Merged Continuation Part 2: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Pooneil]

The only witness besides George to the start of the altercation was the girl on the phone with Trayvon. She testified that the last thing she heard was Trayvon saying "get off, get off". George has not witnessed Trayvon committing any crime. He does not have the right under Florida law to forcibly detain Trayvon. Doing so is considered assault.

Unfortunately her testimony is tainted by the failures of the police. This is one of the gravest of the injustices following the murder. In particular, she was interviewed late in the investigation process and in the presence of TM's mother. However the effects of the tainting are left to the jury to decide on.

What evidence led you to conclude that GZ "forcibly detain"ed TM?

From everything I have read or seen, the rule of law vindicated GZ. But justice was not served.

 

[Bardy]

Would a reasonable man presume that Trayvon intended to kill George due to the horrendous nature of George's injuries?

If not, on what grounds do we conclude that Trayvon intended to kill George?

As has been said on the other thread, the statute does not say that you have to know that the other person is trying to kill you. The law says that if you are in reasonable fear of your life or great bodily harm then you may defend yourself with lethal force.

It's easy for us to say here 'Oh, Trayvon didn't want to kill him' after months of coverage describing the two parties in the incident, but to George Zimmerman, lying on his back on the ground, having his noggin banged off concrete, trying to ward off blows from an unknown, taller, athletic person who just moments earlier broke his nose and who will not stop beating him for 40 seconds despite George's repeated cries for help, I think it's a perfectly reasonable assumption for him to make that he was in real danger of being killed or severely beaten. That's all you need to justify lethal self defense, and rightly so.

I have no idea if TM intended to kill GZ and tend to think that he absolutely did not intend to kill him, but sitting astride someone and beating them for an extended period as they scream for help is about as clear as you get in terms of intent to do great bodily harm. I really struggle to see why people can't grasp this.

 

[Bardy]

The bottom line was and is George Zimmerman is a killer.

This is absolutely true. Nobody ever disputed the fact that GZ killed TM, not even GZ.

Trayvon Martin was not doing anything provaby wrong when GZ alone decided he was and TM had every legal right to be where he was.

This is also absolutely true, and had GZ shot TM at this point, pretty much every sentient being would want George to be wearing an orange jumpsuit for the rest of his life.

However, Trayvon did do something very illegal the moment he broke GZ's nose. Let us not forget, GZ likewise was not committing any felony or breaking any laws. Following someone is not a crime, and is certainly not an action for which we should accept a beating as an appropriate response.

If this had happned in the UK GZ would be facing a manslaughter conviction, but we do not have such dangerous Wild West Laws like Stand your ground here.

Being from the UK myself I have always viewed British laws on self defense to be a morass of disgusting absurdity in which law abiding people are put at a massive disadvantage when it comes to ensuring their own safety. Over three decades living in my home country convinced me that though neither the USA nor the UK have it perfectly right, the USA's laws on self defense, particularly those which were on display in this case, are vastly more humane than those of the UK. They are more humane simply because they place law abiding people under no obligation to suffer at the mercy of a violent offender, before threatening them with jail if they dare defend themselves too aggressively.

 

[WildCat]

Unfortunately her testimony is tainted by the failures of the police. This is one of the gravest of the injustices following the murder. In particular, she was interviewed late in the investigation process and in the presence of TM's mother. However the effects of the tainting are left to the jury to decide on.

1. Tracy Martin refused to allow the police access to the phone for weeks. He made sure he and Crump got to talk to her first, perhaps to concoct a story. We'll never know why.
2. It was the State's Attorney office that interviewed her in the presence of Martin's mother, not the police.

 

[Kestrel]

It's easy for us to say here 'Oh, Trayvon didn't want to kill him' after months of coverage describing the two parties in the incident, but to George Zimmerman, lying on his back on the ground, having his noggin banged off concrete, trying to ward off blows from an unknown, taller, athletic person who just moments earlier broke his nose and who will not stop beating him for 40 seconds despite George's repeated cries for help, I think it's a perfectly reasonable assumption for him to make that he was in real danger of being killed or severely beaten. That's all you need to justify lethal self defense, and rightly so.

George told a story of having his head repeatedly slammed against the concrete sidewalk, but they physical evidence doesn't back up this tale. None of the crime scent photos show evidence on the sidewalk of a head being slammed against it. And the two small cuts on George's head are far too minor to have been the result of the head slamming he described.

George's injuries are consistent with being in a scuffle, not a beating likely to result in serious injury or death. The very next day when he took the police on a walk through the crime scene, the only signs of his fight the night before are bandages covering the two small cuts on his head. His face was not swollen, no black eyes, no missing teeth, no raw abrasions, no trouble with any of his movements.

 

[Toontown]

Or perhaps you believe the girl was lying. But if she was lying, why did she tell the court that Trayvon used slurs when talking about the guy that was following him that night? Rachel didn't sugar coat her story to make Trayvon look good.

GZ was asked specifically if he confronted TM during a lie detector test given that same night. GZ said "No." Lie detector said 'true'.

But nevermind that. Not admissible (in court).

Obviously, anyone who can hear the sound of wet grass rustling through a cell phone, and can tell from the sound of a thud who was hit, is fully qualified to correctly hear all spoken words and know who they came from.

And it makes perfect sense that a criminal mastermind who could beat a lie detector (and knew it) would call the police and give them the location of an impending assault he was planning on someone whose armament and location was completely unknown to him.

And it also makes perfect sense that anyone that stupid would also fail to connect with his planned sucker punch, leaving his intended victim angry but unscathed.

But the jury didn't see it your way.

 

[Polaris]

Unfortunately her testimony is tainted by the failures of the police. This is one of the gravest of the injustices following the murder. In particular, she was interviewed late in the investigation process and in the presence of TM's mother. However the effects of the tainting are left to the jury to decide on.

What evidence led you to conclude that GZ "forcibly detain"ed TM?

From everything I have read or seen, the rule of law vindicated GZ. But justice was not served.

Don't worry, GZ can now expect to go through the Justice Dept. and civil court's whole double-jeopardy-that-isn't-really-double-jeopardy process.

 

[CORed]

This is absolutely true. Nobody ever disputed the fact that GZ killed TM, not even GZ.



This is also absolutely true, and had GZ shot TM at this point, pretty much every sentient being would want George to be wearing an orange jumpsuit for the rest of his life.

However, Trayvon did do something very illegal the moment he broke GZ's nose. Let us not forget, GZ likewise was not committing any felony or breaking any laws. Following someone is not a crime, and is certainly not an action for which we should accept a beating as an appropriate response.



Being from the UK myself I have always viewed British laws on self defense to be a morass of disgusting absurdity in which law abiding people are put at a massive disadvantage when it comes to ensuring their own safety. Over three decades living in my home country convinced me that though neither the USA nor the UK have it perfectly right, the USA's laws on self defense, particularly those which were on display in this case, are vastly more humane than those of the UK. They are more humane simply because they place law abiding people under no obligation to suffer at the mercy of a violent offender, before threatening them with jail if they dare defend themselves too aggressively.

I haven't commented on the case much until now, but I don't really have a problem with the jury's verdict. I thought from the beginning, that if George Zimmerman's account of events was true, that it was a legitimate case of self defense. In order to get a conviction, the prosecution had to, at a minimum, find some serious holes in his story, which, IMO, they failed to do. The great unknown in this case is who actually started the physical altercation. We have only the account of the surviving party, who certainly has a strong motive to lie. However, a strong motive to lie doesn't, in and of itself, provide evidence of a lie. Absent strong evidence to the contrary, I think the jury had no choice but to believe his account. Assuming that Trayvon Martin threw the first punch, he is far from blameless here.

George Zimmerman's decision to follow Martin was a tragic and foolish mistake. There is a reason that Neighborhood Watch volunteers are advised to observe and report only and not try to play cop. He got himself into a situation where he ended up killing somebody. However, that does not make him guilty of murder or manslaughter, unless, contrary to his testimony, he started the physical fight. Although he has been a acquitted, his life has been seriously messed up by the affair. He still could face federal civil rights charges (though I don't believe he should) and possibly a wrongful death civil suit, which might be appropriate. I'm not sure if self-defense is an absolute legal defense in such lawsuits, and possibly he should answer for his unwise decisions on that night.

 

[Toontown]

I've been listening to NPR this morning. The numbers of untruths being told by the callers and hosts has been staggering.

The numbers of untruths being told by callers and hosts have always been staggering.

OTOH, those who seek information from such sources are probably not particularly interested in truth.

Hopefully it's mostly selection bias. Who but the chronically uninformed would trouble themselves to call in for the purpose of reciting untruths?

 

[Pooneil]

A Trayvon Martin was found dead of a single gunshot to the chest in the yard behind the apartment where he was staying. George Zimmerman was discovered near the scene in possession of a 9mm hand gun. Ballistics subsequently confirmed that the bullet was fired from that gun. A witness overheard George saying that he just shot a kid.

But then, this was in Florida.

1)The GZ defense team stipulated to the killing. 2)Your line of thinking does not a show a violation of the law. Which is what the trial was there to determine. 3)It also leaves out the fight, an event for which the prosecution was never able to offer a satisfactory alternate explanation to GZ being on the bottom with his head banged into the concrete. If you have one that is supported by evidence, I'd like to hear it.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Would a reasonable man presume that Trayvon intended to kill George due to the horrendous nature of George's injuries?

If not, on what grounds do we conclude that Trayvon intended to kill George?

There are plenty of examples of one punch leading to someones death. The person throwing the punch had no intention of killing that person. The most recent one that comes to mind is the soccer coach who died from a single punch to the head by a... wait for it... 17 year old male. (Link)

This is why the standard is that there doesn't have to be serious injuries (or any injuries at all actually as the law reads) to be able to apply deadly force in a self-defense case. There only needs to be a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm. As the above link shows there is a reasonable expectation that even a single punch can (note that I said can and not will) lead to serious injury and\or death. In this case there were already multiple blows to the head and there was something in play harder than a fist. A concrete sidewalk.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Can you cite where that was a finding of fact? AIU, Zimmerman was found not guilty. The jury didn't find him innocent. There is a difference. That he was found not guilty does not mean that the defense proved each and every element of their case.

If the jurors are interviewed and the state that they found that the defense did prove their case then that will be a legal fact. Of course legal facts are often wrong. Jurors do get it wrong sometimes.

I would be happy to concede and accept any legal finding of facts. Just bear in mind that legal facts are often different from scientific facts.

I don't know where you are going with this ...

Here is the verdict form:
http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/VERDICT_FORMS_x007E_FINAL.pdf

The jury does not need to find him innocent. Innocent is not a choice on the form because we all are, by default, INNOCENT.

in·no·cent
/ˈinəsənt/
Adjective
Not guilty of a crime or offense.

From the instructions:
http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Zimmerman_Final_Jury_Instructions.pdf
If you find Trayvon Martin was killed by George Zimmerman, you will then consider the
circumstances surrounding the killing in deciding if the killing was Murder in the Second
Degree or was Manslaughter, or whether the killing was excusable or resulted from justifiable
use of deadly force

 

[triforcharity]

A Trayvon Martin was found dead of a single gunshot to the chest in the yard behind the apartment where he was staying. George Zimmerman was discovered near the scene in possession of a 9mm hand gun. Ballistics subsequently confirmed that the bullet was fired from that gun. A witness overheard George saying that he just shot a kid.

But then, this was in Florida.

Well, yeah, when you leave out an entire swath of evidence, sure. However, you're forgetting quite a bit....

 

[triforcharity]

The only witness besides George to the start of the altercation was the girl on the phone with Trayvon. She testified that the last thing she heard was Trayvon saying "get off, get off". George has not witnessed Trayvon committing any crime. He does not have the right under Florida law to forcibly detain Trayvon. Doing so is considered assault.

Correct...ish. Remember, the witness on the phone was proven, in court, to be a liar, and had conflicting accounts of what actually happened that night, and the following weeks. Her testimony is also self serving.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

The girl on the phone with Travon when the fight started testified that the last thing she heard was Trayvon saying "get off, get off". This indicates it was George who escalated the conflict to a physical fight, not Trayvon. She was the only witness besides George to the start of that conflict.

This is of course impossible for a lot of people to believe. Their cultural bias predisposes them to ignore this evidence and persist in believing that the it must be the black, male teenagers who started the fight. Just as their cultural bias leads them to accept that a black kid wouldn't think twice about beating a man to death.

Or perhaps you believe the girl was lying. But if she was lying, why did she tell the court that Trayvon used slurs when talking about the guy that was following him that night? Rachel didn't sugar coat her story to make Trayvon look good.

Is it possible to lie about only some parts of the event, and tell the truth about other parts ?

 

[triforcharity]

It is indeed a system, and like all systems it sometimes fails. It's IMO clear that the system failed and that failure should be addressed.

Justice was definitely not served here.

I agree, the system failed Zimmerman. He should have never been charged for any crime under Florida laws. I absolutely agree!!

But, what makes you think otherwise?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

1) How common is it to have a fight between high school boys?
2) How common is it for a high school boy to be seriously injured in a fight?

Answering these 2 questions should help solve your dilemma.

Since GZ was 28 and not a high school student, what is the relevance of this question?

As to question 2, I don't know. Do you have some statistics to share ?

 

[ServiceSoon]

Based on GZ's phone recording my opinion is that GZ was going to continue to look for TM.

When asked how the police should find GZ they discussed meeting at GZ's house or at GZ's vehicle by the T, but GZ asked that the police call his cell phone. To me, this means that GZ didn't want to go wait it out, he wanted to continue to search for TM. Something else that leads me to believe this is GZ's comment, "These guys always get away." GZ's state of mind after making such a comment would further exemplify that he was going to do whatever he could to prevent that from happening this time.

 

[Cylinder]

Trayvon Martin was not doing anything provaby wrong when GZ alone decided he was and TM had every legal right to be where he was.

Martin's provable wrong was his decision to confront Zimmerman, assault him, and to press that attack beyond simple assault. Trayvon Martin at the very least attempted aggravated assault against George Zimmerman. Those facts are undisputed by the evidence and not disputed by the state in any cogent manner.

Could be...I suppose...I guess... was the basis of the inculpatory allegations by the state.

The evidence fairly clearly demonstrates that Martin put in action the circumstances that caused his own death. He chose poorly. The tragic nature of his death does nothing to alter the circumstances of it. The fact that he was a black teenager does nothing to restrict the lawfulness of Zimmerman's observing a common area for activity he thought was suspicious. It does not create some exclusion zone around Martin. It does not obviate Martin's legal and moral responsibility to control his own actions.

 

[sgtbaker]

First, "stand your ground" was not part of the case.

Second, a jury considered the evidence, and concluded that Martin assaulted Zimmerman, that Zimmerman did not provoke the assault, and that Zimmerman acted in self-defense.

People are, of course, entitled to their own opinions, but I think it's important that we not gloss over these facts.

The jury concluded that GZ was not guilty. The maximum we can call fact is that the state failed to prove that GZ was acting outside his legal right to defend himself. It is important to understand the difference. Don't misunderstand me, based on eyewitness testimony and picture evidence, I do feel that Zimmerman was justified. While I wasn't able to watch every portion of the trial, I don't recall ever seeing any solid evidence that GZ did not provoke the fight. That is a part of the unknowable which defaults to the accused's presumed innocent.