Merged Continuation Part 2: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Mumbles]

I'd like a little clarification on one point. It has been claimed several times in this thread that Jeantel admitted Martin confronted Zimmerman.

And yet according to The New York Times:



I'm wondering if someone could provide a quote from Jeantel's testimony that contradicts that.

That may be a language issue. I, personally, would not say that a person who decided to question a guy that was chasing him around was being confrontational. In fact, I'd call that "defensive". On the other hand, following someone just walking down the street minding their own business in your car, and then on foot when they see you and run to somewhere that you can't reasonably drive to, is highly confrontational.

And It seems to me that the defense has conceded at least that Zimmerman was creeping after Martin in his car (and yeah, if you're driving slow to follow a random pedestrian, then you're creeping behind them.)

 

[Mumbles]

Those looking at it critically believe it.

Had Trayvon Martin been "Whitey" Martin, there would be no trial.

Statistically speaking, if Martin had been white, Zimmerman would have been more likely to be charged, not less. It's been long proven that the race of the victim of a crime changes the likelihood of beng charged, even more than the race of the defendant, at least in deaths malty cases. I see no reason to think otherwise of, say, a murder 2 case.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Not in evidence.

GZ saying "these ******** always get away" is not racist

TM calling GZ is "creepy ass cracker" is racist, and most certainly is in evidence.

 

[bookworm]

Not in evidence.

Wasn't it put in evidence by Jeantal's testimony?

 

[Unabogie]

Statistically speaking, if Martin had been white, Zimmerman would have been more likely to be charged, not less. It's been long proven that the race of the victim of a crime changes the likelihood of beng charged, even more than the race of the defendant, at least in deaths malty cases. I see no reason to think otherwise of, say, a murder 2 case.

And had Trayvon Martin been white, Mr. Zimmerman would never have called the police on him. After all, it was 7:00 on a Sunday evening. The idea that this was the witching hour for burglars is not credible.

 

[KatieG]

Evidence which has come out since the incident shows that Martin was at worst a thug, at best a thug wannabe.

What evidence would you be referring to?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

What evidence would you be referring to?

The suspensions from school, the drugs, the guns, being kicked out of his mothers house....

You've heard all this before. You can pretend TM was not a thug or a thug wannabe, but it doesn't change the clear evidence.

 

[Noztradamus]

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer
Evidence which has come out since the incident shows that Martin was at worst a thug, at best a thug wannabe.

What evidence would you be referring to?

His eighteen months training at a fight gym?

 

[This is The End]

IIRC, the records show that SPD did a good initial investigation.

You mean like not testing the shooter for drugs or alcohol?

 

[Brainster]

This is a tired bit of wit. Many people, including intelligent people, have no problem giving their time to serving on a jury. Just because you might prefer not to, doesn't mean that everyone shares that preference. Why, exactly, do you feel that serving on a jury is so terrible that it speaks about the low quality of someone's intelligence if they don't choose to avoid it?

Really? On a high-profile murder case which will go on for months and for which you'll probably be paid something like $2 an hour? I can grant that there are some individuals who are motivated by civic duty, and possibly a couple who see a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

But most of us sensible people will say "bag that" and figure out a way to avoid serving.

 

[This is The End]

Had Trayvon Martin been "Whitey" Martin, there would be no trial.

Because he wouldn't be dead. Zimmerman wouldn't have given him a second look.

 

[Mumbles]

Wasn't it put in evidence by Jeantal's testimony?

Not really, no. It sounds like Martin only called Zimmerman a "creepy-ass cracker" because Zimmerman was slowly following him in his car (something the defense agreed with). As in...creeping behind him. And a lot of kids use "The N-word" the way most people use words like "guy" (as well as people older than kids, eg. me), so I'm not shocked that Martin used it for a white guy if he were surprised.

 

[remirol]

What I said was that Zimmerman did something which any reasonable person would know was likely to lead to a physical confrontation.

There's no way any reasonable person would go pursue someone on foot -- especially someone he suspects of being up to no good -- and not realize that it could end up in a confrontation.

It's simply not plausible that Zimmerman could have had no idea that following someone -- again, especially someone he thought might be a criminal -- might end up in a conflict.

Now I'll repeat, this is not specifically relevant to this trial.

It could have been, had the prosecution charged Zimmerman with manslaughter instead of Murder 2. I discussed this some in "part 1" of this thread, and I think there's a very straightforward case to be made against Zimmerman for felony manslaughter. The charge is Murder 2 though, and I still haven't seen anything to show how they can make that one stick due to the differences in the defendant's state of mind that are required to upgrade from manslaughter to murder.

I'm seeing a lot of confusion on the part of people in this and the other thread right now, too; it seems everyone has forgotten that before any other evidence was presented in this trial, the fact that George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin was established. In the absence of any other evidence, that's murder right there. This trial is not based around the prosecution proving George guilty of killing Trayvon; this trial is about George's claim of self-defense and whether it's believable enough to that jury of six people. (This is also why manslaughter would have been the more appropriate charge to bring; see quoted statutes in other thread, specifically 782.07(3))

Part of this case will hinge on whether the defense needs to put George on the stand. If the prosecution doesn't make a good enough case to force that, he walks, plain and simple -- and the part yesterday where the prosecution forgot that you never argue with your own witnesses isn't helping them at all. If George has to get on the stand, however, things change entirely. A defendant on the stand always looks guilty, and Zimmerman has told a bunch of different versions of his story.

It'll be interesting to see if the judge offers the jury the option to convict on a lesser charge. I think the only way the prosecution can get Murder 2 here, though, is if the defense manages to step on their dick at some point during either cross-examination, or puts George on the stand when they don't need to.

 

[Dcdrac]

if someone had been trailing me from a car then that same someone gets out of the car,I would be spooked and expecting the worst.

Pretty damn celar to me zimmerman created the confrontation.

 

[bynmdsue]

I don't think Martin's use of "cracker" is racist. Rachel also said rapist and pervert. What if "creepy ass cracker" isn't "creepy-ass cracker" but instead "creepy ass-cracker"? This makes Martin a homophobe who tried to gay bash the wrong person. Is that better or worse than racist?

 

[Mister Earl]

Ruh roh

Clearly this man has no history of lying and no reason to fabricate anything to cover his arse. We should believe what he has said and will say completely at face value.

 

[bynmdsue]

Clearly this man has no history of lying and no reason to fabricate anything to cover his arse. We should believe what he has said and will say completely at face value.

The significance is that he said it before he knew there was recordings of the screams made.

 

[bynmdsue]

Hrm. Personally, I would think that they'd have to show that his injuries were consistent with someone taking a beating vicious enough to merit lethal force in self defense. The laws there and I probably don't agree on that point though.

#EDIT: Keep badgering folks, trying to get them to put the trial on the office TV. Not enough interest. Instead there's some pixar movie up. Blech.

Because the law does not require ANY injury at all. If I, a stranger to you, leapt out from behind a tree with an ax, shouting "I'ma keel you!" and start to swing, you would very likely be found justified in using deadly force against me even though I never touched you.

 

[Mister Earl]

The significance is that he said it before he knew there was recordings of the screams made.

It doesn't rule out the possibility that he was already in "damage control" mode.

 

[Mister Earl]

Because the law does not require ANY injury at all. If I, a stranger to you, leapt out from behind a tree with an ax, shouting "I'ma keel you!" and start to swing, you would very likely be found justified in using deadly force against me even though I never touched you.

I think the part about this whole thing I don't like, is how staggeringly subjective it is. You don't have to prove that your life was in danger. You just have to tell someone you were really, really sure it was. That seriously bothers me.