Let's talk about Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman, and how unbelievably fucked up this all is

what is he saying?

"bitches ain't shit"

#teamzimmerman are outfighting #teamtrayvon early doors

police fucked this up so badly, I don't see how the prosecution has a lot to work with

that makes it sound like the police did so accidentally

xxpost Yeah, the law doesn't help either, with its vagueries. People can't even agree on whether going on the offensive invalidates the claim of standing your ground (which is p amazing to me, considering it goes against the entire concept), but the law only removes the duty to retreat in such a situation.

nothing was more disgusting than the defense's smear campaign either. I know character assassination is obviously what the defense does in court cases, but if a high-school aged guy who gets into some trouble and smokes a little weed every now and then is deserving of homicide, I know of a lot of ex-classmates who fit that description.

wait have I missed something, I thought Zimmerman was not invoking the "stand-your-ground" law as a defense

Hmm, you appear to be right. I knew he didn't attempt to have a "stand your ground" hearing, didn't realize he was outright abandoning that as a defense. This is why I'm not a lawyer. can someone who is more inclined in those areas explain how that works? I assume he can't use that as the crux of his defense, just has to use "self-defense" only?

Self-defense, gtfo tubby. fuck this guy forever.

but the other guy had a whole sidewalk! all Zimmerman had was an itty bitty gun.

in FL, these attorneys could have just showed up and said "but your honor, my client is white" and have already done 50% of the work they needed to in order to convince the jury.

I'm gonna go way out on a limb challops here: I think that Zimmerman probably should walk, just from a legal standponit. I think that Zimmerman is a racist and a douchebag and i think there's a decent chance that he's guilty, but a decent chance isn't enough to convict someone. The crux of the case is whether Zimmerman was the aggressor or not. It's pretty clear Zimmerman was following Martin and probably without any good reason, and I can see why Martin would feel threatened in that situation, but there's basically no evidence that Zimmerman actually started the fight. If Zimmerman really started a physical fight with Martin then I don't think he can claim self-defense, but we don't have much to go on as to how the fight actually started. Maybe Zimmerman grabbed Martin or tried to tackle him, maybe Martin flipped out that this guy kept following him and turned around and started swinging. Either seem equally possible to me, it's just that where you're left guessing about something like that, conviction doesn't seem appropriate. Concepts like "innocent until proven guilty" and "beyond a reasonable doubt" aren't suspended just because the defendant is a racist douchebag with a cop fantasy.

I think what most of us are saying in the thread is that due to how long it took to make an arrest, it reduced the ability to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. There's no guarantee that there would have been enough even if they arrested him that night, but it would have improved the chances.

Also, without using Stand Your Ground, is using lethal force against an unarmed victim not considered excessive if he is merely in a fist fight? (Serious question, I don't know how it works).

dude a sidewalk is a deadly weapon where ya been

also the tea

maybe Zimmermann had an alergy

if the neighborhood had better surveillance cam coverage we wouldn't have to wonder. need more of them cams.

true that.

Also, without using Stand Your Ground, is using lethal force against an unarmed victim not considered excessive if he is merely in a fist fight? (Serious question, I don't know how it works).

― Neanderthal, Monday, June 24, 2013 6:49 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Well, if Zimmerman's account is taken as true, isn't Martin on top of him "pummeling" him into the sidewalk or something like that? I mean you can believe that or not, but there's not really much evidence one way or the other outside his testimony.

he did have abrasions on the back of his head, which correspond to the whole sidewalk story, but they didn't look like the type of injury you'd get if you were actually getting pummeled on a sidewalk and in mortal danger. But that's speculation, and there is no one 'look' that injuries have in those situations, so again, not useful for the trial.

Zimmermann's account is the only one that exists since he killed his victim and no other witnesses have seen how the fight started, so...hence why I believe he will walk. My feeling that justice isn't being served is that he should have been arrested like the detective on the scene wanted to. May not have yielded more evidence, but who knows, maybe if his feet were held to the fire rather than just light questioning on Day 1, more would have come out.

which correspond to the whole sidewalk story, but they didn't look like the type of injury you'd get if you were actually getting pummeled on a sidewalk

to clarify, I mean they were minor abrasions only, so I doubt he was getting his ass whooped bad enough to put him in mortal danger. but again, no way to tell that for sure.

I think you're right, he probably should have been arrested right away, and also the law should probably be changed.

i really don't want to rehash the whole goddamn thread but he's obviously guilty

/but there's basically no evidence that Zimmerman actually started the fight/ - i don't even have an internet (Hurting 2)

I disagree. The entire attitude of confrontation evidenced by the police phone call and the stalking is the starting of the fight.

It isn't like junior high school where the first punch is the start of the violence. Assault is a legal event that doesn't require contact, and it can be proved circumstantially. [IANAL, and I don't live in Florida]

hurting is one and i agree with him. i also refer to this otm post from last year

This case is unwinnable for the prosecution because of the botched (which is to say complete lack of) police investigation and late arrest. No number of righteous dudes screaming about what any idiot would know can change that. The prosecution's actions, including the filing of an affidavit that doesn't amount to 2d degree murder prima facie, are not about getting a conviction -- it's too late for it, and Florida never wanted one -- but about preventing riots and Federal action against Florida authorities. We'll see if that works when the acquittal or dismissal happen.

If the system works correctly, there will be an acquittal; people should still think that Zimmerman is an asshole, fight to change the Kill Your Neighbor law, and held the police accountable for garbage like this (and keep challenging Police Worship wherever you see it.)

― Three Word Username, Tuesday, April 17, 2012 12:26 AM (1 year ago)

assholes deserve trial rights too unfortunately

Yeah, I agree that everything has been botched. I also am more familiar with the laws in my own state. I wasn't disputing the "might" or "could" be acquitted, just the "should" based upon that particular legal argument.

Without doing an analysis of the various statutes involved, I just think the "we don't know who started it" concept could be argued away within some valid legal framework. I guess I'm just another asshole on the internet when it comes to this one.

High profile cases work out more "properly" than the normal everyday murder and assault cases.

I confess. I live in Harris County, Texas, and the thought of the prosecution failing to get a conviction (when they want one) is foreign to my experience.

I've managed to avoid having an internet opinion about the legal aspects of this killing all this time, and I blew it tonight.

if it involves shooting prostitutes = acquittal
http://www.mysanantonio.com/default/article/Jury-acquits-escort-shooter-4581027.php

Weeeeeeeeeell, in that particular case, there was some misreporting. While the defense did introduce the reprehensible argument that the actions were covered by the Texas "intent to recover stolen goods law", there's no indication that the jury used that as the basis of their not guilty verdict. The problem was that the defendant was charged with murder, and while he did shoot at the victim (and didn't dispute that), he maintained he was attempting to shoot at the vehicle and didn't intend to hit her, so they had difficulty proving his intent. And the judge did not give the jury the option of convicting of the lesser crime of manslaughter.

This doesn't mean that I don't think the shooter is a heinous human being that did try to kill her and should spend the rest of his life forced to live like a human pinata, but it looks like the jury probably didn't buy the horrible "stolen goods" defense.

I think you're right, he probably should have been arrested right away

I would hope that if a cop comes upon the scene of a crime where one person is bruised and bloodied and the other person is dead that they at least take the precaution of arresting the non-dead person. So what happened, the cops showed up, listened to dude's story, and let him go home or something?

The detective did not believe his story, and wanted to arrest him and bring him in. His supervisors, however, told them to let him go.

because there was "nothing to disprove George's story". yeah generally when the star witness is dead on the sidewalk, he's not going t osay much about what happened. Pretty nice gig for George.

I disagree. The entire attitude of confrontation evidenced by the police phone call and the stalking is the starting of the fight.

It isn't like junior high school where the first punch is the start of the violence. Assault is a legal event that doesn't require contact, and it can be proved circumstantially. [IANAL, and I don't live in Florida]

― Zachary Taylor, Tuesday, June 25, 2013 2:02 AM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Yeah, but except it isn't like that. There isn't really enough evidence to prove that he actually "stalked" Martin in the legal sense, which is pretty specific, we just know he followed him at one point, and there isn't clear evidence about what happened in the moment immediately before the confrontation. I mean I can look at Zimmerman and say "considering the kind of guy he is, and the police phone call, and the way he was acting, there's a pretty good chance he is responsible for the fight." I mean I think there's a strong chance that it went down that way. But it's also possible that it went down a different way. I can come up with other scenarios -- any number of variations -- that are reasonably likely and fall short of that one. For example, it's not impossible that Martin overreacted to Zimmerman following him, for example, and just turned around and swung at Zimmerman. It's also possible that Zimmerman grabbed Martin first. But when you have two possibilities like that and you don't really have convincing evidence that the anti-defendant version is way more likely than the pro-defendant version, you're supposed to err on the side of the defendant.

Anyway, like I said, I lean toward thinking Zimmerman is at fault here, but I wouldn't feel comfortable convicting someone of a murder-related offense on the evidence that exists.

because there was "nothing to disprove George's story". yeah generally when the star witness is dead on the sidewalk, he's not going t osay much about what happened. Pretty nice gig for George.

― Neanderthal, Tuesday, June 25, 2013 12:31 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Yup, that's exactly right, and that's how our justice system is supposed to work.

In the court of law, yes. As logic for telling a detective he can't make an arrest, even when he's filed an affidavit recommending it based on the inconsistencies in the shooter's story, no.

Right, I mean in a court of law. I agree that the arrest should have been made. But you can't convict someone to make up for that.

I assume the point the prosecution hammers home is that the entire confrontation is completely a result of Zimmerman's actions. The sequence of events does not start whenever someone punches someone on the sidewalk, it starts when Zimmerman starts following him, and continues when he for whatever reason gets out of his car. If either of those things hadn't happened, everybody just goes home.

technically it all started when incredibly racist patriarch of incredibly racist family failed to pull out almost 30 decades ago

Isn't it standard procedure when there is a murder to bring in the most likely suspect? The entire reason for police is 'To Serve And Protect' and it seems like letting a possible murderer go loose is basically spitting in the face of that creed. Is he good old boys with the police in town or something?

dude killed someone. he needs to go to jail. full stop.

I think the thing that gets me about a lot of self-defense cases (not this one, mind you) and the decisions to prosecute them is that I feel like the entire concept of probation could be used to clear up the competing desires to show that Killing People Is Wrong and allowing people to defend themselves, although even as I've written that I can see a bazillion different ways that introducing probation into the sentencing can generate situations that leave the victims of attacks even more defenseless than they originally were so um never mind, just some stream-of-consciousness blather

http://www.theonion.com/articles/george-zimmermans-attorney-opens-second-day-of-tri,32953/

when life is weirder than satire, satire has to work hard

One question I am having trouble finding an answer to - was there evidence on Martin's body of a fight? Did he have injuries other than the gunshot wound?

creepy-ass cracker

http://wfla.images.worldnow.com/images/22686694_BG1.jpg

http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/the-collector_the-simpsons_3132.jpg

(sorry)

this officer debbie singleton has the exact same voice as law and order ada abbie carmichael

*doris singleton

“He jumped out of the bushes and he said ‘What the f..k is your problem, homie?’” Zimmerman said on the tape.

“And I got my cell phone out to call 911 this time, and I said ‘I don’t have a problem.’ And he goes, ‘No, now you have a problem,’ and he punched me in the nose.”

In court, jurors listened closely to the tape, while Zimmerman showed no emotion and Martin’s father closed his eyes from time to time.

Zimmerman told police he fell down to the ground after being punched repeatedly. “I tried to defend myself. He just started punching me in the face, and I started screaming for help. I couldn’t see. I couldn’t breathe.”

“He puts his hand on my nose and mouth, and he says ‘You are going to die tonight.’

He said “the suspect” was “mounted on top of me” and began to bang his head onto the ground.

“As he banged my head again, I just pulled out my firearm and shot him,” Zimmerman said.

He said Martin fell backward. “And he’s like ‘Alright, you got me, you got me.'”