George Zimmerman: Weak Prosecution

[Shiranu]

The evidence was presented at the trial. It was good enough to convince the jury that Martin not Zimmerman started the physical confrontation.

Which of course is all fine and dandy, assuming...

A. The jury was properly sequestered.
B. A member of the jury didn't come out and say, "It wasn't just evidence presented that made me vote the way I did".
C. The jury is infallible.

Now, given A. and B. being both false statements that argument is highly unconvincing that I should therefor respect their decision. C. implies that the jury is infallible, or even remotely competent, which I think shows a complete naivety to the American judicial system's tract record.

Also, he was found not guilty of murder. The votes went as followed...
3 Innocent (one of which who said her vote was based on "non-presented evidence" and who was allowed several hours unsupervised time with her lawyer husband... who also had a book deal planned about THEIR time on the jury.)
2 Manslaughter.
1 Second-Degree Murder.

But somehow out of that you take that the court deemed Treyvon the guilty party. Interesting.

Of course you have little use for evidence that doesn't support your preconceived notions of what happened that tragic day so you just pretend it doesn't exist.

Right. That's why I am the one linking things that happened that day and the jury's remarks afterwards. Oh, and that is still comical coming from the guy who just said Treyvon was the one who stalked on assaulted Zimmerman. Hmm, wonder how many more times that hypocrisy can be brought up before it gets old...

------------------------------------------------

Also, curious as to why a 6 person jury was chosen... is that normal? Shouldn't it...

A. Be an odd number?
B. Be 12 (if using an even number)? Isn't 6 small?

[Hijiri Byakuren]

It was good enough to convince the jury that Martin not Zimmerman started the physical confrontation.

Let me explain something to you. When I made this very statement earlier in the thread, it was in response to people claiming this was a case of murder. (And not the case of "Morons Gone Wild" it actually was.) The way you're using it here is equivalent to saying "the law is the law," as if the law is some immutable divine force. News flash: laws are made by people. Both can be very smart and sensible, but every now and then you get one so stupid it defies all logic. This is one of those cases.

[PopeyesPappy]

Let me explain something to you. My opinion of this case differs from some of the others here. But while I agree that Zimmerman wasn't too fucking smart when he got out of the car, getting out of the car wasn't an act that deserved getting his head bashed in over. If Zimmerman was returning to his car as he said, and Martin ambushed him, sucker punched him in the face, then sat on his chest and started beating his head into the ground then Zimmerman had every right in the world to do what ever it took to make Martin stop. That includes deadly force.

I respect the fact that other people may have differing opinions about that. People are entitled to their own opinions. People are not however entitled to their own facts, and this thread has been full of shit that just isn't true.

What the laws says about use of deadly force in defense is it is acceptable if a reasonable person is in fear of serious bodily harm or death. What is reasonable is a judgement call. The jury heard the evidence, and they made the call that Zimmerman had a reasonable fear and was therefore justified in the use of deadly force. Now please explain to me how that applies to your statement.

[Jmpty]

Any thoughts on what the difference between this case and the Martin/Zimmerman case are?
http://www.kvue.com/news/state/157807135.html

[Aroura33]

Fact: expert testimony was that Zimmermans injuries were consistant with a single blow, NOT beating his head repeatedly into the ground. Yes, he still got hit once, but lets not just take someone at their word and keep repeating it as some sort of truth when actual evidence indicates it is not true.

Do you get to shoot someone you followed them, after they ran away from you, who finally felt cornered and turned around and punched you one time? Well, according  to 3 of the 6 jurrors, yes. Even half the jury disagreed, and initially voted to convict him of manslaughter. They continued to feel he was guilty of something, but were convinced the laws did not support it.
 Does that make the whole thing fine and dandy and errorless? No. It means there is a problem with the laws, or how the options were presented to them.

Also, I love how Zimmerman says he regrets nothing he did that night, because it was all part of gods plan.

[Aroura33]

Any thoughts on what the difference between this case and the Martin/Zimmerman case are?
http://www.kvue.com/news/state/157807135.html

It is very similar, though some obvious differences.
The article does not state if the man who left actually came back with a gun, but here seems like a perfect example of how bringing a gun in the first place escelated a minor confrontation into a deadly one.
Yeah, interested to hear how this one goes.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

Let me explain something to you. My opinion of this case differs from some of the others here. But while I agree that Zimmerman wasn't too fucking smart when he got out of the car, getting out of the car wasn't an act that deserved getting his head bashed in over.

You don't have to be a medical professional to see that Zimmerman's injuries were extremely mild for someone "getting his head bashed over."

If Zimmerman was returning to his car as he said, and Martin ambushed him, sucker punched him in the face, then sat on his chest and started beating his head into the ground then Zimmerman had every right in the world to do what ever it took to make Martin stop. That includes deadly force.

Except we know from Trayvon's phone call that Zimmerman confronted him, and that the fight started shortly thereafter. If someone has been following you, confronts you, and (being the deep south) is most likely armed, you have every right to attack them with any and all force necessary. My criticism of Trayvon in this case isn't that he attacked Zimmerman, it's that he clearly didn't attack with enough ferocity to incapacitate him.

[Jmpty]

Any thoughts on what the difference between this case and the Martin/Zimmerman case are?
http://www.kvue.com/news/state/157807135.html

It is very similar, though some obvious differences.
The article does not state if the man who left actually came back with a gun, but here seems like a perfect example of how bringing a gun in the first place escelated a minor confrontation into a deadly one.
Yeah, interested to hear how this one goes.

The shooter got 40 years. There are two major differences in the cases. Witnesses, and a video.

[aitm]

Any thoughts on what the difference between this case and the Martin/Zimmerman case are?
http://www.kvue.com/news/state/157807135.html

It is very similar, though some obvious differences.
The article does not state if the man who left actually came back with a gun, but here seems like a perfect example of how bringing a gun in the first place escelated a minor confrontation into a deadly one.
Yeah, interested to hear how this one goes.

I am sorry, but I fail to see any similarities. Firstly the "crime" is stationary, it's not going anywhere, call the cops and wait. Taking a gun over noise? Yeah, say hello butt buddy.

[Colanth]

Just because you can concoct a hypothetical scenario in your imagination that makes GZ the cut-and-dry bad guy doesn't mean that it has any basis in reality.

You've really been reduced to grasping at straws here in order to support your opinion, haven't you?

Assuming a witness, Martin would have had the right to use sufficient force to assure that Zimmerman couldn't restart the assault. Breaking his nose is less force than that. Going further than breaking his arm or leg would probably have been more force than was justified. But just knocking Zimmerman down doesn't end the threat.

You are 100% dead wrong in the eyes of the law.

In the eyes of the law I spent years enforcing, I'm dead right.  Just knocking your assailant down, without causing any injury, doesn't end the threat unless he stays down and you have some means (like a firearm) to ensure that he doesn't change his mind and gets up and renews the attack.

There is no such "restart" provision to self defense. Again, you are making stuff up an then acting as if it were fact.

The same stuff any cop will "make up" if you took the trouble to ask.  Leaving your attacker in a position to keep attacking you is less than sufficient force necessary to defend yourself.

[Colanth]

The evidence was presented at the trial. It was good enough to convince the jury that Martin not Zimmerman started the physical confrontation.

Sorry, but that's completely backwards.  The evidence was INSUFFICIENT to convince the jury that ZIMMERMAN was GUILTY.  If you can't understand how HUGE a difference that makes, you shouldn't be discussing legal issues.

In actual fact, almost no actual evidence at all was presented to the jury.  All they got was Zimmerman's testimony (which was about as far from unbiased as it's possible for testimony to be) and the somewhat educated guesses of others.  It wasn't sufficient to convict, but it had absolutely nothing to do with finding innocence.  Zimmerman wasn't found innocent, that's not how US law works.

[Nonsensei]

The evidence was presented at the trial. It was good enough to convince the jury that Martin not Zimmerman started the physical confrontation.

Sorry, but that's completely backwards.  The evidence was INSUFFICIENT to convince the jury that ZIMMERMAN was GUILTY.  If you can't understand how HUGE a difference that makes, you shouldn't be discussing legal issues.

In actual fact, almost no actual evidence at all was presented to the jury.  All they got was Zimmerman's testimony (which was about as far from unbiased as it's possible for testimony to be) and the somewhat educated guesses of others.  It wasn't sufficient to convict, but it had absolutely nothing to do with finding innocence.  Zimmerman wasn't found innocent, that's not how US law works.

All this criticism of the performance of the justice system is transparent bullshit. If the exact same supposed dearth of evidence had been presented at a trial in which the jury concluded Zimmerman was guilty all your reservations would disappear.

In the end this is about the law working the way it was designed to work but not arriving at the conclusion some people here wanted it to arrive at. You guys only respect the law as long as it serves your own social tastes. You decided Zimmerman was guilty of murder, and when the facts of the case inevitably led to an acquittal, you didn't for a single moment stop and reflect on whether or not you had been hasty to arrive at your position. Instead you seamlessly transitioned into an assertion that the law needs to be changed, all because it didn't do what you wanted it to do.

[PopeyesPappy]

Let me explain something to you. My opinion of this case differs from some of the others here. But while I agree that Zimmerman wasn't too fucking smart when he got out of the car, getting out of the car wasn't an act that deserved getting his head bashed in over.

You don't have to be a medical professional to see that Zimmerman's injuries were extremely mild for someone "getting his head bashed over."

I realize that these Zimmerman threads are full of internet tough guys that can take a good whack on the head with no ill effects. To see if you are one of them I propose an experiment. Get a video camera. Take it outside and set it up so that it has a good shot of you laying on your back on the sidewalk. Now lift your head up and let it fall back onto the concrete. As soon as it hits start saying your alphabet starting at some random letter. Now check the back of your head. Is it bleeding? No? Try it again a little bit harder. Repeat until you have blood running from two different places. Were you able to successfully repeat your alphabet each time you hit your head? Yes? Congratulations, you are a certified badass. No? Congratulations, now you know how Zimmerman felt.

If Zimmerman was returning to his car as he said, and Martin ambushed him, sucker punched him in the face, then sat on his chest and started beating his head into the ground then Zimmerman had every right in the world to do what ever it took to make Martin stop. That includes deadly force.

Except we know from Trayvon's phone call that Zimmerman confronted him, and that the fight started shortly thereafter. If someone has been following you, confronts you, and (being the deep south) is most likely armed, you have every right to attack them with any and all force necessary. My criticism of Trayvon in this case isn't that he attacked Zimmerman, it's that he clearly didn't attack with enough ferocity to incapacitate him.

Do we really know that? According to Rachel Jeantel's testimony it was Trayvon that issued the first challenge when he asked Zimmerman why he was following him. That's not that much different than Zimmerman's story except in his version the question was followed by a punch in nose. Even then if Trayvon would have stopped there he'd likely still be alive. He could have turned around and left Zimmerman sitting on his ass in the wet grass. But the evidence says he didn't do that. The evidence says he mounted Zimmerman and began pummeling him. And that is where Trayvon Martin became the master of his own fate.

[Shiranu]

All this criticism of the performance of the justice system is transparent bullshit. If the exact same supposed dearth of evidence had been presented at a trial in which the jury concluded Zimmerman was guilty all your reservations would disappear.

Right. Transparent bullshit.

Improperly sequestered? Bullshit.
Juror comes out and admits she made her decision based on "non-presented" evidence? Bullshit.
The fact that the only "evidence" is taken from a side who has an obvious bias in his favour? Bullshit.

I'm going to have to reuse my snark remark... all evidence contrary to YOUR preconceived notion are bullshit? That sounds mighty like a theist to me.

You guys only respect the law as long as it serves your own social tastes.

So why do you have a problem with the drone strikes? Why do you have a problem with the banks ripping you out of your money and crashing the economy?

Both of those are deemed legal by the court of law and yet I have seen you complain about the first one and would assume you don't appreciate the second. Yet for some reason it is perfectly okay when YOU don't like the law because YOU disagree with it, but when other people have a similar sentiment it suddenly becomes a disipicible crime.

...and when the facts of the case inevitably led to an acquittal...

Except one juror already admits her decision was influenced by "facts" that weren't even presented at the case... and a 3-2-1 vote (with one of the threes having her decision based on outside influences) is hardly "inevitable.".

...you didn't for a single moment stop and reflect on whether or not you had been hasty to arrive at your position.

So... if a priest rapes a little boy, and the law says he did nothing wrong, will you still be here saying, "Boy... guess I sure was wrong about that pedophile! Silly me!". How come I highly doubt that?

Instead you seamlessly transitioned into an assertion that the law needs to be changed, all because it didn't do what you wanted it to do.

Well, that image was failing... so...

I think the law should be there to protect innocent civilians... fuck me, right?

[PopeyesPappy]

The evidence was presented at the trial. It was good enough to convince the jury that Martin not Zimmerman started the physical confrontation.

Sorry, but that's completely backwards.  The evidence was INSUFFICIENT to convince the jury that ZIMMERMAN was GUILTY.  If you can't understand how HUGE a difference that makes, you shouldn't be discussing legal issues.

In actual fact, almost no actual evidence at all was presented to the jury.  All they got was Zimmerman's testimony (which was about as far from unbiased as it's possible for testimony to be) and the somewhat educated guesses of others.  It wasn't sufficient to convict, but it had absolutely nothing to do with finding innocence.  Zimmerman wasn't found innocent, that's not how US law works.

Sorry but you haven't been paying attention Colanth. The juror that first spoke about the case said that they were convinced Martin started the physical altercation. You also don't have to lecture me about finding someone innocent. I've already explained to someone in one of these threads that juries don't find people innocent. Just guilty or not guilty.