Zimmerman not guilty in Trayvon Martin death: Florida jury

[Mrjlh]

Mods close this discussion. No one here sat on the jury. No one here heard only the legal evidence that could be presented to them. You all heard tainted emotional crap that the press reported. Mostly hearsay...he was convicted in the press...open your eyes!

It's over! He was found "Not guilty! End of story.

[F430murci]

So Zimmerman, therefore, can kill Trayvon Martin.

Zimmerman was armed and initiated the events of that night. Martin was unarmed.

After Zimmerman shot Martin, Zimmerman made no attempt to see if he could save Martin's life. Zimmerman ignored the fatally wounded Martin because Zimmerman had done what he set out to do.

Kill.

What was supposed to do, perform emergency surgery on the sidewalk. He was a security office not a thoracic surgeon.

What he set out to do. What? If he wanted to off him, he could have gun out and offed him immediately. I doubt he set out to get his ass kicked, have nose busted and have his head pounded into the pavement so he could then have a excuse to shoot him. That's retarded and exemplifies the irrational thought process that causes racism on both sides.

Have you no humanity?

Zimmerman did nothing to try to save Trayvon Martin's life. Zimmerman instead shot Martin to kill him, i.e., shot him in or in the immediate area of the heart, the same area of the chest John Lenon was fatally shot. If Zimmerman had any humanity, he would do all he could to save the life of Trayvon.

Military doctors work to repair the captured enemy wounded and try to save their lives. Zimmerman couldn't try to save a life?! Try?!

It's clear Zimmerman hasn't any humanity for certain people. Yet a good number of posters have great human sympathy and support of Zimmerman, a guy with a gun who set out after a guy without a gun.

I'd like to think you could search hard and dig deep inside you to find some human aspect to this crime, this death, this killing - to think about saving a life. To give it a thought. To give a thought to the possibility of trying to save a human life.

I understand what you are saying, but this is a question you are asking that cannot be used as a broad brush to apply to every situation where there is one down and one left standing. I trust you are reasonable enough to understand that. Additionally, and yet again, there is no law which requires the survivor to come to the aid of the downed aggressor.

Are you suggesting that the woman that Duane Portman Sr raped in front of her children should have come to his aid after shooting him in the face? Rather instead, he went out the door and collapsed in the driveway and she dialed 911 and waited for the police to come.

As you are so fond of using other incidences as a comparative to this trial, I submit that this is not far-fetched if I use your implied context.

Although the two crimes vary by degrees (on the same line but in degrees) in their aggressiveness and terribleness, I submit that any crime of aggression should not be defended on the basis of the outcome towards the person committing the act of aggression, when the victim is in fear of their life at the moment they are being attacked.

My point is; if you are going to punch, knife, shoot, rape etc. someone, do not expect the victim to be sympathetic if their method of making you stop is incapacitating or lethal. To suggest otherwise would downplay the terror that the victim felt during the attack and their subsequent success at stopping that attack.

The juror cited many examples of how Zimmerman was a caring and good person, always there helping his neighbors and assisting them after many of them were robbed and burglarized.

The fact of the matter is everyone raising hell about the verdict have not read the transcripts, have only listened to the NBC edited version of the 911 tape where they tried to make Zimmerman sound racist (jury heard entire 911 call), have not listened to the testimony and closing arguments and apparently have not listened to what the juror has now said.

[cup-O-coffee]

The problem here, and it is a major problem from my perspective, is that the special prosecutor Corley, has been accused of submitting false affidavits and concealing evidence of Zimmerman's injuries from the Court, media and from Defense counsel. She has been accused of firing a whistleblower in her office that brought this to the attention of people outside her office. I am hedging here, but this is not conspiracy stuff and is a very serious matter.

Suppression of potential exculpatory evidence in a criminal trial is perhaps one of the most egregious actions a lawyer can take and many on here have been misled by some of the possible ethical violations by the special prosecutor that have allegedly taken place.

Can you imagine if your life and freedom was at stake and the prosecution failed to tell the court or provide your counsel with evidence that may have proved your innocence?

This is definitely a course of action that George and his legal team could pursue if warranted. By definition, this should have been declared a mistrial, and the Prosecution as well as the judge should be reviewed for misconduct.

[cup-O-coffee]

No. You are way off on so many levels like a lot of these other bleeding hearts. Even if he is what you imply, then you are essentially saying in reverse that it is acceptable to beat a racist so bad and with such fury that the racist cannot possibly know if the attacker is going to cease and desist until the racist is damaged or dead.

You are saying that aren't you?

You are saying that the racist should simply lay there and take it and not defend himself, or herself because they are racist, and anything they do to get the attacker off of them will land them in a lawsuit?

So, what are you saying?

Take the racial element out of this for just one minute and what would the jury have decided then ?

I cannot tell you what does not exist. If it were George attacking Trayvon, and Trayvon had shot George to death, then I would feel the same way; self defense... not guilty.

I do not believe that a person who is convinced that their life is in jeopardy is focusing on race, any more than they are focusing on sports scores. I believe they are in that last element of survival which precedes death. I believe that anything goes, otherwise, god would assign angels and Satan would assign demons to referee these incidents. But since I do not believe in the invisible friends and foes, I believe that all we have to go on are our immediate thoughts and instinctive reactions.

I believe that George was in a state which made race and everything else irrelevant to his immediate situation.

When the fight gets to the point that either one or both believe it is a life threatening situation, then the loser (or the defendants of the deceased loser) really have no right to try to downplay the situation and press for "rules of fair play". After the fact doesn't count in a situation where the rules of survival overcome all other instincts.

So, to answer your race question; either George or Trayvon are not guilty if they are reversed and the situation is the same... self-defense.

The pro-Trayvon people say George was a stranger stalking Trayvon. They say Trayvon was simply trying to go home. What they do not say is how the dots get connected nor explained as to why Trayvon ran home, or punched once and ran home, but rather instead sat on George and rained down blow after blow.

It was at that point that Trayvon cashed out on all of his free-will choices to stop or divert anything further, and subsequently Trayvons aggressive choices engaged George's survival instinct. It kicked in and then it was all over.

My point not only to Trayvon, but everyone else; don't write checks that you cannot cash and then expect sympathy over the consequences.

[cup-O-coffee]

American law stipulates you are to be tried by a jury of your peers, there was specific legislation addressing your right by a Jury aimed at the Jim Crow Southern states, which also includes the state of Florida for their findings of many whites not guilty of the killing of black in the 1964 Civil Rights Legislation and the Equal Rights Amendment.

This Jury was not represented by the people it served, plain and simple just by looking at the population that 49.7% white and 51.3 % minority.

Some unemployed armchair lawyer posted the prosecution wanted females, what a crock, they wanted minorities on the jury, look at the difference of the OJ Simpson trial in Los Angeles and Rodney King trial in Simi valley (just a few miles from each other).

An all white jury acquitted the police, and they were retried for by the Feds and convicted.

Double Jeopardy only comes into play when you can not be tried again by the same jurisdiction that allows the feds to retry you on violation of Civil rights abuses, Which profiling is one of those abuses.

Zimmerman will be looking over his shoulder in fear for the rest of his life!

Cheers:

And you believe that this is just? Simply curious.

[F430murci]

Mods close this discussion. No one here sat on the jury. No one here heard only the legal evidence that could be presented to them. You all heard tainted emotional crap that the press reported. Mostly hearsay...he was convicted in the press...open your eyes!

It's over! He was found "Not guilty! End of story.

I actually started reading dailies of the testimony and listened to closing arguments. I was pretty much on the fence about the whole thing until I started reading dailies of the evidence. My curiosity got peaked by some dailies of Omara's cross of a couple of state's witnesses I was dumbfounded by how much the state's witnesses supported defense so I started paying more attention. I personally have never seen anything like this and I have over 50 jury trials.

Edited July 16, 2013 by F430murci

[Johpa]

He can still legally carry a concealed firearm. That is not right. The killer Zimmerman has shown he is an extremely irresponsible man in respect to carrying a gun. This is so wrong.

You are so right. The current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment of the US constitution allows for anyone, both responsible and irresponsible people to carry a firearm. And far too many irresponsible people who have never been part of, or associated with any type of well regulated militia do carry. There is nothing currently illegal about a dork like Zimmerman carrying a gun and then using that gun in self-defense, regardless of any poor decision made prior to the use of the weapon. Your issue (certainly my issue) is with the unfettered gun rights as currently interpreted in the US and promoted by the gun industry and their puppet the NRA, not with the hapless Zimmerman.

[mopar71]

Now legally still able to carry a CONCEALED gun. When other countries mock the USA for our INSANE gun culture, this would be a prime example of it.

The USA should be mocked for allowing groups like the New Black Panthers to put a bounty on someone's head without fear of prosecution. If anyone has a good reason to carry a gun now, it's Zimmerman.

[F430murci]

American law stipulates you are to be tried by a jury of your peers, there was specific legislation addressing your right by a Jury aimed at the Jim Crow Southern states, which also includes the state of Florida for their findings of many whites not guilty of the killing of black in the 1964 Civil Rights Legislation and the Equal Rights Amendment.

This Jury was not represented by the people it served, plain and simple just by looking at the population that 49.7% white and 51.3 % minority.

Some unemployed armchair lawyer posted the prosecution wanted females, what a crock, they wanted minorities on the jury, look at the difference of the OJ Simpson trial in Los Angeles and Rodney King trial in Simi valley (just a few miles from each other).

An all white jury acquitted the police, and they were retried for by the Feds and convicted.

Double Jeopardy only comes into play when you can not be tried again by the same jurisdiction that allows the feds to retry you on violation of Civil rights abuses, Which profiling is one of those abuses.

Zimmerman will be looking over his shoulder in fear for the rest of his life!

Cheers:

And you believe that this is just? Simply curious.

Yeah, that makes no sense.

Neither side can exclude minorities under Batson for peremptory challenges. Each side only gets three peremptory challenges.

Sanford county is 30% black.

Prosecution had as many challenges as defense and were under same restrictions in using challenges (3 prong heavily influenced by not excluding based on race). The venire or large jury pool is cross reference and randomly chosen. Then 30 or so names are drawn at random from the venire and the jurors are seated in that order. You then go one by one through that order until both side 3 challenges are gone or if both sides agree to the jurors before all challenges are utilized.

The law does not seat jurors based on racial percentages in community. That would be race based and a violation of Batson. Zimmerman was hispanic and he got judged by 5 whites and one hispanic by a randomly selected jury through a voire dire process selected from the greater venire that would have representative racial proportions.

[lennois]

So basically if I get into a fight for whatever reason, and I happen to be winning that fight, I can legally have my brains blown out. Goodness me.

And what a hilariously easy way to commit murder - walk up to someone, push and antagonize them, until they land a couple of blows, then blow their brains out. Goodness me.

I wonder if the machete wielding taxi driver walks in the good ol' US of A? It did look like the Farang was gonna give him a handy beating so self defense surely? Oh but perhaps you are only allowed to be packing guns there and not machetes? Goodness me

Edited July 16, 2013 by lennois

[F430murci]

Now legally still able to carry a CONCEALED gun. When other countries mock the USA for our INSANE gun culture, this would be a prime example of it.

The USA should be mocked for allowing groups like the New Black Panthers to put a bounty on someone's head without fear of prosecution. If anyone has a good reason to carry a gun now, it's Zimmerman.

I wonder if Eric Holder will prosecute these rioters in LA or the 3 black guys that tried to kidnap a jogger yesterday. The jogger put up a struggle so they could not get him into the car, but they beat the ell out of him chanting Treyvon.

[cup-O-coffee]

Yeah Martin has already been charged, judged, and executed by Zimmerman. He is not on trial.

Yes. He has, in a sense. He is dead. He was shot by George. The very same reason and "heart decisions" that the prosecutors preached, and which should have been recognized by those prosecutors with deference to Trayvon, shows that Trayvon ignored a long string of "better choices" in this "street trial" which he engaged, and willfully ignored the better parts of valor.

A good kid who dreamed of being an airline pilot would have called the police on his own phone to report a suspicious person harassing him because he was black. He could have done so much to allow his protectors to come to his aid, including the police, and sort out the situation. Why didn't he?

A good kid, who was an academic and who was painted as a cherub would have answered the question and demonstrated the maturity that it takes to be an airline pilot and an academic. He may even have expressed his anger in a mature way, "Why are you bothering me?" and "eating a little crow" and apologized for his appearance because he sensed that he was in a fragile situation. We all do this from time to time because we are, for the most part, intelligent and are able to pick up on why others might be rude to us.

He is not on trial because he disregarded the very law that would have allowed him his day in court, for a charge of racially motivated harassment (my theoretical guess at his ideal were he alive), and instead chose "street law".

He is not on trial because he disregarded his dreams of becoming an airline pilot and the standards that academics engage in to show their maturity and composure.

Or, he was just a punk kid with a bad attitude and poor decision making abilities. Now, whose fault is that? The school's? He was expelled. That is why he was visiting his father; because his mother had had enough of him. His father and step mother and mother? Probably.

In closing, you say he is not on trial.

Well, I truly hope that the mother and father do not bring a civil suit, because then Trayvon will be on trial and a lot of what I am saying is going to be rubbed in the faces of those who ignore responsibility towards their children and merely act the part when those children commit crimes or become statistics. Everyone's dirty laundry will come out and Trayvon will not be that cherub whom you choose to champion.

[lannarebirth]

It's like White slaves against Black slaves. It's also used politically to press through with the gun law and to destruct of what's really going on.

Facebook is refusing to take down the "Kill Zimmerman" page or "Riot for Trayvon" http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/07/03/facebook-wont-remove-riot-trayvon-page

Clear a guided event developing. What does the "Terms of Service" say at Facebook?

Yes, some entity is "turning up the steam" to create something. People generally don't like being manipulated, so hopefully they'll see it for what it is.

[KarenBravo]

For all the people that thinks this is a travesty of justice, let's use a short cut. Charge the jury with the murder of Martin and then just lynch them.

[canman]

He can still legally carry a concealed firearm. That is not right. The killer Zimmerman has shown he is an extremely irresponsible man in respect to carrying a gun. This is so wrong.

I am curious about what you would do if you were pinned down with a broken nose and having your head bashed into the pavement? You have called for help and none was coming. You are armed and the laws of the land allow you to use that firearm to defend yourself.

What would you do?

[F430murci]

So basically if I get into a fight for whatever reason, and I happen to be winning that fight, I can legally have my brains blown out. Goodness me.

And what a hilariously easy way to commit murder - walk up to someone, push and antagonize them, until they land a couple of blows, then blow their brains out. Goodness me.

I wonder if the machete wielding taxi driver walks in the good ol' US of A? It did look like the Farang was gonna give him a handy beating so self defense surely? Oh but perhaps you are only allowed to be packing guns there and not machetes? Goodness me

There was no evidence that Zimmerman pushed him.

The key to this case was whether pounding his head into the pavement reasonably caused him to fear for his life. Just hitting someone would not result in a reasonable belief of great bodily injury or death.

In Florida, deadly force is defined as force that is likely to cause great bodily harm or death. In order for the use of deadly force to be justified under Florida law, the defendant must have reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent great bodily harm or death to himself or another while resisting one of the following:

1. the alleged victim's attempt to commit a violent crime against him; or
2. the alleged victim's attempt to kill him; or
3. the alleged victim's attempt to commit a felony upon or in any home, boat, or vehicle occupied by the defendant.

[cup-O-coffee]

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.

skittles-arizona-ice-tea.jpg

He died in vain because he chose vanity over reason. He chose vanity over reason because someone taught that to him. He ignored the educational institution that tried to teach him and instead had to expel him because he was a vain person. His vanity chose friends; many of whom are in jail or deceased, and many who are alive and actively being vain (read his tweets).

He died because he avoided so many decisions that would clearly have not lead him to even be there that night. He would have been in his room, in his mother's house, studying to further his academics and improving his chances of becoming an airline pilot, instead of going to 711 to get his ingredients for the drug "Lean" (a.k.a. Skittles, Soft drink and codeine).

No, I submit that even while he was alive, he was not living... clearly, and this will come out in the civil suit if the mother and father bring it on. The story of his life as projected by the media and half-truthed about by his mother and father (who mysteriously united from their divorce and sat together during this trial) do not portray the truth. I am comfortable with the fact that the pro-Trayvon people want to ignore that, because the turht will out. Not only for Trayvon if there is a civil suit, but in the future for all the Trayvons our there now pissing their "choices" away.

As long as you have out your guns and are firing away at George, you may as well be accusing everyone in Trayvon's life who had the responsibility of controlling him and teaching him that vanity makes no guarantees except to the mind and imagination of the one embracing it; and in that there is no guarantee that one's mind and imagination can be a defense against the consequences which vanity bring about.

You can start with Jackson and Sharpton, who do not abide by their so-called Christian beliefs and work together with all races to raise up responsible and intelligent children, who are not enamored with hatred, bitterness, resentment and aggression towards invisible enemies, and who earn their living on the government dole.

[lennois]

There was no evidence that Zimmerman pushed him.

never said there was

The key to this case was whether pounding his head into the pavement reasonably caused him to fear for his life. Just hitting someone would not result in a reasonable belief of great bodily injury or death.

Let them hit you in the face a couple of times. This can quite easily cause death. Hell, bang your own head against the concrete a couple of times if u feel like it.

You saying if Zimmerman was only getting smashed in the face and not having his head hit against concrete he is suddenly guilty? Guess we'll never know but I highly doubt it

Edited July 16, 2013 by lennois

[F430murci]

For all the people that thinks this is a travesty of justice, let's use a short cut. Charge the jury with the murder of Martin and then just lynch them.

I wish people would listen to juror interview to understand how difficult this process was for them before bashing or lynching them. I know your kidding, but makes me sick to hear those that criticize this jury without knowing what the jury heard or considered.

[F430murci]

There was no evidence that Zimmerman pushed him.

never said there was

The key to this case was whether pounding his head into the pavement reasonably caused him to fear for his life. Just hitting someone would not result in a reasonable belief of great bodily injury or death.

Let them hit you in the face a couple of times. This can quite easily cause death.

You saying if Zimmerman was only getting smashed in the face and not having his head hit against concrete he is suddenly guilty? Guess we'll never know but I highly doubt it

No. Maybe if hitting in the face with a weapon like object. Not likely fist unless horrible beat down. Will be fact specific and dependent upon the entire facts and circumstances.

I doubt jury would have found self defense but for head being hit into the concrete.

Also, jury heard evidence that Martin went for Zimmerman's gun and told Zimmerman he was about to die. Zimmerman apparently yelled for help 14 times on tape.

Juror interviewed by Anderson Copper addressed deliberations on this part pretty well and in detail.

Edited July 16, 2013 by F430murci

[lennois]

Also, jury heard evidence that Martin went for Zimmerman's gun and told Zimmerman he was about to die.

hahaha, please don't tell me this 'evidence' is from Zimmerman

[Jingthing]

Also, jury heard evidence that Martin went for Zimmerman's gun and told Zimmerman he was about to die.

hahaha, please don't tell me this 'evidence' is from Zimmerman

It was. It's not to be believed as Zimmerman's story kept changing. He originally said nothing of the kind. He felt he needed to gin up his story as time went by.

[kikoman]

Cup of coffee

Yes I think its just!

Cheers:

[mopar71]

For all the people that thinks this is a travesty of justice, let's use a short cut. Charge the jury with the murder of Martin and then just lynch them.

I wish people would listen to juror interview to understand how difficult this process was for them before bashing or lynching them. I know your kidding, but makes me sick to hear those that criticize this jury without knowing what the jury heard or considered.

For those interested, there are more than one clip of the juror interview...

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/15/justice/zimmerman-juror-book/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Edited July 16, 2013 by mopar71

[mopar71]

So basically if I get into a fight for whatever reason, and I happen to be winning that fight, I can legally have my brains blown out. Goodness me.

Legal or illegal is meaningless to the guy getting his brains blown out. Whenever you get in a street fight you can't count on everyone fighting fair or that you won't get seriously injured or killed. It's just not worth fighting. This is where Trayvon's age and experience probably did come into play. As the texts and videos on his phone showed, he was no stranger to schoolyard fights where someone gets their butt kicked and that's the end of it. At least until they meet again. If anything positive comes from this tragedy, hopefully some other young men will think twice before fighting a stranger. Sadly, the events since the verdict seem to show that the lesson learned was to gang up on strangers instead of one-on-one fights.

[F430murci]

Also, jury heard evidence that Martin went for Zimmerman's gun and told Zimmerman he was about to die.

hahaha, please don't tell me this 'evidence' is from Zimmerman

It was. It's not to be believed as Zimmerman's story kept changing. He originally said nothing of the kind. He felt he needed to gin up his story as time went by.

Yes, jury heard and believed. I am not here dispute, only suggest that facts support jury holding.

Anderson Cooper asked juror specifically about whether she or other jurors believed and whether their self defense was based in this.

She said something to the effect that she was not sure if Martin went for the gun or Zimmerman was just afraid Martin was going for the gun, but that her decision was based on head being hit into ground. She even felt that Zimmerman's life was in danger. Accordingly, she believed Zimmerman was entirely reasonable to fear for his life when head being pound into the pavement.

Find interview. JingThing,where are you. If not in US, why do you care so much that you so willing misquote facts and laws to advance an agenda? Why the refusal to actually look into evidence presented?

[F430murci]

For all the people that thinks this is a travesty of justice, let's use a short cut. Charge the jury with the murder of Martin and then just lynch them.

I wish people would listen to juror interview to understand how difficult this process was for them before bashing or lynching them. I know your kidding, but makes me sick to hear those that criticize this jury without knowing what the jury heard or considered.

For those interested, there are more than one clip of the juror interview...

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/15/justice/zimmerman-juror-book/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Thanks, yes. People should listen to this before criticizing jury finding or jumping to any conclusions.

[Ulysses G.]

I am a bit shocked your being so irrational and refuse to review the facts and testimony. I thought you were level headed and reasonable. If you can cite countervailing evidence (not you conclusory statements), I would respect that.

Don't be shocked. Just read whatever is being said on the far-left blogs and it will be the same exact rhetoric regurgitated by some posters here. There is very little original thinking when it comes to bashing George Zimmerman for defending himself from being attacked for no good reason.

[junkofdavid2]

If Zimmerman is truly not guilty, justice *not* served until Trayvon's family *pays Zimmerman* for the rigors of a false accusation and ruining Zimmerman's life. Suffering grief (even of your own child) does not absolve you from unjustly ruining someone else's life.

And if he shot your kid ... how would you react?

Well, if he shot my *innocent* child I'd be appalled.

If he shot my 17-year-old drug-user kid head-bashing guilty toughie, I wouldn't be surprised but of course I'd still be angry that they killed my precious thug, happy?

Oh wait... why's it relevant how "I" or anyone would react? A crime is right or wrong depending on how the criminal's parents would react?

[SteeleJoe]

I am a bit shocked your being so irrational and refuse to review the facts and testimony. I thought you were level headed and reasonable. If you can cite countervailing evidence (not you conclusory statements), I would respect that.

Don't be shocked. Just read whatever is being said on the far-left blogs and it will be the same exact rhetoric regurgitated by some posters here. There is very little original thinking when it comes to bashing George Zimmerman for defending himself from being attacked for no good reason.

There you go making claims that you can't verify and injecting your own editorializing: you don't know that he was attacked "for no good reason". Some would say that IF a young man felt threatened by an armed man following him and/or confronting him, that might be a good reason to attack.

In any case, I don't think it reasonable to characterize the situation as Zimmerman being randomly victimized without any context.