Trayvon Martin's murderer George Zimmerman is still a free man

[Irvine511]

I can't stand the phrase "play the race card."

 

[Jive Turkey]

We'll see if the verdict (assuming it comes back not guilty) is a result of (1) the prosecution failing to prove the murder charge, or (2) the successful use of the self-defense argument by the defendant.

The thing that really bugs me about this thread is that the excuses are already being set up for if he is judged to be not guilty. "The prosecution is bumbling the case" "witness x did poorly" "they overreached by not going for manslaughter". Is there not a chance he might be telling the truth and the trial will reveal that? The best of all is "I know he's not telling the truth"; when again did he take the stand?

 

[LuckyNumber7]

But it isn't a stand your ground case.

Well sure he's not using that as his defense but the point is that that's the only thing that made this case any bit more special than half of the other Orlando murders. Hell, I'm pretty sure some 17 year old kid just got murdered a couple of weeks ago.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

I can't stand the phrase "play the race card."

Well I don't mean it in some defensive way to the suspect. I just mean it in the sense that there's no immediate reason to excite the idea that this was a racially motivated crime/lack of crime. Yet that's the first conclusion so many people jump to.

 

[maycocksean]

The thing that really bugs me about this thread is that the excuses are already being set up for if he is judged to be not guilty. "The prosecution is bumbling the case" "witness x did poorly" "they overreached by not going for manslaughter". Is there not a chance he might be telling the truth and the trial will reveal that? The best of all is "I know he's not telling the truth"; when again did he take the stand?

Has the prosecution done an outstanding job?

Was murder an appropriate charge under the circumstances?

How is it wrong to feel that Zimmerman's story does not add up to innocence on his part?

I don't see all of this adds up to "excuses."

I doubt there's a black person in America that saw this as a "slam-dunk" and is now scrambling for excuses for why it didn't pan out that way.

 

[Jive Turkey]

Has the prosecution done an outstanding job?

The thing is, it isn't a game. There was a real series of events that unfolded. How would you judge a prosecution team tasked with proving the guilt of an innocent man? Is it not completely possible that the prosecution is doing the best job possible with the available evidence because Zimmerman is indeed not guilty? How would you rate a prosecution team who successfully sent an innocent person to prison?
There was a comment earlier about what a shitty job the Medical Examiner did. I asked what the problem was, as I didn't really follow the testimony, but nobody replied. It seems to me that, of all the witnesses brought forward, a Medical Examiner would be giving some of the more objective information in the case. How does one mess that up? Was he not giving the answers the prosecution would hope for?

Was murder an appropriate charge under the circumstances?

See above. And when listening to the debates here and elsewhere for the past several months, a murder charge seemed to be the circumstances people were describing. If it's necessary to try for a lesser charge because it's easier for a conviction, that says something in and of itself.

How is it wrong to feel that Zimmerman's story does not add up to innocence on his part?

I'm not sure what you're asking here. Do you mean that, even if Zimmerman's story is completely truthful, there was still a crime committed? I suppose that at least stands up to independent debate.

I don't see all of this adds up to "excuses."

I doubt there's a black person in America that saw this as a "slam-dunk" and is now scrambling for excuses for why it didn't pan out that way.

Why a black person? I mentioned the discussion in this thread. I'm not sure everyone's races here, but I assume most are white

 

[BVS]

See above. And when listening to the debates here and elsewhere for the past several months, a murder charge seemed to be the circumstances people were describing.

Which "people" were describing murder?

If it's necessary to try for a lesser charge because it's easier for a conviction, that says something in and of itself.

Welcome to the reality of the system my friend. Lesser charges are very common, I don't think that says much at all. In this particular case I believe the murder charge was the result of caving into the emotions of the people rather than looking at the evidence.

 

[Jive Turkey]

Which "people" were describing murder?

I guess the same "people" you're talking about below?

Welcome to the reality of the system my friend. Lesser charges are very common, I don't think that says much at all. In this particular case I believe the murder charge was the result of caving into the emotions of the people rather than looking at the evidence.

 

[BVS]

I guess the same "people" you're talking about below?

Well wouldn't that be proof that the prosecution bumbled the case by listening to the "people" instead of the evidence?

"The prosecution is bumbling the case" "witness x did poorly" "they overreached by not going for manslaughter"

You're calling it "excuses" as if some are trying to preempt a decision not going their way, but I think most of us are saying the murder charge was wrong from the beginning.

 

[Jive Turkey]

Well wouldn't that be proof that the prosecution bumbled the case by listening to the "people" instead of the evidence?



You're calling it "excuses" as if some are trying to preempt a decision not going their way, but I think most of us are saying the murder charge was wrong from the beginning.

And all of this presupposes that he's guilty. It's a convenient out if the verdict is not guilty. "well, he would've been guilty had they just gone for manslaughter"

 

[AEON]

And all of this presupposes that he's guilty. It's a convenient out if the verdict is not guilty. "well, he would've been guilty had they just gone for manslaughter"

I think you raise a valid point, JT. I think there are many that "want" Zimmerman to be guilty because he represents two many hot topics: racial profiling and gun control. A conviction of Zimmerman - to them - is a conviction of these two items.

 

[BVS]

And all of this presupposes that he's guilty. It's a convenient out if the verdict is not guilty. "well, he would've been guilty had they just gone for manslaughter"

I have no clue how you came to that conclusion based on those two sentences you quoted.

 

[Jive Turkey]

If you think the case is being 'bumbled', it betrays your prejudice

 

[maycocksean]

The thing is, it isn't a game. There was a real series of events that unfolded. How would you judge a prosecution team tasked with proving the guilt of an innocent man? Is it not completely possible that the prosecution is doing the best job possible with the available evidence because Zimmerman is indeed not guilty? How would you rate a prosecution team who successfully sent an innocent person to prison?
There was a comment earlier about what a shitty job the Medical Examiner did. I asked what the problem was, as I didn't really follow the testimony, but nobody replied. It seems to me that, of all the witnesses brought forward, a Medical Examiner would be giving some of the more objective information in the case. How does one mess that up? Was he not giving the answers the prosecution would hope for?

I don't think he is guilty of the crime he's being accused of. That does not mean he's guilty of nothing.

If it's necessary to try for a lesser charge because it's easier for a conviction, that says something in and of itself.

Yes, it says that murder is not an appropriate charge. He took someone's life--that is a crime, even if wasn't murder. To me the facts of the case are not clear cut enough to support a simple plea of self-defense and every one goes on their way. If Martin had been armed--in any way--I would feel differently. If Martin had initiated hostile contact with Zimmerman I would feel differently. Even if he'd been actively engaged in a crime when Zimmerman accosted him I'd feel differently.

Do you mean that, even if Zimmerman's story is completely truthful, there was still a crime committed?

Yes.

Why a black person? I mentioned the discussion in this thread. I'm not sure everyone's races here, but I assume most are white

This is hard to explain. I guess I was trying to express in a few sentences something that really can't be boiled down that easily. I'm the least angry of Angry Black Men out there and yet even I share that sense that the deck is stacked when it comes to my subset of the population in America. The implication often is (thought it may not have been your implication) is that it's the black community supposedly led by Sharpton, Jackson etc (who I personally detest by the way) that forced the prosecutions hand and now are "making excuses" because the trial isn't going as they thought it would, with the requisite riots to follow. (I hate that there is the assumption that these black folk are going to tear up the town if Zimmerman walks, I hate even more that the assumption is not unreasonable.) I was saying that to think that the black community, at least, assumed this would be slam dunk is to misunderstand the perspective of many black Americans. It was less a response to you specifically or those on this forum and more of a general observation.

I copied and pasted the below from a post I made on a discussion on Facebook. It pretty much summarizes where I stand on the issue.

He was innocent in that he was minding his own business until Zimmerman started following him. His personal foibles, his issues with his behavior and his parents are irrelevant here. One could argue that his handling off being followed was unwise, but that doesn't make him worthy of death. I work with kids all the time who feel they have to react "big" if they feel threatened or even disrespected. I think that is not an effective or safe way to respond and I tell them so but none of that makes them worthy of death. Look, I don't think Zimmerman intended to kill anyone and I believe that he was frightened and reacted from that fear, but that doesn't change the fact that he took someones life. I honestly feel that he should have to answer for that. There's a guy that I know that used to repair our car years ago. Good guy, family man and everything. He rear ended someone on a freeway while fiddling with the radio and the woman in the other car was killed. The last I heard this guy was going to prison for like ten years! (And this guy was white so no race was not a factor). I feel if a person like that has to serve time Zimmerman definitely should.

 

[maycocksean]

If you think the case is being 'bumbled', it betrays your prejudice

I'm gonna call bullshit on this.

Particularly because I know you can take it with out throwing a fit.

 

[BVS]

If you think the case is being 'bumbled', it betrays your prejudice

Was your favorite toy as a kid Stretch Armstrong?

 

[nbcrusader]

I can't stand the phrase "play the race card."

Do you have a preferred phrase or description for the implication of racial prejudice without factual evidence?

 

[maycocksean]

Do you have a preferred phrase or description for the implication of racial prejudice without factual evidence?

The lack of factual evidence doesn't mean that the prejudice isn't there. Nor does it mean that the prejudice is there.

Therein lies the rub.

Much in the realm of racial prejudice is very difficult to prove.

 

[nbcrusader]

If you think the case is being 'bumbled', it betrays your prejudice

I would disagree if the criticism of the Prosecutor's handling the case was done on a objective peer-review basis.

Even as a seasoned attorney, I would not venture to second guess the Prosecutor's ability with any specificity. Also, we forget the big wild card of the jury (which is given wide latitude in weighing evidence).

 

[nbcrusader]

The lack of factual evidence doesn't mean that the prejudice isn't there. Nor does it mean that the prejudice is there.

Therein lies the rub.

Much in the realm of racial prejudice is very difficult to prove.

Much like our criminal system, where we have the presumption of innocence, I would suggest that the burden remains on the person making the accusation of prejudice to offer specific evidence of such.

Unfortunately, we've crossed over into a mentality that the charge can be made and it is up to the accused to prove their innocence.

 

[maycocksean]

Much like our criminal system, where we have the presumption of innocence, I would suggest that the burden remains on the person making the accusation of prejudice to offer specific evidence of such.

Unfortunately, we've crossed over into a mentality that the charge can be made and it is up to the accused to prove their innocence.

I essentially agree with you, which is why I, personally, try to avoid making accusations of racism even when I am personally certain that racism is present.

For me, while I feel race is definitely a factor in how the Zimmerman-Martin situation has played out, my feelings about what happened and what should be the appropriate consequence have nothing to do with the race of those involved.

 

[anitram]

It's sad that at the bottom of this media-distorted CNN gong show of a case is a dead young kid who had his whole life in front of him.

None of us will ever know what really happened that day. Whether Zimmerman is guilty or not, he is a great example of why stricter gun laws should exist. People like him have no business carrying concealed weapons around town. Nobody, including Zimmerman, is safer because he did that. In fact, one person is dead. That's tragic.

I have no idea why this is on CNN all day, it's not like it's a landmark legal case, but there they go. I already don't pay for other "news" channels like Fox (no commentary needed) and MSNBC (do they still have those prison shows on half the day??), but CNN is foisted upon me with the package and I sometimes have to flip past it to get to my home and garden shows.

 

[Jive Turkey]

I'm gonna call bullshit on this.

Particularly because I know you can take it with out throwing a fit.

I will concede that your view that, even if Zimmerman is telling the truth, a crime was still committed is measured and rational. Maybe my comment isn't all encompassing
(I'll respond to your longer post in a bit. Heading out)

Was your favorite toy as a kid Stretch Armstrong?

Were yours paint chips and a Carlos Mencia joke book?

I would disagree if the criticism of the Prosecutor's handling the case was done on a objective peer-review basis.

Even as a seasoned attorney, I would not venture to second guess the Prosecutor's ability with any specificity. Also, we forget the big wild card of the jury (which is given wide latitude in weighing evidence).

This is just it though. So many arm chair lawyers and declarations of "I know he's not telling the truth".

"Oh, you watched it on the TV all day, did you?"

 

[BVS]

This is just it though. So many arm chair lawyers and declarations of "I know he's not telling the truth".

"Oh, you watched it on the TV all day, did you?"

That's quite different than those of us saying, we don't think there was enough evidence to charge with murder.

 

[U2DMfan]

This is a...muddy discussion to me on the last two pages.

Let's be clear. Zimmerman's story is known. He has made statements to the police. There is a full video explaining what happened, according to him, from his own lips. His defense team has already presented the opening argument many days ago. And all the evidence has now been presented on either side. All that is left are closing arguments. And, as far as I understand, that is beginning today.

It's not like people can't reasonably choose to believe him or not at this point. The trial, short of those closing statements, is effectively over as far as that goes. Maybe something new happens in closing statements (doubtful), we shall see.

So if you've actually gathered from that evidence and the trial itself that he is guilty of something beyond simple defense, then you haven't "presupposed" anything at all. But not everyone has done this. Some have a 'rooting' interest. In that respect, I do think JT is right. And I do think most of the hand-wringing over the prosecution's handling of the case has been...excuse making. And could well be effective presupposition of guilt.

All of this discussion about the prosecution's handling of the case is really irrelevant. I think they over-charged simply because they never could have proved 2nd degree murder. Not because I think they are "bumbling" the case. Furthermore, it seems they have made a solid argument for manslaughter. So judging the prosecution's case, based on what I've seen, heard and understand, I think it's accurate to say they over-charged. I believe they over-charged because I still don't believe he was in fear of his life. And I only came to that conclusion after that evidence, circumstantial or not, was presented.

Even if you believed he was 100% innocent, you'd believe he was over-charged. Even one of the most respected lawyers in the country, Alan Dershowitz, believes he was over-charged. And while he is a Harvard Law professor, he is also a defense lawyer, certainly not making excuses on the prosecution's behalf or presupposing anything.

 

[Irvine511]

Do you have a preferred phrase or description for the implication of racial prejudice without factual evidence?

perhaps this phrase exactly?

"play the race card" is a stupid and bad cliche, a political dog whistle. it's a (usually) white person's attempt to pretend that race doesn't actually exist -- i'm colorblind! -- when in fact race informs most facets of American life, and especially at the intersection of crime and guns and it lets white people diminish the lived in experience of racism by people who are racial minorities, and to pretend that anyone who sees race as a factor -- in anything -- is the "real" racist.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Today, I found out that the gun was actually holstered on GZ's right side rather than in his back waistband which, if true, does cause me to readdress the story over the struggle for the gun

Do you remember where you found that out? Only asking because I believe he told the police he had it in the back waistband, and demonstrated that to them. His different versions of the events have many inconsistencies, from what I've had the limited time to read online that's what the prosecutor focused on in his closing. If someone has different versions of the same event, and they have motive and ability to lie (only other true witness is dead), that quacks like a duck to me. I judge if people are lying or assholes or whatever by their behavior and character and the things they say or do, most people do unless they're inhuman bots/superior beings who have no judgment about anything or anyone. Including themselves. It tends to probably be that most often, oblivious about themselves, but I digress.

This is a low traffic U2 message board, not a court of law (though some people seem to like to treat it as if it is). If I was on that jury I would probably have to acquit the guy of second degree murder. It's the state's burden of proof to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and that would have to be done according to the charge and definition given by the judge. I would have to think about the manslaughter, don't know enough about that to say. But in all likelihood that hasn't been proven beyond a reasonable doubt either. I can think the guy is a liar and still have to acquit him. That's the way it works, you can't convict someone merely because you don't believe their version of events. I have no agenda, but I am perfectly entitled to the OPINION that this guy was a paranoid obsessed cop wannabe who was at the very least making assumptions (if not profiling, profiling does not have to be strictly racial), and did follow someone he should not have followed. He could legally follow him, but what was morally and ethically right is a whole different story. Plus he's not a cop (he tried but was rejected), and was told not to. I think he could have easily gotten carried away and gone too far and then had to embellish after the fact. He knew what was required, he took classes. I believe I read they were college courses taught by a JAG (I believe he testified he was one of his best students if not the best), so it wasn't some "low level" community ed type of thing. Maybe he had to embellish so much that he couldn't keep his stories straight?

I think he's dishonest and has embellished his account (s) of what happened, in fact I think that's fairly obvious based upon the numerous inconsistencies. I also think that Trayvon Martin had plenty of reason to be afraid of George Zimmerman-a stranger to him who never identified himself and is watching him from a vehicle. He says not following of course. Trayvon Martin was coming home with Skittles to watch the NBA All Star Game. I don't see him logically flying into a murderous rage because of that fear, but of course anything is possible. Possible does not necessarily mean plausible. But you can't convict or acquit in a court of law over possible. You can, however, have an opinion based upon that outside a court of law.

 

[U2DMfan]

Do you remember where you found that out? Only asking because I believe he told the police he had it in the back waistband, and demonstrated that to them. His different versions of the events have many inconsistencies, from what I've had the limited time to read online that's what the prosecutor focused on in his closing. If someone has different versions of the same event, and they have motive and ability to lie (only other true witness is dead), that quacks like a duck to me.

I'm sure I saw it last night when they were showing highlights of the 'dummy' testimony. Perhaps the prosecution were referring to the gun being holstered on "his right side" only in an effort to discredit that. I am not positive, I haven't been watching this stuff live.

I try to absorb as much decent coverage online as I can. And I have seen Anderson Cooper from time to time as well. I wouldn't watch FOX or MSNBC's coverage if you paid me and you'd have to torture me to watch HLN.

But basically...in the video (his testimony to cops from the scene) he places his hand essentially behind his back but on his back hip. It was not visible from the front. So, I don't know exactly what the truth is and apparently neither does Zimmerman relative to when he was being asked...about the gun...the most important detail of all.

So yeah. You've got one account of an event that, essentially, only two people participated in. And the only living person can't even get his story straight. Logic dictates, to me, (and if people support a 100% acquittal, I don't see a big issue) that he had to fudge his story here and there in order to justify his use of the gun. Otherwise, why would there be ANY conflict about his story? This, to me, is the essence of not believing that he was in fear of his life. And if he wasn't...manslaughter. But if people don't believe that's enough for a conviction, that's cool with me. I am just a random dude on the internet that is bored just enough. Football season needs to get here.

 

[nathan1977]

Were yours paint chips and a Carlos Mencia joke book?

That's awesome. Props.

 

[deep]

Manslaughter is a lesser included offense to second-degree murder; there'd be nothing stopping a jury from convicting Zimmerman of the lesser charge, should they reject both his self-defense claim and the prosecution's attempt to prove murder 2. It's possible they deliberately overcharged in an attempt to bait him into a plea deal; though that's unethical, prosecutors do it all the time, often with strong approval from the community which sees it as "tough on crime."

It's also possible Zimmerman's lawyer could skip SYG altogether and just go for self-defense; while that shifts the burden of proof to the defense, it'd also offer the advantage(?) that Zimmerman wouldn't have to take the stand and submit to cross-examination.

yes, I agree

looking in here a bit
I had been planning on saying it is not overcharged at all

they can always end up at manslaughter.

I still say Zimmerman the minority American (Latino) is responsible for the unjustified killing of Martin the minority American.

I did see a clip of Zimmerman's court appearance, they must have dubbed it in English. He did not sound or look Latino at all.

I think Yoland called this right in April 2012, I agreed with her then.

I hope Zimmerman, the child killer, is at least convicted of manslaughter.