all go on.

You've been really good and reasonable. I enjoyed reading your posts throughout the trial.

 

[Katzndogz]

If Zimmerman's wife hadn't asked him to go to the store, he would have been home. If the clerk had been a little slower counting out the change Martin wouldn't have been there.

Trayvon Martin saw a creepy ass cracker who was dissing him by following him. The guy looked like someone Martin could easily take down. The guy needed to be taught a lesson. Zimmerman was profiled as an easy victim.

George Zimmerman saw a six foot tall man acting suspiciously. He profiled Martin on the basis of his behavior.

The profiles collided.

The worst mistake the prosecution made was putting Rachel Jeantel on the stand. They should have realized they had no control over her.

 

[whitehall]

The defense is not required to prove anything. The burden is on the prosecution to prove the defendant committed a crime and they failed to do so. Case closed.

 

[tallmike]

The marijuana never came in, don't know about school suspension, but that was irrelevant, as is the rest of your post. The thing is, he was walking along, not bothering a soul, and he was being followed and it unnerved him as it would you and I. And that is a reality check. That is where the problem started.

I'm 17 y/o and walking home from the store one night. Suddenly I notice a middle aged, slightly overweight, hispanic male who appears to be following me while he talks on the phone. That unnerves me because I don't know what this guy wants.

My options are:
A: Run home
B: Call the police
C: Scream for help
D: Bang on the closest apartment door while screaming for help
E: Stop and ask the guy what he is doing, maybe he isn't really following me
F: Ambush the guy and once I have the upper hand continue the beating

Zimmerman clearly began the interaction between them by exiting his car, but Martin is the one who brought violence into the situation.

 

[wavingrl]

If Zimmerman's wife hadn't asked him to go to the store, he would have been home. If the clerk had been a little slower counting out the change Martin wouldn't have been there.

Trayvon Martin saw a creepy ass cracker who was dissing him by following him. The guy looked like someone Martin could easily take down. The guy needed to be taught a lesson. Zimmerman was profiled as an easy victim.

George Zimmerman saw a six foot tall man acting suspiciously. He profiled Martin on the basis of his behavior.

The profiles collided.

The worst mistake the prosecution made was putting Rachel Jeantel on the stand. They should have realized they had no control over her.

yes--it could have happened that way, granted.

Don't go by me--different state, etc. Somehow it seems that the adult could/should have called out--spoken with some authority.

I'm sick of debating and speculating.

And--why, I do not know--but a lesson that is repeated in my life is--Don't rush to a judgment. I suppose people profile me. I will not argue that young black men experience this too frequently.


All sorts of things went wrong.

 

[whitehall]

The marijuana never came in, don't know about school suspension, but that was irrelevant, as is the rest of your post. The thing is, he was walking along, not bothering a soul, and he was being followed and it unnerved him as it would you and I. And that is a reality check. That is where the problem started.

I'm 17 y/o and walking home from the store one night. Suddenly I notice a middle aged, slightly overweight, hispanic male who appears to be following me while he talks on the phone. That unnerves me because I don't know what this guy wants.

My options are:
A: Run home
B: Call the police
C: Scream for help
D: Bang on the closest apartment door while screaming for help
E: Stop and ask the guy what he is doing, maybe he isn't really following me
F: Ambush the guy and once I have the upper hand continue the beating

Zimmerman clearly began the interaction between them by exiting his car, but Martin is the one who brought violence into the situation.

Listen to the US Justice Dept sponsored radio ad sometime featuring McGruff the crime dog. Except for being armed Zimmerman was doing what the Justice Dept recommends citizens to do to keep their neighborhoods safe. In other words the Justice Dept recommends that citizens be alert and watchful of strangers in the neighborhood.

 

[Oddball]

Zimmerman clearly began the interaction between them by exiting his car, but Martin is the one who brought violence into the situation.

The interaction was begun by Martin, by trespassing in a gated community....You don't get into them by accident.

 

[The Professor]

Not only did the over charge, but they presented the Zimmerman tapes making it unnecessary for Zimmerman to take the stand.

You are so right.

Self defense is an affirmative defense which means that the burden of proof switches to the defendant. Because of this, generally the defendant testifies in such cases. However, by playing the tapes the prosecution made it possible for Zimmerman to establish a self defense claim without ever taking the stand. Prosecutors usually salivate over the prospect of tearing a defendant apart on the stand, but in this case they blew their chance. Not a smart thing to do. Many in the legal profession have cirtiicized the prosecution's presentation of the case.

 

[The Rabbi]

I agree with the verdict based on the State's failure to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Beyond that, there is nothing for me to consider as far as the verdict.

The case was sensationalized, politicized and homogenized into a race on race situation.

I see two poor souls who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. I hope their families can find some peace and rest in the years to come.

One of those poor souls decided to open a can of whoop-ass on the other. That's where things got tricky.

 

[The Rabbi]

Not only did the over charge, but they presented the Zimmerman tapes making it unnecessary for Zimmerman to take the stand.

You are so right.

Self defense is an affirmative defense which means that the burden of proof switches to the defendant. Because of this, generally the defendant testifies in such cases. However, by playing the tapes the prosecution made it possible for Zimmerman to establish a self defense claim without ever taking the stand. Prosecutors usually salivate over the prospect of tearing a defendant apart on the stand, but in this case they blew their chance. Not a smart thing to do. Many in the legal profession have cirtiicized the prosecution's presentation of the case.

That was completely wrong.
For starters, they did not "over charge." They made the proper charge given the situation. I knew this little meme was coming down the pike and I've exploded it frequently here.
Second, self defense laws vary by state. In some states the person claiming SD must show a reasonable person in that situation would have been in fear of his life. In other states the state must overcome the claim. FL is the latter. Once Zimmerman claimed self defense it was the state's burden to prove it wasn't. They failed. Mainly because it was in fact clear cut self defense. So clear the cops at the scene understood what had happened.

 

[Jackson]

Not only did the over charge, but they presented the Zimmerman tapes making it unnecessary for Zimmerman to take the stand.

You are so right.

Self defense is an affirmative defense which means that the burden of proof switches to the defendant. Because of this, generally the defendant testifies in such cases. However, by playing the tapes the prosecution made it possible for Zimmerman to establish a self defense claim without ever taking the stand. Prosecutors usually salivate over the prospect of tearing a defendant apart on the stand, but in this case they blew their chance. Not a smart thing to do. Many in the legal profession have cirtiicized the prosecution's presentation of the case.

That was completely wrong.
For starters, they did not "over charge." They made the proper charge given the situation. I knew this little meme was coming down the pike and I've exploded it frequently here.
Second, self defense laws vary by state. In some states the person claiming SD must show a reasonable person in that situation would have been in fear of his life. In other states the state must overcome the claim. FL is the latter. Once Zimmerman claimed self defense it was the state's burden to prove it wasn't. They failed. Mainly because it was in fact clear cut self defense. So clear the cops at the scene understood what had happened.

I'm not sure you understand about affirmative defense. The burden if proof was on GZ. He had to prove it was self defense. And he would have had to testified to prove that and been on cross examination for a lengthy time, except the prosecution put his tapes in evidence that gave his story on how TM accosted him and brutally attacked him on the ground, not needing the direct testimony of Z on direct from the defense.

Sorry for the run-on sentence.

 

[tipofthespear]

You are so right.

Self defense is an affirmative defense which means that the burden of proof switches to the defendant. Because of this, generally the defendant testifies in such cases. However, by playing the tapes the prosecution made it possible for Zimmerman to establish a self defense claim without ever taking the stand. Prosecutors usually salivate over the prospect of tearing a defendant apart on the stand, but in this case they blew their chance. Not a smart thing to do. Many in the legal profession have cirtiicized the prosecution's presentation of the case.

That was completely wrong.
For starters, they did not "over charge." They made the proper charge given the situation. I knew this little meme was coming down the pike and I've exploded it frequently here.
Second, self defense laws vary by state. In some states the person claiming SD must show a reasonable person in that situation would have been in fear of his life. In other states the state must overcome the claim. FL is the latter. Once Zimmerman claimed self defense it was the state's burden to prove it wasn't. They failed. Mainly because it was in fact clear cut self defense. So clear the cops at the scene understood what had happened.

I'm not sure you understand about affirmative defense. The burden if proof was on GZ. He had to prove it was self defense. And he would have had to testified to prove that and been on cross examination for a lengthy time, except the prosecution put his tapes in evidence that gave his story on how TM accosted him and brutally attacked him on the ground, not needing the direct testimony of Z on direct from the defense.

Sorry for the run-on sentence.

Dunno, that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.......One: Zimmerman was not charged with "self defense," he was charged with 2nd Degree Murder and after closing arguments a lesser included offense of Manslaughter was added to the charge.....

It was up to the State Prosecutors to prove their case for 2nd Degree Murder.......they did not.......and given that in Florida, the criteria necessary to prove Manslaughter are the same as for 2nd Degree Murder, they didn't have a chance there either........that's why the Jury asked for a legal explanation/clarification of Manslaughter during their deliberations.

Zimmerman [or his Lawyers] didn't have to PROVE anything. Even though the Prosecution tried to make the case about the Stand Your Ground Law in Florida, it wasn't. The case was about an individual being charged with 2nd Degree Murder, and the level of proof needed for that charge in Florida is quite high to surpass "beyond a reasonable doubt."

This idea of the defendant ever being charged with "proving their innocence" goes against the very core of our Constitution. Now if you are only saying that the Defense "offers" a secondary version of the events that led to their client being charged with a crime, then ok. But that is true in every criminal case, not only self defense based cases.

Under our Legal System, the Defendant is presumed innocent UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY by the State, and they NEVER have to prove their innocence, simply offer a differing argument to the case presented by the State.

my thoughts

 

[midcan5]

Self defense makes little sense, it was Zimmerman's action that instigated the confrontation. If he was too scared or too weak or simply a coward, he should have waited for the police to support his profiling.

"I don't think the import of this is being appreciated. Effectively, I can bait you into a fight and if I start losing I can legally kill you, provided I "believe" myself to be subject to "great bodily harm."It is then the state's job to prove--beyond a reasonable doubt--that I either did not actually fear for my life, or my fear was unreasonable. In the case of George Zimmerman, even if the state proved that he baited an encounter (and I am not sure they did) they still must prove that he had no reasonable justification to fear for his life. You see very similar language in the actual instructions given to the jury..." Trayvon Martin And The Irony Of American Justice - Ta-Nehisi Coates - The Atlantic

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...e-zimmerman-prosecutor-corey.html#post7538186

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JE28xzIGnE8]FRIDAY.mp4 - YouTube[/ame]