What Says the Jury? Is GZ Innocent or Guilty?

[Newtons Bit]

I don't think it'll even get to a jury trial.

 

[PhantomWolf]

When you chase down an innocent man and scare the bejeebus out of him, you're pretty clearly the aggressor, don't you think?

If you do that knowing the person is innocent and deliberately intend to scare them, then yes, however it is far from clear that this is what happened.

What is clear is that TM ran before GZ was even out of his truck, so TM fled before GZ followed. GZ then followed in the direction he believed TM was going. That isn't chasing him. Also we know that well before the end of the 9/11 call GZ had lost sight of TM and didn't know where he was. It's also hard to chase someone when you have no idea where they are.

It's also known is that TM was acting suspiciously. He was out on a cold and dark night in rain, wearing concealing clothing and wandering about looking at the houses. Yes there was a perfectly innocent explaination, but consider this, if it was your neighbourhood and one cold dark night you saw a strange kid wearing a hoodie in the rain, wandering around slowly and looking at all the houses he was passing, would you consider the innocent explainations first? Innocent people as a rule don't tend to be out in pouring rain at night in the cold staring at houses.

Finally, it's not at all clear that he was trying to scare the bejeebus out of him. Rather it seems he was trying to keep an eye on him so he could inform the cops where he was. Even assuming that he did keep looking rather then going back to his truck as he claimed, there is still no evidence that it was to try and scare TM and not just to keep an eye on him.

Nothing under Florida Law, US Law, or any other law makes the mere following a person a criminal action, or even a hostile action. I know some people seem to think that they are allowed to assult someone for following them, but I would suspect there is not a court in nearly any country that would agree.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Unless the state has some pretty damning evidence they are sitting on (and they may) I don't think they convince all jurors beyond a reasonable doubt. Hung Jury.

 

[PhantomWolf]

How was this established with such precision?

By the 911 call. You hear the truck door close and GZ's voice change as he starts to run in the direction TM took off in. 11 seconds later the Dispatcher asks if he's following the suspect, he replies yep and the Dispatcher tells him that he doesn't need to do that. Shortly after that you can tell that GZ slows down to a walk and likely stops, probably because he has reached the back gate and finds no sign of TM there (though that is speculation admittedly, but based on his belief that TM was running towards the back gate.)

11 seconds might not sound a lot, but considering that it took just 30 sec to get to the back gate and he was running at first before slowing down, he was likely almost 1/2 way to the back gate and had lost sight of TM by the time that Dispatcher said that they didn't need him to follow.

 

[PhantomWolf]

When did GZ go after him the first time?

After TM ran. GZ was sitting in his truck talking to 911, TM saw him and walked over towards him, then turned and ran for it.

He called 911 because he saw some kid prowling around the back of some apartments and he is the leader of the local neighborhood watch.

Not quite right. TM was out on the footpath in front of some houses. GZ described him as wandering about looking at the houses and acting out of it. He suspected he was on drugs. Not exactly the sort of behaviour one expects from an innocent teenager, but then nor is walking around in the dark on a cold, rainy night with just a hoodie as protection.

If he were out to hunt and kill a black kid why would he call 911 beforehand?

Good question.

It's not GZ fault that the majority of local criminals in his neighborhood are young black men.

facts not in evidence. We really have no idea who the majority of local criminals are, I doubt even GZ does. He wasn't even sure that TM was black until TM walked over to the truck and GZ got a better view of him. Earlier the Dispatcher asked if the TM was black or hispanic to which GZ replied that he thought he looked black. From the 911 call it's pretty clear he based his "profiling" on TM's actions, not his race.

There are many a child years younger than TM who will break into someones home while they are there and use their own kitchen utensils to end them all slowly and painfully.

Sadly very true.

 

[MG1962]

By the 911 call. You hear the truck door close and GZ's voice change as he starts to run in the direction TM took off in. 11 seconds later the Dispatcher asks if he's following the suspect, he replies yep and the Dispatcher tells him that he doesn't need to do that. Shortly after that you can tell that GZ slows down to a walk and likely stops, probably because he has reached the back gate and finds no sign of TM there (though that is speculation admittedly, but based on his belief that TM was running towards the back gate.)

11 seconds might not sound a lot, but considering that it took just 30 sec to get to the back gate and he was running at first before slowing down, he was likely almost 1/2 way to the back gate and had lost sight of TM by the time that Dispatcher said that they didn't need him to follow.

Thanks for some strange reason I assumed he was talking to 911 on a two way

 

[PhantomWolf]

As far as TMs parents are concerned TM was simply going to the store to buy himself some candy. He was walking down the street GZ pulls up and shoots him dead. Police give GZ a medal and take a few trophy pictures then GZ goes home and sleeps like baby.

This isn't really a fair representation of the facts. I do believe that they think that GZ hunted down MT and attacked and shot him, but not quite in the way you portray. Still a number of people here think the same thing.

Of course they are going to view it that way. I can't even imagine their loss and grief. It is only natural that they would view it that way. What is so screwed up is that the media sold that view as fact and people just blindly eating every crumb and begging for more.

I agree that it's natural to assume that their son wasn't in the wrong, and did nothing to cause what happened to him.

TM was not just walking down the street. If he was just walking down the street GZ would not have even noticed him. TM was prowling around where he had no business. GZ as the leader of his neighborhood watch is concerned about his neighbors.

Not entirely correct. He wasn't prowling around where he had no business, but he certainly wasn't acting in a normal way either.

GZ did not pull his gun and run up to TM and demand why he was prowling around while shooting him.

True, though it seems some people almost believe that.

GZ called 911 while trying to keep an eye on TM. As stated before TM was just not skipping down the street eating skittles. TM was dodging behind and around the buildings. So much so GZ lost sight of him.

Again, not entirely true. TM was wandering along the footpath not dodging behind and around buildings. He stopped and wandered over towards GZ's truck, then took off running along a footpath that run behind some houses to the back gate. I second path lead off that down the back of the rows of houses to the back door of the home TM was staying at.

After that there is an eyewitness stating that TM was in full on brutal ass kicking mode on GZ when GZ shot and killed TM.

Again not entirely true. The witness stated that GZ (the man in red) was on the ground, the other on top of him beating him, but he didn't state the "brutal ass kicking mode" part, and he didn't see the shooting, he'd gone upstairs and he hear the shot before he got to the window. When he did, TM was on the ground.

GZ had no way of knowing if TM had a knife or some other weapon he had yet to use on him.

This is actually a very valid point, and during the 911 call GZ mentions that TM is holding something though he can't tell what it is. He also states that TM was reaching into his waistband. It is quite conceivable that GZ believed that TM was armed with something.

TM was no longer the 10 or 12 year old kid in the family pictures the media are still showing as current photos of TM. Yet another manipulation of fact by all the news channels.

Agreed, but then more an more news is about getting veiwers with sensational means rather than truth.

A 17 year old young man can do a lot of damage with his fist to a full adult man.

True, and one thing that has puzzled me throughout the whole thing is the focus on that GZ was heavier than TM. From the sizes I have heard, GZ would be classified as Obese, and from his 911 call it's clear he's not really that fit. As a 17 year old and football player I suspect TM was quite fit, and was taller then GZ. In a fight between the two, my money would be on TM anyday.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Thanks for some strange reason I assumed he was talking to 911 on a two way

cell phone.

For those that haven't heard the whole thing...

 

[Baldric]

The problem's going to be, can he get a fair trial?

He's been found guilty in the court of public opinion, how can you form a jury that hasn't already made an opinion on the subject?

 

[MG1962]

The problem's going to be, can he get a fair trial?

He's been found guilty in the court of public opinion, how can you form a jury that hasn't already made an opinion on the subject?

Well this thread is proving you may be incorrect. There are many passionate supporters suggesting he's done nothing wrong, should not have even been arrested

 

[Baldric]

how can you form a jury that hasn't already made an opinion on the subject?

Well this thread is proving you may be incorrect. There are many passionate supporters suggesting he's done nothing wrong, should not have even been arrested

I didn't say it will be hard form a jury from people who think he's guilty, just that it will be hard to form a jury with unbiased people.

 

[PhantomWolf]

The problem's going to be, can he get a fair trial?

He's been found guilty in the court of public opinion, how can you form a jury that hasn't already made an opinion on the subject?

For the most part I think that Juries are pretty good when it comes to looking at the evidence given to them by the courts. I suspect that this will happen in this case too, as a lot of what people think they know is wrong and the evidence that is put before the courts will show that. Most people, once they are shown that what they think they know is wrong, will re-evaluate and correct it, and generally juries follow that line.

I haven't bother voting because I don't like any of the options. Based on the current evidence, I'd need someone to explain in detail the actual law and why it should be applied based on what is currently known. I think that there are too many variables out there on what could have happened currently for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he is guilty, but they may have something we don't know about.

 

[RandFan]

After TM ran. GZ was sitting in his truck talking to 911, TM saw him and walked over towards him, then turned and ran for it.

Fact? While on the phone with the dispatcher GZ describes TM walking toward him and leaving but I don't remember a claim of running away. Could be but I don't remember. Could you provide a source?

 

[RandFan]

TM was not just walking down the street. If he was just walking down the street GZ would not have even noticed him. TM was prowling around where he had no business. GZ as the leader of his neighborhood watch is concerned about his neighbors.

GZ did not pull his gun and run up to TM and demand why he was prowling around while shooting him.

GZ called 911 while trying to keep an eye on TM. As stated before TM was just not skipping down the street eating skittles. TM was dodging behind and around the buildings. So much so GZ lost sight of him.

After that there is an eyewitness stating that TM was in full on brutal ass kicking mode on GZ when GZ shot and killed TM.

GZ had no way of knowing if TM had a knife or some other weapon he had yet to use on him.

...

A 17 year old young man can do a lot of damage with his fist to a full adult man.

I'm not sure how much but you appear to be making stuff up here. I like the fanciful narrative though. I wonder if that will be allowed in at trial.

 

[stilicho]

Based on the facts we have this point (which I realize is incomplete), if you had to make a decision, how would you find?

There's a lot of speculation here; some wild, some potentially valid.

....

I understand this is a heated topic and there is another thread discussing the vast array of opinions and interpretations...but let's try to play fair here and keep any discussion to strictly the known facts.

Poll to follow momentarily.

Your poll asks what how we think the jury will rule but your OP asks what the responder would vote. These may be two different things.

The jury will acquit based on the evidence so far revealed in the media.

PS: Your thread is now being infested with individuals who are ignoring the actual question.

 

[leftysergeant]

When did GZ go after him the first time? He called 911 because he saw some kid prowling around the back of some apartments and he is the leader of the local neighborhood watch.

No, the dirtbag saw him walking home.

Wow! He's a radio talk show host and everything! Whoopdee do! He doesn't know any more than any of the rest of us.

Regarding laws and rules of evidence, he does, actually.

TM was not just walking down the street. If he was just walking down the street GZ would not have even noticed him. TM was prowling around where he had no business.

Facts nbot in evidence.

GZ as the leader of his neighborhood watch is concerned about his neighbors.

He isw an anal retentive control freak who doese things his own way regardless of established procedures and has zippidy-doo-doo for training.

After that there is an eyewitness stating that TM was in full on brutal ass kicking mode on GZ when GZ shot and killed TM.

Martin had good legal grounds to have killed the pervert who was following him. Too bad he didnb't. Might have saved some woman from getting the crap slapped out of her down the line.

 

[KatieG]

If you do that knowing the person is innocent and deliberately intend to scare them, then yes, however it is far from clear that this is what happened.

What is clear is that TM ran before GZ was even out of his truck, so TM fled before GZ followed. GZ then followed in the direction he believed TM was going. That isn't chasing him. Also we know that well before the end of the 9/11 call GZ had lost sight of TM and didn't know where he was. It's also hard to chase someone when you have no idea where they are.

It's also known is that TM was acting suspiciously. He was out on a cold and dark night in rain, wearing concealing clothing and wandering about looking at the houses. Yes there was a perfectly innocent explaination, but consider this, if it was your neighbourhood and one cold dark night you saw a strange kid wearing a hoodie in the rain, wandering around slowly and looking at all the houses he was passing, would you consider the innocent explainations first? Innocent people as a rule don't tend to be out in pouring rain at night in the cold staring at houses.

Finally, it's not at all clear that he was trying to scare the bejeebus out of him. Rather it seems he was trying to keep an eye on him so he could inform the cops where he was. Even assuming that he did keep looking rather then going back to his truck as he claimed, there is still no evidence that it was to try and scare TM and not just to keep an eye on him.

Nothing under Florida Law, US Law, or any other law makes the mere following a person a criminal action, or even a hostile action. I know some people seem to think that they are allowed to assult someone for following them, but I would suspect there is not a court in nearly any country that would agree.

How is this clear? Do you have any inside information that confirms that? Nice that you've already made up your mind what happened. Most of us seem to be willing to wait for the full evidence timeline. I know I am. I have my opinions, but that's all they are. I'm not putting them out as the truth or the facts.

 

[Philip]

Going only by the conflicting evidence I've heard in the media, I'd say there is reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman is guilty of second-degree murder.


I think a jury could be found that would think that Zimmerman's attorneys have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was self-defense rather than that the prosecutors have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't.


I think Zimmerman is a foolish jerk who is morally responsible for Martin's death. I hate being followed, but probably fortunately for me I've never thought fast enough to confront those that have been following me.

 

[Fredrik]

It's also known is that TM was acting suspiciously. He was out on a cold and dark night in rain, wearing concealing clothing and wandering about looking at the houses. Yes there was a perfectly innocent explaination, but consider this, if it was your neighbourhood and one cold dark night you saw a strange kid wearing a hoodie in the rain, wandering around slowly and looking at all the houses he was passing, would you consider the innocent explainations first? Innocent people as a rule don't tend to be out in pouring rain at night in the cold staring at houses.

I find these comments quite bizarre. Lots of people wear hoodies. Cold and rain are two good reasons to wear it with the hood up. Yes, if I see someone looking at houses, I would consider the innocent explanations first. There are lots of reasons one might want to look at houses. There are also lots of reasons to be outside when it's cold and raining. "Innocent people as a rule don't tend to be out in pouring rain at night in the cold staring at houses." You could say the same about guilty people. What makes you think that criminals are more likely to be out in the rain?

 

[Fredrik]

By the way, if the stand your ground law gave GZ the right to shoot Trayvon if he was getting aggressive, doesn't it also give Trayvon the right to try to kick GZ to death? It seems that he had more of a reason to feel threatened than GZ, at least initially.

I haven't been following this case at all. I have just picked up pieces of information here and there. (Mainly Stewart, Colbert and Maher). How much is known about what happened during the confrontation? (Apologies if it was mentioned earlier. I didn't read every post). Is there any truth to the claim that GZ got his nose broken? (All I know is that Bill Maher called ******** on that, because GZ didn't appear to have any blood on his face or shirt when he entered the police station).