On July 12 2013 09:55 Myrddraal wrote: Either way, if Zimmerman gets off scott free I would find that extremely fucked up. I can understand that there might not be enough evidence for murder, but you shouldn't be able to stalk someone, get in a fight with them, shoot them, and get off free just because nobody else saw it and you say that they are the one that started it.
You can convict an infinite number of innocent people if you use this like of thinking. That's why the standards for conviction are so high. The story, as Zimmerman tells it, holds up quite well. He most certainly should not go to jail on the opinion that he shouldn't have been following a suspected burglar.
And you could let an infinite number of guilty people go free by simply taking them on their word, so it goes both ways.
His story holds up, but we don't have any other account on the initial encounter, why would he tell a story that incriminates himself in any way? The problem I have is not that I don't find his story conceivable, it's that I don't find it most probable, but unfortunately since he killed the only other witness, his is the only we have to go on.
Edit: Which is why I was wondering about the phone conversation between Trayvon and his friend, because that might be able to give us "some" solid evidence on the beginning of the encounter, which could either validate or invalidate a small part of Zimmerman's story.
There's not an infinite number of guilty people though. Most of them either talk their way into a conviction or are convicted by the evidence anyways. It's not that easy to tell a story that will hold up against scrutiny - police interrogators are very good at their jobs. And even if they don't, that's better than the alternative. Innocent until proven guilty exists for a reason, and in almost all cases people are clearly innocent or clearly guilty.
His friend testified in court, and gave nothing to help Trayvon's case.
On July 12 2013 10:31 Ubiquitousdichotomy wrote: The irony is after all is said and done Paula Dean will remain more universally hated than George Zimmerman in America.
Edit: Mark Geragos sees through all the bs
You are right that there is irony but I'm pretty sure that it is ironic for the opposite reasons you stated. George Zimmerman hasn't actually demonstrated any signs of racism (unless you can prove that the reason he called 911 on Trayvon Martin was because he was black and not because he was looking into his neighbors windows) and is probably much much more hated than Paula Dean.
Perhaps it should be a group separate from the jury. But i'd like SOME group to be in charge of just assessing the situation, figuring out what happened, and making recommendations. Trial jury's dont' decide what actually happened, they decide guilty or not guilty, and some findings of fact, but not too many, and not nearly as much analysis about what happened and what could be done; and the evidentiary rules are different.
What I want is a more thorough incident report and analysis. Similar to, but on a far smaller scale of course, than the 9/11 commission report.
Because Martin would, justifiably, resist being held, especially if Zimmerman's only claim to hold him was that he "looked suspicious."
And again, ya'll are like totally missing the "carrying a gun" thing. Even in Texas it's not normal to just see people carrying guns. It's still rare even here. It's effing weird that he was carrying a gun, license or no.
I lived in Dallas for almost 15 years, and I think almost everyone I knew had a CHL, and carried daily (Including myself). I now live in Philadelphia, where I would say about half of everyone I know carrys.
I've lived in Dallas for 24 years and scarce few people I know actually carry their guns on a daily basis even if they have licenses. Now, tons of cars have guns in them. But actual on person guns...nope.
We can both play the anecdotal numbers game about Texas. I bet I win.
What does this have to do with the price of tea in china? The man had a gun, it was legal and he could carry it legally. You can't claim that people have weird intent when they are doing something that is totally allowed by law. If he had stabbed Martin, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Yes we would. I'd be saying "why the fuck did Zimmerman think he needed a knife?!"
I have a knife in my bag right now. I am in the office. Do you know why I have it? Because I don't know when I will need a knife. Same with fire and tape.
None fo this stuff is illegal or unreasonable. I don't know what you are fishing for. Just because it doesn't make sense to you does mean there is something wrong.
Is it not against company policy to have a knife on the premises? I'd get fired on the spot if they discovered anything like that in my bag.
Must like the seat belt, you don't wear it for the times you don't crash. I have a shotgun at my house and shells near by for that reason. You don't prepare for the time people don't break in.
Ok one last post because I really don't like this analogy. Seatbelts aren't going to hurt you. Statistically you are more likely to harm yourself or someone you know with that shotgun than you are to prevent a home invasion. And before you go saying "I'm trained!" or "I'm not that dumb!" that's exactly what everyone thinks. In a normally distributed large sample size on a scale of 0-10, you're somewhere between 4-6.
And seatbelts and airbags can also kill you too. They don't always help, sometimes they make things worse.
Please don't hint/suggest that seat belts are comparable to guns in terms of potential to maim and kill users. It's silly.
On July 12 2013 11:16 zlefin wrote: Perhaps it should be a group separate from the jury. But i'd like SOME group to be in charge of just assessing the situation, figuring out what happened, and making recommendations. Trial jury's dont' decide what actually happened, they decide guilty or not guilty, and some findings of fact, but not too many, and not nearly as much analysis about what happened and what could be done; and the evidentiary rules are different.
What I want is a more thorough incident report and analysis. Similar to, but on a far smaller scale of course, than the 9/11 commission report.
You mean something along the lines of the police investigation that happened?
On July 12 2013 09:55 Myrddraal wrote: Either way, if Zimmerman gets off scott free I would find that extremely fucked up. I can understand that there might not be enough evidence for murder, but you shouldn't be able to stalk someone, get in a fight with them, shoot them, and get off free just because nobody else saw it and you say that they are the one that started it.
You can convict an infinite number of innocent people if you use this like of thinking. That's why the standards for conviction are so high. The story, as Zimmerman tells it, holds up quite well. He most certainly should not go to jail on the opinion that he shouldn't have been following a suspected burglar.
And you could let an infinite number of guilty people go free by simply taking them on their word, so it goes both ways.
His story holds up, but we don't have any other account on the initial encounter, why would he tell a story that incriminates himself in any way? The problem I have is not that I don't find his story conceivable, it's that I don't find it most probable, but unfortunately since he killed the only other witness, his is the only we have to go on.
Edit: Which is why I was wondering about the phone conversation between Trayvon and his friend, because that might be able to give us "some" solid evidence on the beginning of the encounter, which could either validate or invalidate a small part of Zimmerman's story.
The beginning of the confrontation does not change Zimmerman's claim of self-defense. The moment where he had reasonable fear for his life was when he was getting his face punched into cement.
A person is justified in using deadly force if [he] [she] reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent 1. imminent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] or another, or 2. the imminent commission of (applicable forcible felony) against [himself] [herself] or another.
However, the use of deadly force is not justifiable if you find: 1. (Defendant) was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of (applicable forcible felony); or 2. (Defendant) initially provoked the use of force against [himself] [herself], unless: a. The force asserted toward the defendant was so great that [he] [she] reasonably believed that [he] [she] was in imminent danger of death or great 63 bodily harm and had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger, other than using deadly force on (assailant). b. In good faith, the defendant withdrew from physical contact with (assailant) and clearly indicated to (assailant) that [he] [she] wanted to withdraw and stop the use of deadly force, but (assailant) continued or resumed the use of force.
When Martin refused to stop after Zimmerman cried for help for 40 seconds, he gave Zimmerman the opportunity to use justifiable deadly force.
Right, I was less arguing that he would not be able to prove self defense, but more that I feel he is primarily responsible for the sequence of events that resulted in the death of another person, and that within the law there should be some kind punishment.
On July 12 2013 09:55 Myrddraal wrote: Either way, if Zimmerman gets off scott free I would find that extremely fucked up. I can understand that there might not be enough evidence for murder, but you shouldn't be able to stalk someone, get in a fight with them, shoot them, and get off free just because nobody else saw it and you say that they are the one that started it.
You can convict an infinite number of innocent people if you use this like of thinking. That's why the standards for conviction are so high. The story, as Zimmerman tells it, holds up quite well. He most certainly should not go to jail on the opinion that he shouldn't have been following a suspected burglar.
And you could let an infinite number of guilty people go free by simply taking them on their word, so it goes both ways.
His story holds up, but we don't have any other account on the initial encounter, why would he tell a story that incriminates himself in any way? The problem I have is not that I don't find his story conceivable, it's that I don't find it most probable, but unfortunately since he killed the only other witness, his is the only we have to go on.
Edit: Which is why I was wondering about the phone conversation between Trayvon and his friend, because that might be able to give us "some" solid evidence on the beginning of the encounter, which could either validate or invalidate a small part of Zimmerman's story.
Most people would prefer to let guilty people free than to convict innocent people.
Saying they are just taking him on his word is ignoring all of the other evidence brought in. He has a story, the physical evidence they have compliments his story (from what I've heard it seems), and the accounts of other people either support him or aren't strong enough to call his story into real question. If you find it improbable, what do you actually think happened?
His story fits the evidence, and they have no real reason to think otherwise. Should they convict him simply because it's possible he is lying?
I didn't say it was any better, they are both shitty situations.
The part that I find improbable, is where Trayvon first running away, then coming back to confront Zimmerman, essentially the part where he claims he was checking a street sign and he got jumped by Trayvon. Rachel's testimony does actually go against this:
"Later, the man began following Trayvon, so the teen ran through the gated community to try to get away, Jeantel said.
Trayvon was out of breath when he told Jeantel he had lost the man. Shortly after, Trayvon told Jeantel the man was back and behind him, she said.
"I told him, 'You better run,' " Jeantel said.
Within moments she heard two voices. Jeantel recalled Trayvon saying, "Why are you following me?"
She continued, "Then I heard a hard-breathing man say, 'What are you doing around here?' "
Jeantel then heard a bump and heard Trayvon saying, "Get off. Get off," she said. Seconds later, the phone disconnected, and when she called back, she got no answer."
I find this account more likely (if something has come up to disprove this please let me know), but like I said I would prefer if we could hear the conversation to be sure as she could be lying as well. Do US phone companies keep records of phone conversations or is that something only seen in TV and movies?
Now I understand this does not affect his self defense claim, especially if John Good's testimony is correct, but it does lead me to believe that Zimmerman was the instigator in the situation the resulted in Trayvon's death and subsequently he should be charged with something.
What you just described is manslaughter, which the evidence doesn't support a conclusive conviction for either.
Edit: So we're taking a witness who's been shown multiple times to have lied under oath and changed her testimony as more credible than autopsy reports, eyewitness testimony, and medical reports...okay then.
I lived in Dallas for almost 15 years, and I think almost everyone I knew had a CHL, and carried daily (Including myself). I now live in Philadelphia, where I would say about half of everyone I know carrys.
I've lived in Dallas for 24 years and scarce few people I know actually carry their guns on a daily basis even if they have licenses. Now, tons of cars have guns in them. But actual on person guns...nope.
We can both play the anecdotal numbers game about Texas. I bet I win.
What does this have to do with the price of tea in china? The man had a gun, it was legal and he could carry it legally. You can't claim that people have weird intent when they are doing something that is totally allowed by law. If he had stabbed Martin, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Yes we would. I'd be saying "why the fuck did Zimmerman think he needed a knife?!"
I have a knife in my bag right now. I am in the office. Do you know why I have it? Because I don't know when I will need a knife. Same with fire and tape.
None fo this stuff is illegal or unreasonable. I don't know what you are fishing for. Just because it doesn't make sense to you does mean there is something wrong.
Is it not against company policy to have a knife on the premises? I'd get fired on the spot if they discovered anything like that in my bag.
Must like the seat belt, you don't wear it for the times you don't crash. I have a shotgun at my house and shells near by for that reason. You don't prepare for the time people don't break in.
Ok one last post because I really don't like this analogy. Seatbelts aren't going to hurt you. Statistically you are more likely to harm yourself or someone you know with that shotgun than you are to prevent a home invasion. And before you go saying "I'm trained!" or "I'm not that dumb!" that's exactly what everyone thinks. In a normally distributed large sample size on a scale of 0-10, you're somewhere between 4-6.
And seatbelts and airbags can also kill you too. They don't always help, sometimes they make things worse.
Please don't hint/suggest that seat belts are comparable to guns in terms of potential to maim and kill users. It's silly.
Silly because it's silly, or silly because guns are bad and seat belts are good mmkay?
I'd bet that there are a similar number of injuries caused by seat belts as there are by guns considering there are a lot more car crashes than there are shootings. Guns almost undoubtedly cause on average more severe injuries. But so what? It's guns and seat belts, the whole comparison is silly from the get-go. You're more likely to be injured from a fall and more likely to fall than you are to be hurt by a seatbelt or a gun, I suggest a campaign against our own two feet for not being safe. After all, seatbelts and guns cause less injuries!
On July 12 2013 09:55 Myrddraal wrote: Either way, if Zimmerman gets off scott free I would find that extremely fucked up. I can understand that there might not be enough evidence for murder, but you shouldn't be able to stalk someone, get in a fight with them, shoot them, and get off free just because nobody else saw it and you say that they are the one that started it.
You can convict an infinite number of innocent people if you use this like of thinking. That's why the standards for conviction are so high. The story, as Zimmerman tells it, holds up quite well. He most certainly should not go to jail on the opinion that he shouldn't have been following a suspected burglar.
And you could let an infinite number of guilty people go free by simply taking them on their word, so it goes both ways.
His story holds up, but we don't have any other account on the initial encounter, why would he tell a story that incriminates himself in any way? The problem I have is not that I don't find his story conceivable, it's that I don't find it most probable, but unfortunately since he killed the only other witness, his is the only we have to go on.
Edit: Which is why I was wondering about the phone conversation between Trayvon and his friend, because that might be able to give us "some" solid evidence on the beginning of the encounter, which could either validate or invalidate a small part of Zimmerman's story.
The beginning of the confrontation does not change Zimmerman's claim of self-defense. The moment where he had reasonable fear for his life was when he was getting his face punched into cement.
A person is justified in using deadly force if [he] [she] reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent 1. imminent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] or another, or 2. the imminent commission of (applicable forcible felony) against [himself] [herself] or another.
However, the use of deadly force is not justifiable if you find: 1. (Defendant) was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of (applicable forcible felony); or 2. (Defendant) initially provoked the use of force against [himself] [herself], unless: a. The force asserted toward the defendant was so great that [he] [she] reasonably believed that [he] [she] was in imminent danger of death or great 63 bodily harm and had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger, other than using deadly force on (assailant). b. In good faith, the defendant withdrew from physical contact with (assailant) and clearly indicated to (assailant) that [he] [she] wanted to withdraw and stop the use of deadly force, but (assailant) continued or resumed the use of force.
When Martin refused to stop after Zimmerman cried for help for 40 seconds, he gave Zimmerman the opportunity to use justifiable deadly force.
Right, I was less arguing that he would not be able to prove self defense, but more that I feel he is primarily responsible for the sequence of events that resulted in the death of another person, and that within the law there should be some kind punishment.
The appropriate way to handle your grievance (if you were in the U.S.) would be to write your Congressman to change the law, as that's what would be required. Unless an existing law is broken and able to be proven by admissible evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, there should not be some kind of punishment.
Thanks for the tip.
Your statement is wrong by the way, nice try though. What I mean by should is that either by his actions he did break an existing law, or if he didn't then such a law should exist, in my opinion. Self defense should not be a get out of jail free card, if he did something wrong prior to fearing for his life and the result of his actions were someone else's death then, according to my idea of justice, he should face some kind of punishment, it doesn't mean anybody has to agree with me though.
On July 12 2013 10:55 zlefin wrote: What i'd like is, if instead of just deciding innocence of guilt under the law; there was a jury to try to decide what probably actually happened, instead of the much narrower questions of innocence and guilt. Or some other much broader analysis of the situation.
... Probably actually happened... Really sounds like there's something off there, doesn't it?
On July 12 2013 09:55 Myrddraal wrote: Either way, if Zimmerman gets off scott free I would find that extremely fucked up. I can understand that there might not be enough evidence for murder, but you shouldn't be able to stalk someone, get in a fight with them, shoot them, and get off free just because nobody else saw it and you say that they are the one that started it.
You can convict an infinite number of innocent people if you use this like of thinking. That's why the standards for conviction are so high. The story, as Zimmerman tells it, holds up quite well. He most certainly should not go to jail on the opinion that he shouldn't have been following a suspected burglar.
And you could let an infinite number of guilty people go free by simply taking them on their word, so it goes both ways.
His story holds up, but we don't have any other account on the initial encounter, why would he tell a story that incriminates himself in any way? The problem I have is not that I don't find his story conceivable, it's that I don't find it most probable, but unfortunately since he killed the only other witness, his is the only we have to go on.
Edit: Which is why I was wondering about the phone conversation between Trayvon and his friend, because that might be able to give us "some" solid evidence on the beginning of the encounter, which could either validate or invalidate a small part of Zimmerman's story.
The beginning of the confrontation does not change Zimmerman's claim of self-defense. The moment where he had reasonable fear for his life was when he was getting his face punched into cement.
A person is justified in using deadly force if [he] [she] reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent 1. imminent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] or another, or 2. the imminent commission of (applicable forcible felony) against [himself] [herself] or another.
However, the use of deadly force is not justifiable if you find: 1. (Defendant) was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of (applicable forcible felony); or 2. (Defendant) initially provoked the use of force against [himself] [herself], unless: a. The force asserted toward the defendant was so great that [he] [she] reasonably believed that [he] [she] was in imminent danger of death or great 63 bodily harm and had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger, other than using deadly force on (assailant). b. In good faith, the defendant withdrew from physical contact with (assailant) and clearly indicated to (assailant) that [he] [she] wanted to withdraw and stop the use of deadly force, but (assailant) continued or resumed the use of force.
When Martin refused to stop after Zimmerman cried for help for 40 seconds, he gave Zimmerman the opportunity to use justifiable deadly force.
Right, I was less arguing that he would not be able to prove self defense, but more that I feel he is primarily responsible for the sequence of events that resulted in the death of another person, and that within the law there should be some kind punishment.
The appropriate way to handle your grievance (if you were in the U.S.) would be to write your Congressman to change the law, as that's what would be required. Unless an existing law is broken and able to be proven by admissible evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, there should not be some kind of punishment.
Thanks for the tip.
Your statement is wrong by the way, nice try though. What I mean by should is that either by his actions he did break an existing law, or if he didn't then such a law should exist, in my opinion. Self defense should not be a get out of jail free card, if he did something wrong prior to fearing for his life and the result of his actions were someone else's death then, according to my idea of justice, he should face some kind of punishment, it doesn't mean anybody has to agree with me though.
On July 12 2013 09:55 Myrddraal wrote: Either way, if Zimmerman gets off scott free I would find that extremely fucked up. I can understand that there might not be enough evidence for murder, but you shouldn't be able to stalk someone, get in a fight with them, shoot them, and get off free just because nobody else saw it and you say that they are the one that started it.
You can convict an infinite number of innocent people if you use this like of thinking. That's why the standards for conviction are so high. The story, as Zimmerman tells it, holds up quite well. He most certainly should not go to jail on the opinion that he shouldn't have been following a suspected burglar.
And you could let an infinite number of guilty people go free by simply taking them on their word, so it goes both ways.
His story holds up, but we don't have any other account on the initial encounter, why would he tell a story that incriminates himself in any way? The problem I have is not that I don't find his story conceivable, it's that I don't find it most probable, but unfortunately since he killed the only other witness, his is the only we have to go on.
Edit: Which is why I was wondering about the phone conversation between Trayvon and his friend, because that might be able to give us "some" solid evidence on the beginning of the encounter, which could either validate or invalidate a small part of Zimmerman's story.
The beginning of the confrontation does not change Zimmerman's claim of self-defense. The moment where he had reasonable fear for his life was when he was getting his face punched into cement.
A person is justified in using deadly force if [he] [she] reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent 1. imminent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] or another, or 2. the imminent commission of (applicable forcible felony) against [himself] [herself] or another.
However, the use of deadly force is not justifiable if you find: 1. (Defendant) was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of (applicable forcible felony); or 2. (Defendant) initially provoked the use of force against [himself] [herself], unless: a. The force asserted toward the defendant was so great that [he] [she] reasonably believed that [he] [she] was in imminent danger of death or great 63 bodily harm and had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger, other than using deadly force on (assailant). b. In good faith, the defendant withdrew from physical contact with (assailant) and clearly indicated to (assailant) that [he] [she] wanted to withdraw and stop the use of deadly force, but (assailant) continued or resumed the use of force.
When Martin refused to stop after Zimmerman cried for help for 40 seconds, he gave Zimmerman the opportunity to use justifiable deadly force.
Right, I was less arguing that he would not be able to prove self defense, but more that I feel he is primarily responsible for the sequence of events that resulted in the death of another person, and that within the law there should be some kind punishment.
On July 12 2013 10:50 killa_robot wrote:
On July 12 2013 10:27 Myrddraal wrote:
On July 12 2013 09:59 LegalLord wrote:
On July 12 2013 09:55 Myrddraal wrote: Either way, if Zimmerman gets off scott free I would find that extremely fucked up. I can understand that there might not be enough evidence for murder, but you shouldn't be able to stalk someone, get in a fight with them, shoot them, and get off free just because nobody else saw it and you say that they are the one that started it.
You can convict an infinite number of innocent people if you use this like of thinking. That's why the standards for conviction are so high. The story, as Zimmerman tells it, holds up quite well. He most certainly should not go to jail on the opinion that he shouldn't have been following a suspected burglar.
And you could let an infinite number of guilty people go free by simply taking them on their word, so it goes both ways.
His story holds up, but we don't have any other account on the initial encounter, why would he tell a story that incriminates himself in any way? The problem I have is not that I don't find his story conceivable, it's that I don't find it most probable, but unfortunately since he killed the only other witness, his is the only we have to go on.
Edit: Which is why I was wondering about the phone conversation between Trayvon and his friend, because that might be able to give us "some" solid evidence on the beginning of the encounter, which could either validate or invalidate a small part of Zimmerman's story.
Most people would prefer to let guilty people free than to convict innocent people.
Saying they are just taking him on his word is ignoring all of the other evidence brought in. He has a story, the physical evidence they have compliments his story (from what I've heard it seems), and the accounts of other people either support him or aren't strong enough to call his story into real question. If you find it improbable, what do you actually think happened?
His story fits the evidence, and they have no real reason to think otherwise. Should they convict him simply because it's possible he is lying?
I didn't say it was any better, they are both shitty situations.
The part that I find improbable, is where Trayvon first running away, then coming back to confront Zimmerman, essentially the part where he claims he was checking a street sign and he got jumped by Trayvon. Rachel's testimony does actually go against this:
"Later, the man began following Trayvon, so the teen ran through the gated community to try to get away, Jeantel said.
Trayvon was out of breath when he told Jeantel he had lost the man. Shortly after, Trayvon told Jeantel the man was back and behind him, she said.
"I told him, 'You better run,' " Jeantel said.
Within moments she heard two voices. Jeantel recalled Trayvon saying, "Why are you following me?"
She continued, "Then I heard a hard-breathing man say, 'What are you doing around here?' "
Jeantel then heard a bump and heard Trayvon saying, "Get off. Get off," she said. Seconds later, the phone disconnected, and when she called back, she got no answer."
I find this account more likely (if something has come up to disprove this please let me know), but like I said I would prefer if we could hear the conversation to be sure as she could be lying as well. Do US phone companies keep records of phone conversations or is that something only seen in TV and movies?
Now I understand this does not affect his self defense claim, especially if John Good's testimony is correct, but it does lead me to believe that Zimmerman was the instigator in the situation the resulted in Trayvon's death and subsequently he should be charged with something.
What you just described is manslaughter, which the evidence doesn't support a conclusive conviction for either.
Edit: So we're taking a witness who's been shown multiple times to have lied under oath and changed her testimony as more credible than autopsy reports, eyewitness testimony, and medical reports...okay then.
I never said that she was the most reliable, just that she is the only source apart from Zimmerman that we have as to the beginning of the encounter, I even said she could be lying for christ's sake, but like I said, Zimmerman has every reason to lie about that part too. So unless you can show me the eyewitness testimony (which I asked for before but you ignored) that shows that Trayvon jumped Zimmerman as he claim, it's her word against his, and since both have every reason to lie, I am inclined to believe the story that seems more plausible and hers seems far more likely than his.
On July 12 2013 09:55 Myrddraal wrote: Either way, if Zimmerman gets off scott free I would find that extremely fucked up. I can understand that there might not be enough evidence for murder, but you shouldn't be able to stalk someone, get in a fight with them, shoot them, and get off free just because nobody else saw it and you say that they are the one that started it.
You can convict an infinite number of innocent people if you use this like of thinking. That's why the standards for conviction are so high. The story, as Zimmerman tells it, holds up quite well. He most certainly should not go to jail on the opinion that he shouldn't have been following a suspected burglar.
And you could let an infinite number of guilty people go free by simply taking them on their word, so it goes both ways.
His story holds up, but we don't have any other account on the initial encounter, why would he tell a story that incriminates himself in any way? The problem I have is not that I don't find his story conceivable, it's that I don't find it most probable, but unfortunately since he killed the only other witness, his is the only we have to go on.
Edit: Which is why I was wondering about the phone conversation between Trayvon and his friend, because that might be able to give us "some" solid evidence on the beginning of the encounter, which could either validate or invalidate a small part of Zimmerman's story.
The beginning of the confrontation does not change Zimmerman's claim of self-defense. The moment where he had reasonable fear for his life was when he was getting his face punched into cement.
A person is justified in using deadly force if [he] [she] reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent 1. imminent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] or another, or 2. the imminent commission of (applicable forcible felony) against [himself] [herself] or another.
However, the use of deadly force is not justifiable if you find: 1. (Defendant) was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of (applicable forcible felony); or 2. (Defendant) initially provoked the use of force against [himself] [herself], unless: a. The force asserted toward the defendant was so great that [he] [she] reasonably believed that [he] [she] was in imminent danger of death or great 63 bodily harm and had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger, other than using deadly force on (assailant). b. In good faith, the defendant withdrew from physical contact with (assailant) and clearly indicated to (assailant) that [he] [she] wanted to withdraw and stop the use of deadly force, but (assailant) continued or resumed the use of force.
When Martin refused to stop after Zimmerman cried for help for 40 seconds, he gave Zimmerman the opportunity to use justifiable deadly force.
Right, I was less arguing that he would not be able to prove self defense, but more that I feel he is primarily responsible for the sequence of events that resulted in the death of another person, and that within the law there should be some kind punishment.
On July 12 2013 10:50 killa_robot wrote:
On July 12 2013 10:27 Myrddraal wrote:
On July 12 2013 09:59 LegalLord wrote:
On July 12 2013 09:55 Myrddraal wrote: Either way, if Zimmerman gets off scott free I would find that extremely fucked up. I can understand that there might not be enough evidence for murder, but you shouldn't be able to stalk someone, get in a fight with them, shoot them, and get off free just because nobody else saw it and you say that they are the one that started it.
You can convict an infinite number of innocent people if you use this like of thinking. That's why the standards for conviction are so high. The story, as Zimmerman tells it, holds up quite well. He most certainly should not go to jail on the opinion that he shouldn't have been following a suspected burglar.
And you could let an infinite number of guilty people go free by simply taking them on their word, so it goes both ways.
His story holds up, but we don't have any other account on the initial encounter, why would he tell a story that incriminates himself in any way? The problem I have is not that I don't find his story conceivable, it's that I don't find it most probable, but unfortunately since he killed the only other witness, his is the only we have to go on.
Edit: Which is why I was wondering about the phone conversation between Trayvon and his friend, because that might be able to give us "some" solid evidence on the beginning of the encounter, which could either validate or invalidate a small part of Zimmerman's story.
Most people would prefer to let guilty people free than to convict innocent people.
Saying they are just taking him on his word is ignoring all of the other evidence brought in. He has a story, the physical evidence they have compliments his story (from what I've heard it seems), and the accounts of other people either support him or aren't strong enough to call his story into real question. If you find it improbable, what do you actually think happened?
His story fits the evidence, and they have no real reason to think otherwise. Should they convict him simply because it's possible he is lying?
I didn't say it was any better, they are both shitty situations.
The part that I find improbable, is where Trayvon first running away, then coming back to confront Zimmerman, essentially the part where he claims he was checking a street sign and he got jumped by Trayvon. Rachel's testimony does actually go against this:
"Later, the man began following Trayvon, so the teen ran through the gated community to try to get away, Jeantel said.
Trayvon was out of breath when he told Jeantel he had lost the man. Shortly after, Trayvon told Jeantel the man was back and behind him, she said.
"I told him, 'You better run,' " Jeantel said.
Within moments she heard two voices. Jeantel recalled Trayvon saying, "Why are you following me?"
She continued, "Then I heard a hard-breathing man say, 'What are you doing around here?' "
Jeantel then heard a bump and heard Trayvon saying, "Get off. Get off," she said. Seconds later, the phone disconnected, and when she called back, she got no answer."
I find this account more likely (if something has come up to disprove this please let me know), but like I said I would prefer if we could hear the conversation to be sure as she could be lying as well. Do US phone companies keep records of phone conversations or is that something only seen in TV and movies?
Now I understand this does not affect his self defense claim, especially if John Good's testimony is correct, but it does lead me to believe that Zimmerman was the instigator in the situation the resulted in Trayvon's death and subsequently he should be charged with something.
What you just described is manslaughter, which the evidence doesn't support a conclusive conviction for either.
Edit: So we're taking a witness who's been shown multiple times to have lied under oath and changed her testimony as more credible than autopsy reports, eyewitness testimony, and medical reports...okay then.
I never said that she was the most reliable, just that she is the only source apart from Zimmerman that we have as to the beginning of the encounter, I even said she could be lying for christ's sake, but like I said, Zimmerman has every reason to lie about that part too. So unless you can show me the eyewitness testimony (which I asked for before but you ignored) that shows that Trayvon jumped Zimmerman as he claim, it's her word against his, and since both have every reason to lie, I am inclined to believe the story that seems more plausible and hers seems far more likely than his.
You forgot to mention the physical evidence that gives us no logical reason to believe George Zimmerman "attacked" Trayvon first and gives a strong indication that Trayvon was the one who started the physical confrontation. The autopsy and photos of George Zimmerman support George's account much more than they support Jeantells...and her side was pretty empty in substance as well.
On July 12 2013 09:55 Myrddraal wrote: Either way, if Zimmerman gets off scott free I would find that extremely fucked up. I can understand that there might not be enough evidence for murder, but you shouldn't be able to stalk someone, get in a fight with them, shoot them, and get off free just because nobody else saw it and you say that they are the one that started it.
You can convict an infinite number of innocent people if you use this like of thinking. That's why the standards for conviction are so high. The story, as Zimmerman tells it, holds up quite well. He most certainly should not go to jail on the opinion that he shouldn't have been following a suspected burglar.
And you could let an infinite number of guilty people go free by simply taking them on their word, so it goes both ways.
His story holds up, but we don't have any other account on the initial encounter, why would he tell a story that incriminates himself in any way? The problem I have is not that I don't find his story conceivable, it's that I don't find it most probable, but unfortunately since he killed the only other witness, his is the only we have to go on.
Edit: Which is why I was wondering about the phone conversation between Trayvon and his friend, because that might be able to give us "some" solid evidence on the beginning of the encounter, which could either validate or invalidate a small part of Zimmerman's story.
The beginning of the confrontation does not change Zimmerman's claim of self-defense. The moment where he had reasonable fear for his life was when he was getting his face punched into cement.
A person is justified in using deadly force if [he] [she] reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent 1. imminent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] or another, or 2. the imminent commission of (applicable forcible felony) against [himself] [herself] or another.
However, the use of deadly force is not justifiable if you find: 1. (Defendant) was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of (applicable forcible felony); or 2. (Defendant) initially provoked the use of force against [himself] [herself], unless: a. The force asserted toward the defendant was so great that [he] [she] reasonably believed that [he] [she] was in imminent danger of death or great 63 bodily harm and had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger, other than using deadly force on (assailant). b. In good faith, the defendant withdrew from physical contact with (assailant) and clearly indicated to (assailant) that [he] [she] wanted to withdraw and stop the use of deadly force, but (assailant) continued or resumed the use of force.
When Martin refused to stop after Zimmerman cried for help for 40 seconds, he gave Zimmerman the opportunity to use justifiable deadly force.
Right, I was less arguing that he would not be able to prove self defense, but more that I feel he is primarily responsible for the sequence of events that resulted in the death of another person, and that within the law there should be some kind punishment.
On July 12 2013 10:50 killa_robot wrote:
On July 12 2013 10:27 Myrddraal wrote:
On July 12 2013 09:59 LegalLord wrote:
On July 12 2013 09:55 Myrddraal wrote: Either way, if Zimmerman gets off scott free I would find that extremely fucked up. I can understand that there might not be enough evidence for murder, but you shouldn't be able to stalk someone, get in a fight with them, shoot them, and get off free just because nobody else saw it and you say that they are the one that started it.
You can convict an infinite number of innocent people if you use this like of thinking. That's why the standards for conviction are so high. The story, as Zimmerman tells it, holds up quite well. He most certainly should not go to jail on the opinion that he shouldn't have been following a suspected burglar.
And you could let an infinite number of guilty people go free by simply taking them on their word, so it goes both ways.
His story holds up, but we don't have any other account on the initial encounter, why would he tell a story that incriminates himself in any way? The problem I have is not that I don't find his story conceivable, it's that I don't find it most probable, but unfortunately since he killed the only other witness, his is the only we have to go on.
Edit: Which is why I was wondering about the phone conversation between Trayvon and his friend, because that might be able to give us "some" solid evidence on the beginning of the encounter, which could either validate or invalidate a small part of Zimmerman's story.
Most people would prefer to let guilty people free than to convict innocent people.
Saying they are just taking him on his word is ignoring all of the other evidence brought in. He has a story, the physical evidence they have compliments his story (from what I've heard it seems), and the accounts of other people either support him or aren't strong enough to call his story into real question. If you find it improbable, what do you actually think happened?
His story fits the evidence, and they have no real reason to think otherwise. Should they convict him simply because it's possible he is lying?
I didn't say it was any better, they are both shitty situations.
The part that I find improbable, is where Trayvon first running away, then coming back to confront Zimmerman, essentially the part where he claims he was checking a street sign and he got jumped by Trayvon. Rachel's testimony does actually go against this:
"Later, the man began following Trayvon, so the teen ran through the gated community to try to get away, Jeantel said.
Trayvon was out of breath when he told Jeantel he had lost the man. Shortly after, Trayvon told Jeantel the man was back and behind him, she said.
"I told him, 'You better run,' " Jeantel said.
Within moments she heard two voices. Jeantel recalled Trayvon saying, "Why are you following me?"
She continued, "Then I heard a hard-breathing man say, 'What are you doing around here?' "
Jeantel then heard a bump and heard Trayvon saying, "Get off. Get off," she said. Seconds later, the phone disconnected, and when she called back, she got no answer."
I find this account more likely (if something has come up to disprove this please let me know), but like I said I would prefer if we could hear the conversation to be sure as she could be lying as well. Do US phone companies keep records of phone conversations or is that something only seen in TV and movies?
Now I understand this does not affect his self defense claim, especially if John Good's testimony is correct, but it does lead me to believe that Zimmerman was the instigator in the situation the resulted in Trayvon's death and subsequently he should be charged with something.
What you just described is manslaughter, which the evidence doesn't support a conclusive conviction for either.
Edit: So we're taking a witness who's been shown multiple times to have lied under oath and changed her testimony as more credible than autopsy reports, eyewitness testimony, and medical reports...okay then.
I never said that she was the most reliable, just that she is the only source apart from Zimmerman that we have as to the beginning of the encounter, I even said she could be lying for christ's sake, but like I said, Zimmerman has every reason to lie about that part too. So unless you can show me the eyewitness testimony (which I asked for before but you ignored) that shows that Trayvon jumped Zimmerman as he claim, it's her word against his, and since both have every reason to lie, I am inclined to believe the story that seems more plausible and hers seems far more likely than his.
You're ignoring that according to Rachel's testimony, Trayvon got home. He was in his father's fiancee's backyard and would have lived if he had just got in the house. He stepped back out, presumably to look for Zimmerman, and ended up in the altercation that ended his life.
I want anyone to give me a scenario in which it is at all possible, given the evidence we've now seen, that Zimmerman somehow ran down a physically fit, 17 year old football player, and then started a fight only to get on the losing end (John Good's testimony), and then take back control of the fight (without injuring Trayvon in any way) and shoot him.
Because that sequence of events is 100% required to have occurred for Zimmerman to be guilty of what he's charged, and that, to me, is so unbelievably absurd a scenario that you might as well say that Zimmerman used his secret spiderman powers to do it.
[B]On July 12 2013 08:47 GreenGringo wrote:Well, I find it hard to believe that the French were pro-German when they were at war with Germany, and I don't think it's disputable that the Nazi occupation greatly accelerated the Nazification of French culture. But the details don't really matter. Point was, people tend to go along with power. It's true in the case of invading armies, who almost invariably (given ruthless enough tactics) bend the occupied people to their will. I fear we'll find that it's true in the case of baying mobs that threaten to riot and brand anyone who disagrees with them as a racist.
Sigh I'm sure you know the history of my country better than myself, regardless of my masters degree in history. Anyway I don't want to derail this thread, it's already been diverted too much by various debates.
How does the jury sequestration, are they forbidden to use the internet/their phones, constantly escorted and isolated in a hotel room and unable to speak with one another ?
i recall they have the ability to speak/meet with family, but they are forbidden to discuss the case.
On July 12 2013 11:56 sc2superfan101 wrote: I want anyone to give me a scenario in which it is at all possible, given the evidence we've now seen, that Zimmerman somehow ran down a physically fit, 17 year old football player, and then started a fight only to get on the losing end (John Good's testimony), and then take back control of the fight (without injuring Trayvon in any way) and shoot him.
Because that sequence of events is 100% required to have occurred for Zimmerman to be guilty of what he's charged, and that, to me, is so unbelievably absurd a scenario that you might as well say that Zimmerman used his secret spiderman powers to do it.
he can still get manslaughter without needing to meet all your strict requirements
Not that yahoo is known for fantastic journalism, but is it true that George Zimmerman could end up with a manslaughter charge? I thought that it was all or nothing.
SANFORD, Fla. (AP) — In an unmistakable setback for George Zimmerman, the jury at the neighborhood watch captain's second-degree murder trial was given the option Thursday of convicting him on the lesser charge of manslaughter in the shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.
Judge Debra Nelson issued her ruling over the objections of Zimmerman's lawyers shortly before a prosecutor delivered a closing argument in which he portrayed the defendant as an aspiring police officer who assumed Martin was up to no good and took the law into his own hands.
"A teenager is dead. He is dead through no fault of his own," prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda told the jurors. "He is dead because a man made assumptions. ... Unfortunately because his assumptions were wrong, Trayvon Benjamin Martin no longer walks this Earth."
Because of the judge's ruling, the six jurors will have three options when they start deliberations as early as Friday: guilty of second-degree murder, guilty of manslaughter and not guilty.
Zimmerman attorney Don West had argued an all-or-nothing strategy, saying the only charge that should be put before the jury is second-degree murder. ."
View gallery George Zimmerman arrives for his trial in Seminole … George Zimmerman arrives for his trial in Seminole circuit court in Sanford, Fla. Thursday, July 11, …
"The state has charged him with second-degree murder. They should be required to prove it," West said. "If they had wanted to charge him with manslaughter ... they could do that."
To win a second-degree murder conviction, prosecutors must prove Zimmerman showed ill will, hatred or spite — a burden the defense has argued the state failed to meet. To get a manslaughter conviction, prosecutors must show only that Zimmerman killed without lawful justification.
Allowing the jurors to consider manslaughter could give those who aren't convinced the shooting amounted to murder a way to hold Zimmerman responsible for the death of the unarmed teen, said David Hill, an Orlando defense attorney with no connection to the case.
"From the jury's point of view, if they don't like the second-degree murder — and I can see why they don't like it — he doesn't want to give them any options to convict on lesser charges," Hill said of the defense attorney.
Because of the way Florida law imposes longer sentences for crimes committed with a gun, manslaughter could end up carrying a penalty as heavy as the one for second-degree murder: life in prison. ."
View gallery Assistant state attorney Bernie de la Rionda presents … Assistant state attorney Bernie de la Rionda presents the state's closing arguments in George Zimmer …
It is standard for prosecutors in Florida murder cases to ask that the jury be allowed to consider lesser charges that were not actually brought against the defendant. And it is not unusual for judges to grant such requests.
Prosecutor Richard Mantei also asked that the jury be allowed to consider third-degree murder, on the premise that Zimmerman committed child abuse when he shot the underage Martin. Zimmerman's lawyer called that "bizarre" and "outrageous," and the judge sided with the defense.
Zimmerman, 29, got into a scuffle with Martin after spotting the teen while driving through his gated townhouse complex on a rainy night in February 2012. Zimmerman has claimed he fired in self-defense after Martin sucker-punched him and began slamming his head into the pavement. Prosecutors have disputed his account and portrayed him as the aggressor.
During closing arguments, de la Rionda argued that Zimmerman showed ill will and hatred when he whispered profanities to a police dispatcher over his cellphone while following Martin through the neighborhood. He said Zimmerman "profiled" the teenager as a criminal.
"He assumed Trayvon Martin was a criminal," de la Rionda said. "That is why we are here." ."
View gallery George Zimmerman stands for instructions from Judge … George Zimmerman stands for instructions from Judge Debra Nelson with attorney Lorna Truett, left, a …
The prosecutor told the jury that Zimmerman wanted to be a police officer and that's why he followed Martin. But "the law doesn't allow people to take the law into their own hands," de la Rionda said.
De la Rionda's two-hour presentation also included moments when he seemed to appeal to jurors' emotions by showing a head shot from Martin's autopsy and a face-up crime scene photo of Martin. Several jurors looked away.
The prosecutor also repeatedly asked why Zimmerman left his truck the night of the shooting.
"Why does this defendant get out of his car if he thought Trayvon Martin is a threat to him?" de la Rionda asked. "Why? Because he had a gun."
Later, when he straddled a foam mannequin to dispute Zimmerman's account of how the struggle unfolded, the entire back row of jurors stood. One juror even stepped down to get a better view. ."
View gallery George Zimmerman's parents, Robert Zimmerman Sr., left, … George Zimmerman's parents, Robert Zimmerman Sr., left, and Gladys Zimmerman sit in court for closin …
De la Rionda implored jurors to believe the account of Martin's friend Rachel Jeantel, who was on the phone with him moments before the shooting and said she heard him yelling, "Get off!" The prosecutor asked jurors to discount her "colorful language," and he put a twist on a quote by the Rev. Martin Luther King to persuade them.
"She should be judged not by the color of her personality but by the content of her testimony," de la Rionda said.
Zimmerman's lawyers are expected to deliver their closing arguments Friday morning.
[B]On July 12 2013 08:47 GreenGringo wrote:Well, I find it hard to believe that the French were pro-German when they were at war with Germany, and I don't think it's disputable that the Nazi occupation greatly accelerated the Nazification of French culture. But the details don't really matter. Point was, people tend to go along with power. It's true in the case of invading armies, who almost invariably (given ruthless enough tactics) bend the occupied people to their will. I fear we'll find that it's true in the case of baying mobs that threaten to riot and brand anyone who disagrees with them as a racist.
Sigh I'm sure you know the history of my country better than myself, regardless of my masters degree in history. Anyway I don't want to derail this thread, it's already been diverted too much by various debates.
How does the jury sequestration, are they forbidden to use the internet/their phones, constantly escorted and isolated in a hotel room and unable to speak with one another ?
i recall they have the ability to speak/meet with family, but they are forbidden to discuss the case.
I'm fairly certain they also interact with each other, especially on weekends, except they are not allowed to discuss the case until deliberations begin. What I'm less sure of, is once deliberations begin Friday, are they still "prohibited" from discussing the case, for example on Sunday, when not deliberating ? I suspect they probably are restricted from that, but it seems less important. For a sequestered jury, I would think they should be able to deliberate on Saturday and Sunday as well.
EPT
