Zimmerman_Martin Trial

[emmitt01]

The definition of manslaughter does very little if you do not know how the state defines "stand your ground" or selfdefense. You have have to also have that definition not just manslaughter.... That is like finding the area of a multiple sided shape by using only one formula. A lot of questions would be left unanswered.

Other than the fact that Zimmerman's defense team abandoned "stand your ground" prior to the trial and it was never made an issue you are spot on.

Similarly, to borrow your analogy, other than the fact that the shape was a circle you are in the right ballpark.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/13/zimmerman-defense-lawyers-wont-argue-tand-your-ground-in-florida-shooting-case/

Edited July 14, 2013 by emmitt01

[Andrew]

Just take emotion out of it.

A jury of his peers reviewed the evidence and found him not guilty.

If you disagree either the law is bad or system is broken.

[CMJ]

Just take emotion out of it.

A jury of his peers reviewed the evidence and found him not guilty.

If you disagree either the law is bad or system is broken.

I don't think it has to be one or the other. Some juries get it wrong. Just because some people go free who probably deserve jail time does not make the system broken. I'd rather that happen than something like Michael Morton occurring. I'm sure we're all aware that mistakes happen both ways. That doesn't mean that I think the system is inherently broken.

Shit happens.

[UNTLifer]

This is sad. A young man died, and he didn't have to. The person who killed him not only is free, but is richer because of it. Horrible.

No satire. Not driven by media. Semantics and details got in the way of justice. AT LEAST a manslaughter conviction should have come down.

For those of you saying he was standing his ground and shot the kid in self defense... Why did he need to "stand his ground"?? He was the pursuer. He was the aggressor. He got himself in a situation he could not handle, and killed someone to get out of it. This did not need to happen. Period.

This is so simple.

Very true, AND Martin could have walked on home, but he decided to confront that " creepy white cracker." Two bad decisions led to a senseless death.

[MeanGreenTexan]

Very true, AND Martin could have walked on home, but he decided to confront that " creepy white cracker." Two bad decisions led to a senseless death.

This is also true and I wish he would have. You're spot on here.

It's just that one guy died though. I mean, there are bad decisions, and then there are tragedies.

Mr. Zimmerman will have to live with this for the rest of his life.

[JesseMartin]

Since you guys have covered everything else, I only have one thing to add. Now, it may just be media hype, but apparently there may have been some confusion regarding jury instructions about manslaughter charges. If this is the case and, again, not just media babble, can't we assume that there may be an appeal on those grounds? Other than a possible civil case, I don't see any other means by which this case would have any more development. Even if there were unclear jury instructions, I would assume that an appeals court finding would remand the case back to the court of original jurisdiction for a re-trial with the instructions being to try it as a manslaughter case.

Does this seem like a possibility, or do you see any other appeal options for the prosecution, or is everyone assuming the case is over at the trial level?

[Cougar King]

Well, here comes the first time I posted a truly serious comment on GMG.

This is complete bullshit. Let's be real here, if it was the other way around, Trayvon would have gotten life.

It's also good to know that as a minority (I'll leave it ambiguous as to which one exactly) that I can't walk around without being labeled as "suspicious" and if I'm in Florida, anybody with a gun can come and put a bullet in me and claim self-defense.

That being said, Zimmerman's life is ruined and somebody will probably kill him on the streets so I can at least take comfort in that.

[FirefightnRick]

Just take emotion out of it.

.

True, but this is not an easy task for a lot of folks to do, especially for our Liberal bretheren. Thus the reason for all the second guessing of the facts of the case, and the jury's decision.

Rick

Edited July 14, 2013 by FirefightnRick

[UNT90]

Since you guys have covered everything else, I only have one thing to add. Now, it may just be media hype, but apparently there may have been some confusion regarding jury instructions about manslaughter charges. If this is the case and, again, not just media babble, can't we assume that there may be an appeal on those grounds? Other than a possible civil case, I don't see any other means by which this case would have any more development. Even if there were unclear jury instructions, I would assume that an appeals court finding would remand the case back to the court of original jurisdiction for a re-trial with the instructions being to try it as a manslaughter case.

Does this seem like a possibility, or do you see any oher appeal options for the prosecution, or is everyone assuming the case is over at the trial level?

It would be a possibility if Zimmerman were convicted, albeit a very slight one. It is not a possibility once the jury has issued a verdict.

Now, what I wouldn't be surprised by, but absolutely should not happen, is if Eric Holder and the U.S. Justice department attempt to charge Zimmerman with a federal civil rights violation. I don't think that would be a possibility at this point, but it would not surprise me if it happened.

Edited July 14, 2013 by UNT90

[UNT90]

details got in the way of justice.

Justice should ALWAYS be about the details, and never about emotion.

CMJ, don't look at a broad definition of Manslaughter. The only definition that matters is the Florida Penal Code definition.

[Rudy]

Well, here comes the first time I posted a truly serious comment on GMG.

This is complete bullshit. Let's be real here, if it was the other way around, Trayvon would have gotten life.

It's also good to know that as a minority (I'll leave it ambiguous as to which one exactly) that I can't walk around without being labeled as "suspicious" and if I'm in Florida, anybody with a gun can come and put a bullet in me and claim self-defense.

That being said, Zimmerman's life is ruined and somebody will probably kill him on the streets so I can at least take comfort in that.

You take comfort in knowing someone will likely be murdered? You really are an asshole, aren't you?

[UNT90]

Well, here comes the first time I posted a truly serious comment on GMG.

This is complete bullshit. Let's be real here, if it was the other way around, Trayvon would have gotten life.

This is complete crap. If Trayvon Martin had been a 30 something black male who was active in his community watch program with no criminal history and he had followed a half Hispanic/half white 17 year old Zimmerman while calling the police to report Zimmerman as a suspicious person, and Zimmerman had turned on and attacked Martin, we would have never even heard about this case.

And there would have been no charges and no trial.

Race IS the reason this went to trial.

[emmitt01]

"This is complete crap. If Trayvon Martin had been a 30 something black male who was active in his community watch program"

If by "active" you mean self-appointed and not recongnized by the official neighborhood watch then yes. You know, as long as the details are all that matter.

"The president of the homeowners association for the community where the shooting took place testified that he didn't think a neighborhood watch program was needed and that Zimmerman was in charge of the community's program from the very beginning.

Donald O'Brien stressed that the homeowners association had nothing to do with the neighborhood watch program but that he did attend a meeting to start it. Residents were told to "stay away" from suspicious people and call police, O'Brien said."

"In testimony Tuesday, Wendy Dorival, who worked as the volunteer program coordinator for the Sanford Police Department, said she made a presentation to facilitate a neighborhood watch program in 2011 for residents of Retreat at Twin Lakes, where Zimmeran lived and Trayvon was visiting a friend of his father's on the night he was killed.

Assistant State Attorney John Guy showed the jury a slide show that Dorival used at neighborhood meetings. The presentation warned citizens against being vigiliantes and urged them to work with police be the eyes and ears of the community and report suspicious activity. "They're not supposed to take matters into their own hands," Dorival said."

http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/2455163

If nothing else comes out of this trial I hope we can all agree that we have far too many wanna-be cops who get rejected by police and then decide they'll just patrol the streets anyway.

Edited July 14, 2013 by emmitt01

[NT91]

The system worked this time. The liberal media does not see it that way.

[UNT90]

"This is complete crap. If Trayvon Martin had been a 30 something black male who was active in his community watch program"

If by "active" you mean self-appointed and not recongnized by the official neighborhood watch then yes. You know, as long as the details are all that matter.

"The president of the homeowners association for the community where the shooting took place testified that he didn't think a neighborhood watch program was needed and that Zimmerman was in charge of the community's program from the very beginning.

Donald O'Brien stressed that the homeowners association had nothing to do with the neighborhood watch program but that he did attend a meeting to start it. Residents were told to "stay away" from suspicious people and call police, O'Brien said."

"In testimony Tuesday, Wendy Dorival, who worked as the volunteer program coordinator for the Sanford Police Department, said she made a presentation to facilitate a neighborhood watch program in 2011 for residents of Retreat at Twin Lakes, where Zimmeran lived and Trayvon was visiting a friend of his father's on the night he was killed.

Assistant State Attorney John Guy showed the jury a slide show that Dorival used at neighborhood meetings. The presentation warned citizens against being vigiliantes and urged them to work with police be the eyes and ears of the community and report suspicious activity. "They're not supposed to take matters into their own hands," Dorival said."

http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/2455163

If nothing else comes out of this trial I hope we can all agree that we have far too many wanna-be cops who get rejected by police and then decide they'll just patrol the streets anyway.

Oh,we absolutely agree on the last part.

Fine, take community watch member out of the equation. We still would have heard nothing about this case if the race of the two, and only the race, had been reversed.

What is really concerning is that the prosecutors, who were special prosecutors appointed after the District Attorney did not believe there was enough evidence to go forward, refused to take this case before a sitting grand jury (a requirement in Texas, but apparently an option in Florida). That should have told everyone that they didn't feel they had the necessary evidence to get past the grand jury. The grand jury standard for indictment is probable cause, not guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

If you are worried about a grand jury looking at your case, there is no way you should ever take that case to trial. It borders on being unethical.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

True, but this is not an easy task for a lot of folks to do, especially for our Liberal bretheren. Thus the reason for all the second guessing of the facts of the case, and the jury's decision.

Rick

..

Is everything political to you ..??

Both people made very bad decisions ... one followed when he shouldn't have and with a gun he should not had and the other apparently turned and attacked him .... and the results was a tragedy. There was no good answer to this.

Edited July 14, 2013 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[GOMG2013]

..

Is everything political to you ..??

G

Both people made very bad decisions ... one followed when he shouldn't have and with a gun he should not had and the other apparently turned and attacked him .... and the results was a tragedy. There was no good answer to this.

As far as politics go, if you are a die hard democrat, or die hard republican it's a good chance you are not fit to have a real "discussion" about anything. The answers and the solution is neither on the left or the right wing. Its probably somewhere in the middle where a head and a brain should be. (Staying with the eagle theme)

As far as this trial goes, the prosecution made a mistake by trying to make Zimmerman look like a calculating killer that wanted to shoot a black kid that day. I agree both people made mistakes that day. Zimmerman who had a history of profiling went and started a conflict. Martin did not handle it the right way and lost his life.

The tapes and the screaming was a big focus of the trial. Who was screaming? My logic tells me it is Zimmerman. It doesn't add up that Zimmerman would be getting the best of Martin and then have to shoot him. If I had to guess, Zimmerman ran up on Martin words were exchanged. He could have possibly even grabbed Martins arm to stop him and question him. Martin gets angry and whips zimmerman. Sore loser Zimmerman shot him. I don't buy that fear for his life crap.

If Zimmerman reveals he has a gun up front, and says he is neighborhood watch, I doubt Martin fights him. Could Zimmerman have just taken the whipping without killing that dude? Probably. Easy for me to say on this forum though. Not sure if there was an opportunity for him to pull the gun and stop the fighting. All I know was he provoked a fist fight and pulled out a gun and killed him. We can come up with all kinds of scenarios, but Zimmerman killed Martin and that is a fact.

I think it was more on the side of accidental, than murder, but he should still serve time. You make a mistake, you pay for it. No way should he get off free for being the main reason the fight started in the first place.

Edited July 14, 2013 by GOMG2013

[UNTexas]

The facts of the case are pretty simple. Zimmerman legally followed him. Trayvon beat the crap out Zimmerman. Zimmerman ended the assault with a single shot while defending himself. There was no case. Government forced a crappy case. Government loses to reason. The media will find a new story in 30 seconds. Case closed.

[H-towngreen]

Been reading this thread from the start, and this is my first and last post on it.

This easily could've been avoided. Both Zimmerman and Martin did not handle themselves well. Walk away. Both of you, one of you. Be the bigger person. Conflict resolution. I think that the verdict was the correct one. I think that this was pushed by the race card. I think the DOJ getting involved is terrible. I think people like Al Sharpton should crawl into a hole and never come back.

The biggest part of this story to me is that a life was lost in a situation that could've been easily avoided.

[UNTflyer]

[Rudy]

I've been really debating whether or not to post this, but I hope some will view this with an open mind. Yes, Zimmerman followed him. Should he have, no, he should have stayed in the car. He was travelling down the road and aw something he believed to be suspicious. An individual, in a hoodie (criminals commonly use hoodies to conceal their identities), after dark, in the rain (most people don't go out in the rain unless needed), and walking between houses.

Now, one of those factors by itself does not constitute suspicous activity. All of them factored in, in an area that has been experiencing burglaries, could be considered suspicious. Zimmerman sees this and called 911. He sees the individual go between some houses and decides to follow to see where he goes. He doesn't know if the individual is armed, or a criminal, so he arms himself, which he can legally do. Like I stated, we all agree he should have stayed in the car. But getting out of the car is not a crime.

If Martin spots him and feels threatened, and Zimmerman is close enough to pose imediate danger to him, he can use self defense. Even if Zimmerman approached him, he could still defend himself, as long as he can articulate that he felt threatend. Once he has the upper hand in the struggle and Zimmerman is no longer a threat, he should disengage. As long as Zimmerman is fighting and posing a threat, Martin can contiune to meet that threat.

Different scenario, Martin is aware of Zimmerman, and hides in the bushes. Zimmerman passes and begins to walk away, thus poses no threat to martin at that point. He has no right to engage Zimmerman, and self defense is invalid.

Another scenario, Zimmerman approaches Martin and asks what he is doing. This is totally legal. He is asking a question. Martin can just walk away if he wants. Martin can also explain who he is and where he is going, as well as Zimmerman can identify himself and why he is asking. All totally legal. If Martin felt threatened, he could defend himself. However, Zimmerman could also defend himself.

It is all about intent. If Zimmerman was just seeking out to commit a crime against Martin, like assault or homicide, then he would not be able to use self defense. However, if he has good intentions and is prevent a crime, Zimmerman can use self defense, just as Martin could. Both parties can use force justifiable to the force the other party is exhibiting. As long as both are fighting, both can use force. Once a party stops resisting or the threat of serious bodily injury or death is eliminated, the other party must disengage. If one party feels like he is about to become incapacitated, suffer serious bodily injury, or death, they can use deadly force.

My point in posting this is how both parties could have used self defense and even deadly force, all based on the changing of a few small, simple factors.

[THOR]

My summary...if u didn't like the verdict, the justice system sucks....if you liked it, the justice system worked...

Don't you have to like or hate the justice system no matter the outcome?

Switch the verdict to guilty and those that think justice wasn't served, all of a sudden think it was...you can't have it both ways...

Different results by a jury cant make u decide if justice is served...you weren't there. Justice works In guilty and not guilty...

Edited July 14, 2013 by THOR

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

As far as politics go, if you are a die hard democrat, or die hard republican it's a good chance you are not fit to have a real "discussion" about anything. The answers and the solution is neither on the left or the right wing. Its probably somewhere in the middle where a head and a brain should be. (Staying with the eagle theme)

As far as this trial goes, the prosecution made a mistake by trying to make Zimmerman look like a calculating killer that wanted to shoot a black kid that day. I agree both people made mistakes that day. Zimmerman who had a history of profiling went and started a conflict. Martin did not handle it the right way and lost his life.

The tapes and the screaming was a big focus of the trial. Who was screaming? My logic tells me it is Zimmerman. It doesn't add up that Zimmerman would be getting the best of Martin and then have to shoot him. If I had to guess, Zimmerman ran up on Martin words were exchanged. He could have possibly even grabbed Martins arm to stop him and question him. Martin gets angry and whips zimmerman. Sore loser Zimmerman shot him. I don't buy that fear for his life crap.

If Zimmerman reveals he has a gun up front, and says he is neighborhood watch, I doubt Martin fights him. Could Zimmerman have just taken the whipping without killing that dude? Probably. Easy for me to say on this forum though. Not sure if there was an opportunity for him to pull the gun and stop the fighting. All I know was he provoked a fist fight and pulled out a gun and killed him. We can come up with all kinds of scenarios, but Zimmerman killed Martin and that is a fact.

I think it was more on the side of accidental, than murder, but he should still serve time. You make a mistake, you pay for it. No way should he get off free for being the main reason the fight started in the first place.

..

-- Agree with your comment .... but so not with the political part.... not everything is political or racial as some try to make it ....( except to the extremists on both sides that see things that really aren't a political or racial issue ) . Both guys did very foolish things.. Murder it wasn't ... but he set up the conditions for it to happen and therefore is not completely innocent as what seems to have been ruled by the jury.. I'm also amazed that Florida only uses 6 jurors on a felony case. Lots of strange things go on down there..

Edited July 14, 2013 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[Mean Green 93-98]

You make a mistake, you pay for it. No way should he get off free for being the main reason the fight started in the first place.

You can't send a guy to prison/have him executed without convicting him of a crime.

[FirefightnRick]

..

Is everything political to you ..??

I don't know, why don't you direct that question to the hypocrite in charge?

"Obama Uses Martin Outcome Towards Gun Control"

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/14/19467556-obama-honor-trayvon-martin-by-battling-gun-violence?lite

See what I mean about this administration and their Alynski like behavior? When it first occured not a word about the 6 to 8 homicides that wiould happen each week in his home town of Chicago???? Now this.

At least he's calling for calm?

You never want a serious crisis to go to waste...Rham Emanual

Rick Edited July 14, 2013 by FirefightnRick