Zimmerman not guilty in Trayvon Martin death: Florida jury

[KarenBravo]

Anyone has problems with the make-up of the jury, should have problems with EVERY jury in the USA. It followed the same protocol.

Jury of peers does not mean the same racial make-up as the USA, or, same colour as the defendant. It just means "equals".

It does not originate in the USA, but originated in Charlmagne's empire in the 8th century and was brought to England by the Normans.

[Jingthing]

Anyone has problems with the make-up of the jury, should have problems with EVERY jury in the USA. It followed the same protocol.

Jury of peers does not mean the same racial make-up as the USA, or, same colour as the defendant. It just means "equals".

It does not originate in the USA, but originated in Charlmagne's empire in the 8th century and was brought to England by the Normans.

Fair enough.

I served on one jury.

It was an eye opener.

Personally, I favor professional juries though I know American culture is hooked on the current system.

One reason might be the mass entertainment value of the occasional highly publicized case, like this one.

[Ulysses G.]

Zimmerman has alraedy been found not guilty. He is not on trial either.

But he lives and the consequences of killing the unarmed boy that night, which is NOT disputed, are not finished as long as he lives.

OJ got off too but Karma caught up with him later.

There is a big difference. OJ was the aggressor and the jury ignored the law and let him off anyway, but in this case Trayvon was the aggressor and Zimmerman killed in self defence. The jury followed the law this time. Instant Karma has already struck.

[F430murci]

Anyone has problems with the make-up of the jury, should have problems with EVERY jury in the USA. It followed the same protocol.

Jury of peers does not mean the same racial make-up as the USA, or, same colour as the defendant. It just means "equals".

It does not originate in the USA, but originated in Charlmagne's empire in the 8th century and was brought to England by the Normans.

Fair enough.

I served on one jury.

It was an eye opener.

Personally, I favor professional juries though I know American culture is hooked on the current system.

One reason might be the mass entertainment value of the occasional highly publicized case, like this one.

Professional juries. Never heard of such a concept, but that belies the fundamentals of our system. I have had many juries with lawyers, sometimes it cannot be avoided, and every trial lawyer I know would prefer to have juries not educated in the law. Juries are supposed to base their decisions on the facts and evidence before them, not base their decisions on their legal training an how they believe the case should have been handled. That is a jury of your peers.

Edited July 15, 2013 by F430murci

[Jingthing]

Professional juries. Never heard of such a concept, but that belies the fundamentals of our system.

...

Other countries, mate.

I was so horrified by the behavior of the jury I was on personally that it influenced my feeling there is something not right about amateur juries. But its academic, the USA is stuck with the "peers" system.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Jingthing

[Loptr]

He had a long pathetic history of wasting 911's time. He was basically a PEST.

He was a "pest" that many people in the community respected, because he helped them and made them feel safer. He was trying to prevent crime. There were witnesses at the trial that testified to that. He did report some black men - as well as white men and Hispanics - because there had been quite a few break ins in the area and many of the suspects had been black.

That "pest" did nothing illegal and he did a lot that was right.

The news reports I read is that his calls were almost all about BLACK men. Why run away from the truth that he was profiling?

It's called a description of the suspect. Had there been more suspicious characters in the neighborhood of other races, he would have reported them too, as he had done many times. Is it Zimmerman's fault that most crimes in the area are committed by young blacks?

Edited July 15, 2013 by Loptr

[KarenBravo]

Zimmerman has alraedy been found not guilty. He is not on trial either.

But he lives and the consequences of killing the unarmed boy that night, which is NOT disputed, are not finished as long as he lives.

OJ got off too but Karma caught up with him later.

There is a big difference. OJ was the aggressor and the jury ignored the law and let him off anyway, but in this case Trayvon was the aggressor and Zimmerman killed in self defence. The jury followed the law this time. Instant Karma has already struck.

No....the jury did the right thing in the OJ trial. They followed their instructions. They can only convict if they find him guilty "beyond reasonable doubt".

There was reasonable doubt. Planted evidence and messed up chain of evidence. They followed the law, they did not ignore it.

[Chicog]

Zimmerman has alraedy been found not guilty. He is not on trial either.

But he lives and the consequences of killing the unarmed boy that night, which is NOT disputed, are not finished as long as he lives.

OJ got off too but Karma caught up with him later.

There is a big difference. OJ was the aggressor and the jury ignored the law and let him off anyway, but in this case Trayvon was the aggressor and Zimmerman killed in self defence. The jury followed the law this time. Instant Karma has already struck.

Come off it Ulysses, it was the same "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" argument that got OJ off. A racist detective involved with the case, tainted DNA evidence and a glove that didn't fit, remember?

Again, it boiled down to the evidence.

In the civil trial, where evidence was introduced that was banned from the criminal trial, and the burden of proof was much lower, his defence collapsed like a clown's car.

Even Alex Jones said it was right, and he's the last person I'd expect to say that.

[Jingthing]

Here's hoping Trayvon Martin did not die in vain and many U.S. states reform their self defense laws so this kind of unjust acquittal can NEVER happen again. No, he wasn't anybody "special" in life except to his friends and family, but he deserved to make it home that night alive with his iconic Skittles and Arizona iced tea.

The guilty killer Zimmerman should have been obligated under the law to not stalk his victim. If he had listened to the 911 operator, nothing would have happened.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Jingthing

[Ulysses G.]

Even Alex Jones said it was right, and he's the last person I'd expect to say that.

Alex Jones is a complete nutcase. Sorry, I'm not convinced.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Ulysses G.

[Scott]

Posts violating the rules and replies have been deleted. Please stay on the topic of the thread.

[Loptr]

No-one really knows what happened that night. Only 1 person, really.

I find it odd that so many people have picked a side in this case, when no-one could really know.

That is the entire point.

A panel of jurors was selected and approved by the court and both prosecution and defense.

The case was heard in court with testimony given by both prosecution and defense.

The jury was giving instructions on interpretation of the law with respect to the given evidence.

The jury analyzed the evidence and testimony given to come to a verdict.

The jury found the defendant no guilty based on the evidence.

--

Those arguing that it is a travesty of justice do not want to accept the verdict.

Those that support the verdict are arguing the case points, which is falling on deaf ears.

--

The only way to address this in the future is to change your elected officials and have them repeal the Stand Your Ground law.

[kikoman]

The statement by State Prosecutor Angela Corey, will most likely be the bases for a Federal statutory Civil Rights case, this statement was as follows:

"This case has never been about race,nor has it ever been about the right to bear arms" Corey said "But Trayvon Martin was profiled. There is no doubt that he was profiled to be a criminal. And if race was one of the aspects in George Zimmerman's mind, then we believe that we put out the proof necessary to show that Zimmerman did profile Trayvon Martin".

That statement is extremely important because if the Feds filed a case because Trayvon was Black, they had to prove he was targeted for being Black, it is much easier to find Zimmerman guilty of profiling Trayvon as a criminal strictly on the way he looked while walking home (as he was not involved in any criminal activity) when Zimmerman made the 911 call.

Those that say Trayvon was high on drugs are either badly informed, or making up issues, a trace of weed was found in his blood and weed stays in your system almost a month after it is used.

Those that say Trayvon was raining blows on Zimmerman, the Medical Examiner testified he found no evidence of injury to Trayvon's hands during his autopsy, indicated a minor abrasion to one hand that could have happened prior to the night he was killed.

Also the Medical Examiner testified Zimmerman's injuries were minor and superficial.

The federal government warned the Maricopa County of profiling Hispanic's in Arizona simple because they looked Hispanic, Zimmerman's profiling of Trayvon is an abuse of his civil rights and a federal offence.

Cheers:

Edited July 15, 2013 by kikoman

[bunnydrops]

Zimmerman has alraedy been found not guilty. He is not on trial either.

But he lives and the consequences of killing the unarmed boy that night, which is NOT disputed, are not finished as long as he lives.

OJ got off too but Karma caught up with him later.

There is a big difference. OJ was the aggressor and the jury ignored the law and let him off anyway, but in this case Trayvon was the aggressor and Zimmerman killed in self defence. The jury followed the law this time. Instant Karma has already struck.

Why is Trayvon the aggressor? Why was Zimmerman even talking to him? Zimmerman was told to back off. He confronted Trayvon, Trayvon wasn't hitting anyone else. Zimmerman provoked Trayvon. What was said, we will never know that. After saying this, I didn't think there was enough evidence to convict him of murder. But the whole thing was because of his actions.

[geriatrickid]

Did you say George started all of this? Wasn't he paid to be there

Actually, Zimmerman was a volunteer. He was watching out for the neighborhood for free.

You sure you never worked in public relations before?

Zimmerman that he was on an errand on the night he shot and killed Treyvon Martin.

Zimemrman was not on neighborhood watch rounds.

George has my vote to patrol my neighborhood any time 24/7.

You are intentionally missing so many things on so many levels. Clever.

Mr. Zimmerman was not on watch patrol at the time of the incident. Nor was he a current "captain" of his neighbourhood watch. Zimmerman stated that he was running an errand. Nothing was intentionally missed.

However, the continual description of Zimmerman as being on neighbourhood watch is intended to colour perceptions.

I don't suppose you are open to consider that Zimmerman was one of those obnoxious neighbours that sticks his nose into everyone's business and would call the police anytime he observed what he considered as "suspicious" activity" This is a man that wanted desperately to have authority, to have power and, it is certainly obvious why the police kept him at arm's length. He would have done well in East germany snitching people out to the Stasi. Know what the kicker is? When interviewed he said he wanted to be a judge. In the words of Jed Clampett, whoa doggie.

[Jingthing]

I think it was damning to Zimmerman morally if not legally (anything goes in Florida it seems when you shoot someone in so called "self defense") that he failed to bother to ANNOUNCE who he was and what he was doing there in following the innocent boy. Martin had every right to feel bothered and harassed by the obnoxious vigilante and proven killer Zimmerman.

[brewsterbudgen]

Why is Trayvon the aggressor? Why was Zimmerman even talking to him? Zimmerman was told to back off. He confronted Trayvon, Trayvon wasn't hitting anyone else. Zimmerman provoked Trayvon. What was said, we will never know that. After saying this, I didn't think there was enough evidence to convict him of murder. But the whole thing was because of his actions.

Calling Trayvon the aggressor suits those who wish to see it like that. Without Zimmerman's initial aggression, Trayvon would have lived and Zimmerman would be having a normal life.

I agree it wasn't murder, but it was certainly manslaughter in any normal/civilised place.

[Jingthing]

In the state of Florida you have the right to defend yourself with a weapon if you feel you are in danger of losing life or limb.

...

Actually I think its even looser than that. You just have to have a FEAR based on your perception that you are in danger of any harm. Nothing about losing life or limb at all in the law! That law is very flawed. One's person perception of danger is wildly different than another. They use the word what a reasonable person would think but do not define what that means! The Florida law is DEEPLY flawed and massively in favor or the killers vs. the victims.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Jingthing

[kikoman]

In a Criminal Trial you have to be found guilty "Beyond a Shadow of Doubt"

In a Civil trial you you win or lose by the "Preponderance of the Evidence"

in the OJ Simpson trial it was found that the majority of the evidence presented did not favor him and the court awarded a judgement of 35 million dollars to the Brown and Goldman families.

If a Civil trial is filed in the Zimmerman case it would also be on the "Preponderance of the evidence" not on the Criminal "beyond a shadow of doubt"

Cheers:

[Ulysses G.]

Why is Trayvon the aggressor?

Because he is the one who attacked Zimmerman, broke his nose and injured his head. There is nothing against the law about watching Trayvon. Trayvon is the only one who broke the law.

[SteeleJoe]

No-one really knows what happened that night. Only 1 person, really.

I find it odd that so many people have picked a side in this case, when no-one could really know.

Isn't that a bit naive?

You can't pick a side?

How about this...

On your backside being battered to death... or on topside dong the battering and no end in sight if we remove the gun from the picture?

How's that for choosing a side?

There's nothing naive about acknowledging an objective fact: only Mr. ZImmerman has a chance of knowing exactly what happened and why.

Your emotive language and imaginative descriptions of what MIGHT be the truth don't change that.

An objective fact? What fact in particular that has not already been covered in the trial? Do you mean an objective display of indecisiveness? The fact is already etched in stone. The jury decided that.

Saying that one can't decide indicates a lack of information which would render one unable to choose a side. The trial and subsequent jury decision proved this. In the beginning they could not choose a side and subsequently could be described as naive. In the end they chose a side which we could then subsequently describe them as informed.

This poster is saying - after the fact of one side winning the trial - that no one knows.

If no one knows, then why was there a trial? Answer: There was a trial because one side chose to pick a fight and the other side had more proof that their side bore more weight!

There is nothing emotive about having your face bashed in and using any measure within your immediate means to end that bashing. I don't know of anyone in their right mind who would allow it to go on beyond the first painful contact.

You seem to be bright enough to understand what is written but you are so feverishly biased that you will abandon all intellectual honesty and twist things however you want. But I'll humor you (because it amuses me):

"An objective fact? What fact in particular that has not already been covered in the trial? Do you mean an objective display of indecisiveness? The fact is already etched in stone. The jury decided that."

* The objective fact I spoke of couldn't be more clear in my post. 'An objective display of decisiveness etched in stone'? What a load of obfuscatory irrelevance. As is plain in my post, I was not talking about the trial or the jury.

"Saying that one can't decide indicates a lack of information which would render one unable to choose a side. The trial and subsequent jury decision proved this. In the beginning they could not choose a side and subsequently could be described as naive. In the end they chose a side which we could then subsequently describe them as informed."

* The jury didn't "choose a side" - that's a preposterous characterization. They ultimately rendered a verdict, based on available information (NOT by any means the ability to know every single fact) and how it was presented, that shows the prosecution did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. ZImmerman was guilty of any charges made against him.

By the way, you don't know what "naive" means.

"This poster is saying - after the fact of one side winning the trial - that no one knows."

That poster is saying, what is an objective fact, that no one knows precisely what happened or why other than Mr. Zimmerman (and even he can't know it all). A trial did not and could not show that to a degree of certainty beyond what suffices for a verdict.

As it happens, I made no comment about the trial;as a matter of fact I am inclined to believe that, given the respective cases and how they were made, the jury made the right choice in legal terms and the one they should have made.

"If no one knows, then why was there a trial? Answer: There was a trial because one side chose to pick a fight and the other side had more proof that their side bore more weight!"

Your answer is correct. Your question, with its if clause, is nonsensical (drop that and it makes sense): you try so hard to make your conclusions appear to be a refutation of fact that you pretend that the fact there was a trial means that someone beside Mr. Zimmerman knows precisely what happened and why - but you know full well it means no such thing.

There is nothing emotive about having your face bashed in and using any measure within your immediate means to end that bashing. I don't know of anyone in their right mind who would allow it to go on beyond the first painful contact.

"There is nothing emotive about having your face bashed in and using any measure within your immediate means to end that bashing. I don't know of anyone in their right mind who would allow it to go on beyond the first painful contact."

Strawman. Nothing to do with what I posted.

The simple fact is that it may have happene exactly as you so desperately need to believe. It also may not have. Indeed it may have been quite different. You can not claim to know with certainty - not if you are rational and honest.

[uptheos]

Anyone has problems with the make-up of the jury, should have problems with EVERY jury in the USA. It followed the same protocol.

Jury of peers does not mean the same racial make-up as the USA, or, same colour as the defendant. It just means "equals".

It does not originate in the USA, but originated in Charlmagne's empire in the 8th century and was brought to England by the Normans.

Fair enough.

I served on one jury.

It was an eye opener.

Personally, I favor professional juries though I know American culture is hooked on the current system.

One reason might be the mass entertainment value of the occasional highly publicized case, like this one.

So you would be satisfied if a professional jury made the same verdict?

[Ulysses G.]

Those that say Trayvon was raining blows on Zimmerman, the Medical Examiner testified he found no evidence of injury to Trayvon's hands during his autopsy, indicated a minor abrasion to one hand that could have happened prior to the night he was killed.

Trayvon was reportedly quite the fighter. He could have easily been using a hammer fist strike or an open palm or a combination of both. Either strike causes very little damage to one's hands. Many experienced fighters avoid using their knuckles in a street fight as they can break easily.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Ulysses G.

[SteeleJoe]

Ok, I do not believe the death was racially motivated. Yes, I believe that the case was politicized from the very beginning and the powers that be will are weighing their options so as to minimize political risk. Be that play one ethnic group off against another or simply defer. US politics is nasty, although you are trying to associate my observation and analysis of these events with my own personal views. Which is obviously quite cynical of a gubbamint that has lied to me since I was a small child in nappies.

]

I apparently wasn't clear despite isolating the part of your post I was referring to. Since you have bothered to reply, I feel obligated to clarify:

"The real question is, what does Holder and the DOJ do? Do they go after Zimmerman with civil rights charges and appease the black community while further alienating the white and hispanic community -or- does he abide by the ruling of the jury and piss off the black community."

My point was that to break things down by race to such an extreme degree (eg assuming any further action taken against Zimmerman will further alienate the "white community" - or that said "community" is already alienated) is absudly simplistic and objectively false.

I have not "tried to associate your observation and analysis of these events with your own personal views.", but feel free to show me where I have.

By the way, I happen to think race was a factor and a sad fact is that it would be so not without cause (I wish it weren't so, but to pretend that in many situations, for many people, a young black male isn't viewed with some degree of prejudice is foolish. And sadly there is a reason for that aside from racism).

I have no doubt the case "was politicized from the very beginning and the powers that be will are weighing their options so as to minimize political risk." Which is to be expected.

One last time Joe. My answer is yes, I believe this administration is capable of these actions. No, I don't agree with them. It is the political climate of the US today, which is a disgrace. So if you feel I am bigoted for my position, so be it.

There is a comprehension problem here. Perhaps I am an even worse writer than I realized. I am not talking about the administration. I am talking about YOU and your oversimplified characterization of the way society is partitioned into racial groups that determine how they view this case and what happens next.

You say, "yes" and then give me an answer to a question I never asked. I don't know why you keep talking about something else. Nor do I know why you keep pretending that I am accusing you of something that I have not.

[Jingthing]

So you would be satisfied if a professional jury made the same verdict?

I think it would be the same verdict because of the deep flaws in the Florida law, too much leeway for the killers. So in this case, no. I think in general, the peer jury system is OVERRATED and really part of the myth of American exceptionalism.

On the other hand, I think if they had started on a manslaughter charge and focused only on that, they might have won with any jury.

I realize my one anecdotal experience on a jury doesn't count for much, but at the time it was so totally bad that I thought nothing could be worse, even just the judge deciding. I'll give a taste: I didn't agree with the majority and they weren't even considering the judge's instructions. They didn't even want to TALK about the actual evidence or case details. Their main interest was going home really quick. In response, I was verbally harassed and threatened with violence.

Also to note, on the news recently I heard a discussion which said when jurors are later interviewed on why they decided a certain way, quite often their decisions had no grounding in the law at all (and was nothing related to what the lawyers thought was important). Thus an argument for professional juries which at least you know will be grounded in the law.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Jingthing

[SteeleJoe]

No-one really knows what happened that night. Only 1 person, really.

I find it odd that so many people have picked a side in this case, when no-one could really know.

Actually, there is quiet a bit of evidence. A lot of cases involving death of another have no eyewitnesses and recorded 911 calls during the event. There is a wealth of corroborative and scientific evidence in this case compared to many cases involving death of another. I once reviewed a case where the primary evidence was a half burned shoe in a fire pit as defendants wrapped body in rubber, burned it in a 55 gallon drum, crushed up bones with lime and spread the ashes in a river bed.

.

"Actually, there is quiet (sic) a bit of evidence."

Indeed. As a lawyer and an intelligent person, you know that that does not equate to knowing everything with complete certainty.

" A lot of cases involving death of another have no eyewitnesses and recorded 911 calls during the event. There is a wealth of corroborative and scientific evidence in this case compared to many cases involving death of another. I once reviewed a case where the primary evidence was a half burned shoe in a fire pit as defendants wrapped body in rubber, burned it in a 55 gallon drum, crushed up bones with lime and spread the ashes in a river bed."

All true, I'm sure. And again, that doesn't equate to knowing everything with complete certainty. I don't have to tell you that what is required in court is - and must be - far short of that kind of certainty.

[Ulysses G.]

[Also to note, on the news recently I heard a discussion which said when jurors are later interviewed on why they decided a certain way, quite often their decisions had no grounding in the law at all (and was nothing related to what the lawyers thought was important). Thus an argument for professional juries which at least you know will be grounded in the law.

Any jury that was following the law would have ruled like the Zimmerman jury. The only way to get them to rule otherwise would be to purposely influence them to ignore it - much like the prosecution tried to do in this case.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Ulysses G.

[Jingthing]

[Also to note, on the news recently I heard a discussion which said when jurors are later interviewed on why they decided a certain way, quite often their decisions had no grounding in the law at all (and was nothing related to what the lawyers thought was important). Thus an argument for professional juries which at least you know will be grounded in the law.

Any jury that was following the law would have ruled like the Zimmerman jury. The only way to get them to rule otherwise would be to purposely influence them to ignore it - much like the prosecution did in this case.

I don't think it was that clear on the manslaughter charge but surely a murder conviction was out.

[Ulysses G.]

I don't think it was that clear on the manslaughter charge but surely a murder conviction was out.

Self defence rules out either charge.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Ulysses G.

[SteeleJoe]

Pres. finally released a statement, but it was a lame in that it focused more on gun control than anything. I am for gun control, but that is not the real issue here.

Candidly, the racist are the NAACP and everyone else bashing this jury. The prosecutors argued in closing that if you reversed the roles, Martin was the shooter and you would convict Martin, then you got to convict Zimmerman. There are two choices: (1) that the jury discredited that argument by finding regardless as to who the shooter was, this was no crime; or (2) you have to conclude that the jury was racially motivated white women. Option two is nothing more than reverse racism itself against jurors we don't know.

You're the lawyer - isn't it that the jury discredited that argument by finding regardless as to who the shooter was, the prosecution had not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that this was a crime?

I've no doubt you know the difference between your characterization and mine. Oh, and since when is racism the only possible reason a jury can render an inappropriate verdict? You sound like the people you rightfully deride...