The Zimmerman Trial

[CaptainNobody]

Advice:
If you're accused of a crime, here are some don'ts:
- Don't be black.
- Don't be male.

You can be a black male, as long as you're rich and get an all-black jury like OJ Simpson.

 

[Revoltingest]

You can be a black male, as long as you're rich and get an all-black jury like OJ Simpson.

Yes, being rich is a "do".
I forgot!

 

[Poisonshady313]

Zimmerman said Martin had both hands on his face, one covering his mouth one covering his nose after he was punched in the nose beating his head on the sidewalk. No Zimmerman DNA found on Martin's hands or under fingernails.

Zimmerman had a bloody nose from being punched yet no Zimmerman DNA on Martin's hands.

Unless anyone said that Martin dug his fingers into Zimmerman's face, there would be no reason to expect DNA under his nails.

Regarding blood on his hand at all, Dr. Di Maio indicated that after being punched in the face, the nose wouldn't necessarily have begun to bleed immediately.

And that even if it had started to bleed immediately, the handling of Martin's body and clothing was done so poorly that the lack of DNA evidence on his hand could be attributed to various factors, and would not prove that there wasn't blood on his hand at any point during the altercation.

Kind of like the blood that was near Martin's nipple at the scene, yet there was no blood there when he was being examined.

 

[Awoon]

A lot of stuff seems to disappear in many cases.

 

[kiwimac]

Why are so many willing to believe Trayvon was guilty of something?

 

[Poisonshady313]

Why are so many willing to believe Trayvon was guilty of something?

Because if some neighborhood watch jerk is wrongly pursuing me because he thinks I'm up to no good, my next course of action isn't to get on top of him and start beating the hell out of him. I'm going to keep as much distance between myself and this jerk as possible, keeping any confrontation verbal at most.

 

[Revoltingest]

Why are so many willing to believe Trayvon was guilty of something?

I, for one, don't know if he's guilty of anything.
It's entirely possible that both men conducted themselves in such a dysfunctional fashion that they were both defending themselves.

 

[Wirey]

I, for one, don't know if he's guilty of anything.
It's entirely possible that both men conducted themselves in such a dysfunctional fashion that they were both defending themselves.

This. But Zimmerman walked into a confrontation with a firearm. From my perspective, he was in the wrong. That said, he's a white-looking American who shot a scary black male, so he'll almost certainly walk.

 

[Revoltingest]

This. But Zimmerman walked into a confrontation with a firearm. From my perspective, he was in the wrong. That said, he's a white-looking American who shot a scary black male, so he'll almost certainly walk.

No. He'll walk because there's insufficient evidence to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt.
One may speculate that if Martin were white, & Zimmerman were black, there wouldn't have even
been an outcry for a trial. But we're entering territory where we may speculate any possible scenario
which supports our Weltanschauung. Contrary to what our poutine addled northern neighbors think,
we don't treat murdering black folk as high sport.

(I need to trot out that hard-to-spell word every now & then.)

 

[Awoon]

No. He'll walk because there's insufficient evidence to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt.
One may speculate that if Martin were white, & Zimmerman were black, there wouldn't have even
been an outcry for a trial. But we're entering territory where we may speculate any possible scenario
which supports our Weltanschauung. Contrary to what our poutine addled northern neighbors think,
we don't treat murdering black folk as high sport.

(I need to trot out that hard-to-spell word every now & then.)

I thought Zimmerman's Grand Pa or Great Grand Pa was black.

 

[Revoltingest]

I thought Zimmerman's Grand Pa or Great Grand Pa was black.

I don't know. His race keeps changing to suit the needs of various partisan groups.
Sometimes he's Hispanic. Sometimes he's white. And sometimes he's a "white Hispanic".
Go figger.

 

[Wirey]

No. He'll walk because there's insufficient evidence to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt.
One may speculate that if Martin were white, & Zimmerman were black, there wouldn't have even
been an outcry for a trial. But we're entering territory where we may speculate any possible scenario
which supports our Weltanschauung. Contrary to what our poutine addled northern neighbors think,
we don't treat murdering black folk as high sport.

(I need to trot out that hard-to-spell word every now & then.)

That's what I mean. In any other country on earth, Zimmerman is in jail. He had a gun and went looking for a fight instead of calling the cops. The 'Stand Your Ground Law' is merely another affectation to allow rich white people to trade human lives for colour TVs and over-priced jewelry. If Martin were actually a burglar, how much do you think his life would be valued at? More than a household full of crap?

 

[Revoltingest]

That's what I mean. In any other country on earth, Zimmerman is in jail. He had a gun and went looking for a fight instead of calling the cops.

This is rather irrelevant, since their laws differ. Zimmerman functioned within a framework which is allowed by government. This is not to say what happened is proper though.

The 'Stand Your Ground Law' is merely another affectation to allow rich white people to trade human lives for colour TVs and over-priced jewelry.

"Stand Your Ground" laws are about not having a duty to retreat when life & limb are threatened. Zimmerman actively pursued Martin, so the law's invocation is an anti-gun media ruse. Moreover, black folk may legally stand their ground to defend themselves too.
Besides, didn't you know that Hispanics aren't "white"? The media only call him "white" because he'd otherwise be too sympathetic as a semi-minority, which would hurt the state's case against him.

If Martin were actually a burglar, how much do you think his life would be valued at? More than a household full of crap?

If a burglar in my house threatened me, his life wouldn't be worth a bucket of warm spit.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I have found that trials that receive this much national and media attention tend to be just as disgusting, usually more so, than the crime itself. From what I've read here, this trial seems to be no different.
But I am still wondering as to why a community watch person was trying to step in for the police. Asides from murder, why is he not being charged as a vigilante? The events of the murder may be in question, but there is no questioning Zimmerman decided to take the law into his own hands, and an innocent man was murdered because of it.

Unless anyone said that Martin dug his fingers into Zimmerman's face, there would be no reason to expect DNA under his nails.

From what was described, it would be incredible difficult to not exchange DNA. A bloody nose will also exchange DNA. But if you are strangling, choking, or just placing your hands around someone in general during a struggle, you are going to scrape each other, which means there will be DNA under the fingernails.

 

[Wirey]

This is rather irrelevant, since their laws differ. Zimmerman functioned within a framework which is allowed by government. This is not to say what happened is proper though.

"Stand Your Ground" laws are about not having a duty to retreat when life & limb are threatened. Zimmerman actively pursued Martin, so the law's invocation is an anti-gun media ruse. Moreover, black folk may legally stand their ground to defend themselves too.
Besides, didn't you know that Hispanics aren't "white"? The media only call him "white" because he'd otherwise be too sympathetic as a semi-minority, which would hurt the state's case against him.

If a burglar in my house threatened me, his life wouldn't be worth a bucket of warm spit.

Again, my point. Zimmerman was never in a retreat or else situation. He saw a suspicious character, and could have called the police. Instead, he actively engaged and confronted Martin.

And I meant a burglar who wasn't threatening you, much like Martin would have been while still on the street. I can't speak to the 'Hispanic/white' thing. He looks white to me, and I believe that's the criterion.

 

[Revoltingest]

The events of the murder may be in question, but there is no questioning Zimmerman decided to take the law into his own hands, and an innocent man was murdered because of it.

This is not a fact, but rather the very question before the jury.

 

[Revoltingest]

Again, my point. Zimmerman was never in a retreat or else situation. He saw a suspicious character, and could have called the police. Instead, he actively engaged and confronted Martin.

Do we know to what extent Zimmerman engaged Martin, & vice versa?

And I meant a burglar who wasn't threatening you, much like Martin would have been while still on the street.

I wouldn't shoot someone who isn't a threat. But neither do I know that Martin didn't become a threat to Zimmerman in the course of their altercation.

I can't speak to the 'Hispanic/white' thing. He looks white to me, and I believe that's the criterion.

Hah! You know so little of our complicated & dynamic racial politics.
Many Hispanics are as white as Scots, but they're a different race because of the Spanish & Mexican connection. If you're trying to make sense of it, then stop that.

 

[freethinker44]

Because if some neighborhood watch jerk is wrongly pursuing me because he thinks I'm up to no good, my next course of action isn't to get on top of him and start beating the hell out of him. I'm going to keep as much distance between myself and this jerk as possible, keeping any confrontation verbal at most.

We don't have the right to turn around and ask the guy what his problem is?

As far as I'm concerned, Zimmerman is guilty. He brought a gun to fist-fist, which he caused, and then used it when he couldn't beat up some punk kid. If you are the initiator, instigator, or cause of the confrontation or fight, the stand-your-ground laws should not apply. You don't get to provoke a fight with someone and kill them because you were "standing you ground", even if you feel your life is in danger. At a minimum Zimmerman is guilty of voluntary manslaughter. It shouldn't be self defense if you kill someone because you are losing a fight you provoked.

 

[Revoltingest]

We don't have the right to turn around and ask the guy what his problem is?

We don't know that this is all Martin did. Since there is evidence that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, whose head was being thrust against the ground, it appears to be far different from merely asking the question you pose.

As far as I'm concerned, Zimmerman is guilty.

Is there room for reasonable doubt?
Should reasonable doubt be the legal standard?

If you are the initiator, instigator, or cause of the confrontation or fight, the stand-your-ground laws should not apply. You don't get to provoke a fight with someone and kill them because you were "standing you ground", even if you feel your life is in danger.

Have you seen the defense make this argument?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

[/color]This is not a fact, but rather the very question before the jury.

Because Zimmerman was on neighborhood watch patrol, he should not have pursued Martin, he should not have confronted Martin, and there should not have been any possible/alleged confrontation and fight that lead to the fatal shooting. Zimmerman was not in a position to invoke the stand-your-ground law, and the proper thing would have been to notify the police of any suspicious people or situations. Vigilante justice is only cool in the movies. Not that the police are necessarily any better, but it is clear that Zimmerman's handling of the incident lead to the death of an unarmed innocent. A murder that probably wouldn't have happened had the police been informed.