Why go on and on when one word can sum up the proper response?

I see I came back too soon. How long till the grave-dancing's done? Anyone know?

edit: Nice touch removing the "lynch mob" part of your title. Just in time.

It's been crazy lately.

narrative than the prosecution told. I felt like he had hit himself with the flashlight.

I agree with all of our points.

The scene of the struggle seems to have been some distance from the curb, which would nullify Z's claim that his head was being smashed against it.

Also, if Z grabbed Trayvon's clothing and pulled Trayvon close to him, that would explain why gun powder residue appeared on Trayvon's clothing.

could understand, evidently.

Despite that, it is a crime to stalk and kill someone. This was a needless shooting. To say no crime was committed here, is to avoid the fact that one party is dead from a gunshot wound to the heart.

There is no proof that Martin need to be killed. There is no proof that Zimmerman needed to defend himself with a gun.

It was the state's burden to put forward proof. Unless and until the law is changed in that regard, that's the way it is in Florida and many many other states.

Interesting note about Stand Your Ground that most people probably don't realize (I didn't learn this until a short while ago and don't recall seeing it):

If a defendant wants to assert immunity from prosecution under the Stand Your Ground provision, the defendant has to ask the court for a pretrial hearing on the issue and, unlike the burden of proof during a jury trial, the burden of proof in this pretrial hearing is on the defendant (by a preponderance of the evidence).

Which may explain further why Zimmerman's defense team decided to waive the pretrial hearing on SYG (before a judge, not a jury) and argue self defense (of which SYG is substantively a part) before a jury.

Thanks for explaining it to me, it makes more sense now.

What about Dr. DiMiao's testimony? You are simply throwing away the testimony that you don't like.

and his wounds could have easily been self inflicted, I will say the same thing about you.

Plus one witness was watching the entire time. Any attempt to inflict the injuries on himself would have been seen. Further, you have absolutely no evidence at all that the wounds were self-inflicted. You are unable to let go of your hatred.

You still haven't said anything about John Good's and Dr. DiMaio's testimony.

That he turned down going to the hospital does not mean he wasn't defending himself. Self-defense isn't about the wounds you have already received, it is about preventing future wounds that you resonably fear will be severe.

those are facts?

Jonathon Manalo, prosecution eyewitness,

consider everything he said to be a lie,.

Your argument is full of assumptions and draws conclusion evidently preordained.

And while its true that a juror can elect to reject all of a witness' testimony as not credible, it can also choose to believe some of it, even if it doesn't believe all of it.

I've never heard of someone arrested or taken into custody being asked to swear to tell the truth when questioned by the police.

Anyone expecting someone committing a crime to voluntarily spill their crime to the police is an idiot.

If only...

say simple things

We see you.

n/t

I miss UNREC.

At least, if we can't get unrec back, maybe we could get a button that says "bullshit."

The BULLSHIT button is genius!

It would come in handy.

Last edited Tue Jul 16, 2013, 06:01 PM - Edit history (1)

I can't believe that in 2013 that it is legal to hunt down and shoot someone.

to this simplistic form, and if logic, evidence and reason has been excused from judgment as you state it, then the law really is an ass.

Zimmerman was the predator: "These assholes they always get away".

that I never saw before on DU...

but now they've come out into the light where we can see them for what they are.

is credible. As a proven pathological liar, the assumption is an invalid one. Once you determine that GZ is not credible, his story and his defense disintegrates. The verdict should have been manslaughter but at this point I am just too tired to outline the case for manslaughter. I have discussed in depth elsewhere in DU.

In the absence of enough evidence to the contrary to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, his credibility or lack thereof is not sufficient ground to convict him

I'm sure Troy Martin will be putting you on his christmas card list!

Last edited Tue Jul 16, 2013, 07:10 AM - Edit history (1)

Get an FBI specialist to testify to this?

Reason is chances are high they would not come back with that result and that information would have to be turned over to the defense and would further strenghn their case.

Possibilities and assumptions and maybes are not words for prosocutors. But preping your star witness would have gone along way in making a stronger case

Can you try that again?

Relax, your favorite murderer is a free man until his next fuck up.

Hear, hear. May his next fuck up come soon, and without another death.

Its very possible Zimmerman threatened Martin first. That changes everything.

Were you there?

Did you not read my post before replying to it?

Refusing to realize that Zimmy was never under oath when he shared his many variations of the scene. I would believe that many see a part of themselves in Zimmy...like minds; to deny him would reveal their own inner soul.

Too bad I have to kick your thread since there's no longer a button to click.

If Trayvon felt afraid by the way Zimmerman was following him, he had the right to hit Zimmerman. I do not think Trayvon did initiate anything but as I understand Florida law that is OK - if you are afraid.

What you described is a license to kill. The surviving person can make up any story they want. The prosecution brought out how Zimmerman is a liar but the jurors chose to ignore that. Gee - I wonder why.
I'll tell you why - its OK to kill African-Americans - children and adults.

I don't like living in a world where someone who can murder me in such a way that no-one can prove it wasn't self defence gets away with it, but since someone who can murder me in such a way that no-one can prove it was them will get away with it anyhow, self defence laws are only a marginally bigger "license to kill" than "innocent until proven guilty". And I like the idea of living in a world where I'm not legally allowed to defend myself if someone physically attacks me even less.

I'm not an expert in Florida law, but I'm willing to bet you all Lombard St to a china orange than "he was following me and I felt frightened" is not actually an admissible legal defence to physically attacking someone.

if you are frightened by someone following you and fear they may harm you, shooting him with a gun is a legal defense - in Florida.
That is the Koch brothers' Stand Your Ground defense

cthulu2016 said it much better than I could.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023263144

Neither side had a right to hit the other first. The first one to escalate a verbal conflict into a physical one is wrong.

There was no verbal conflict here. Trayvon asked why Z was following him and there was no answer. I wonder what kind of behavior Z exhibited toward Trayvon. Did he appear weird or crazy, did he look like a potential sexual predator, did he behave aggressively or did he just saunter up to him in a neighborly way? Did he touch Trayvon? We only have Z's self glorified explanation. The juror even said "his heart was in the right place."

Kids are taught from an early age to be on the lookout for sexual predators and fighting back would be what is expected of someone Trayvon's age. If a woman does not fight back in a rape it can be called consensual. Zimmerman is a liar and he made up a story that made himself look good.

"For now, my understanding is that in Florida if I murder you in cold blood, claim it was self defence, and no-one can prove otherwise beyond reasonable doubt, the jury should acquit me, and I think that's the right side to err on."

Feel better, now?

We don't know that Martin was doing so, but nor are we anywhere *near* beyond reasonable doubt that he wasn't.

only zimmerman's self-serving lies. no DNA evidence = zimmerman is a LIAR. add to that: the police FAILED to properly investigate. FEDS need to step in, just as they had to in the 50's and 60's...and for the exact same reason.

But, since Zimmerman is the one on trial, the important fact is that there's no evidence that he didn't.

and there is no physical evidence that it happened. it is totally relevant to zimmerman's claim of self-defense.

Usually means grounds for dismissal or not guilty. It's the state burden to investigate charge and prosecute.

The fact the police did not properly do their job may mean a case aginst the police but not Zimmerman he can't be held accountable for the states failures.

the virtues of the Zimmerman defense team totally misses the point of the endemic bigotry and failures of the entire legal system of Florida which not only permitted Zimmerman to get away with murder, but actually encouraged the act. SYG and CCW laws serve no other purpose than to legalize vigilantism, and give bullies like Zimmerman a license to kill.

Yes, you are correct: under the bigoted and obscene "laws" of Florida, the jury did their job. The failure began with the sloppy police work on the night of the murder, and continued through the unprofessional display of total incompetence by the prosecutors (most likely by design). Zimmerman was not originally charged with a crime until public outcry and the Federal Government demanded action. Like the asshats that they are, the "public advocates" presented an unwinnable case with a half-assed effort, and did not want to bring out the truth.

The facts remain however: Zimmerman profiled, stalked, and confronted Trayvon Martin, and not the other way around. In any sane and fair jurisdiction, Zimmerman would have been found guilty. Just because a red-necked, racist system, and the like-minded people who oversee it, made a decision to blame the hoodie-wearing black kid for his own murder does not change the obvious truth.

Zimmerman certainly profiled and followed (if you want to use the word "stalked", it's technically accurate) Martin, but as far as I'm aware there's no proof, or even any strong evidence, that it was he who confronted Martin and not vice versa.

And I don't agree that it being legal to shoot someone who physically attacks you is "bigoted and obscene".

don't agree, or you wouldn't have posted this apologist bullshit in the first place. SYG and CCW laws are certainly bigoted and obscene, and serve no civilized purpose in our society. They aid and abet vigilantism which is the accurate description of Zimmerman's actions on that night.

Had this happened in another less bigoted jurisdiction, Zimmerman would be doing time today. Just because Florida law allows vigilantism, does not make the corrupted "whites only" verdict any more virtuous.

Now go celebrate your hero's temporary victory, and let's wait for the civil trial where true justice will be served.

In your words he "profiled & followed" (stalked) Trayvon, but it is in doubt who confronted? I wonder if that would be the case had it been your 17 year old child? Fact: An adult left their vehicle with a loaded gun and an unarmed teenager ends up dead. This isn't even a dilemma if that dead teenager is a 17 year old caucasion child with nothing more than a bag of skittles and iced tea. It's been sickening seeing people who don't have to worry about their child or themselves being profiled rationalize the murder of a 17 year old kid.

hardly a stellar defense, but one that still works in floriduh.

that was applied in this case and our judicial system, you are absolutely spot on in your analysis. George Zimmerman may be an absolutely horrible person but the 2nd degree murder charge was an almost impossible case to make and the prosecution did nothing to dispel the reasonable doubt that existed, based on the available evidence. Not what people want to hear but they are letting emotion, not logic, drive their opinions in regards to this case.

The same result will not occur with the William Dunn case, the two are dramatically different and I predict that Dunn will be convicted of murder, despite the racial make-up of the individuals involved in the incident.

It comes down to two possibilities:

1) It happened the way Zimmerman said it happened. If it happened the way he said, he's 'not guilty'. It doesn't matter if he's a racist, or that he followed Martin, or that he was a wannabee cop, or that he had a gun, or anything else that happened before the physical confrontation. If Martin hit him first, and was straddling him and beating him when he got shot, Zimmerman is 'not guilty'. You can like the law, or not like it, but that's the way it is.

2)It didn't happen the way Zimmerman said. If it didn't happen the way Zimmerman said, the prosecution has to show that it happened a different way, beyond a reasonable doubt. If the jury thinks that Zimmerman's version is reasonably possible, they must acquit.

Personally, I don't think it happened exactly the way Zimmerman said it did. I have a problem with how far Martin's body was found from the location that Zimmerman said he was attacked (I believe it was about 40 or 50 feet). Zimmerman never said the struggle involved moving a distance. Also, I have a problem with the fact that Zimmerman told the dispatcher not to have the police meet him at his car, but rather have them call him when they got there. (according to Zimmerman's story, his car was only 40 yards away, and in his sight...the only reason I can think of to not have the cops meet him there, was because he wasn't planning on going straight to his car).

In any case, the six jurors saw all the evidence, heard all the testimony, and came to a unanimous decision. The prosecution didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was guilty.

Because Zimmerman killed him.

Don't need to write a long thesis.

It's that simple.

What possible motive could the Martin kid have to assault someone?

Really, you've obviously tried your best to think this out, so what was Martin's motive in committing this crime?

Maybe somewhere between the store and home he was bitten by a radioactive spider and the venom transformed him into a viscious murderer and Zimmerman was able to tell all this by just looking at him.

Was it something like that?

or make up the law and decide that the jury came to the correct conclusion.

That's what your OP is. You making up the jury instructions and the law. You can't make up your own jury instructions and your own law that is not the reality in this case and then declare the jury got it right.

So why are you?

Facts have been largely condemned or ignored in this case, unfortunately. A lot of people don't care about the law (check out all the talking heads and celebrities weighing in); they just want Zimmerman's head.

Skittles vs. a GUN.

Porky is

a liar
a racist
a murder.

Was it really self-defense if there were no marks, bruises, blood or injuries anywhere on Zimmerman's head/neck? See for yourself:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/28/1078684/-Breaking-News-CurrentTV-Countdown-Trayvon-Martin-video#

manslaughter- and got many facts wrong. Fucking idiots have exposed themselves.

and you know Martin attacked Zimmerman first because???? He's Black?

Since I explicitly say that I *don't* know that, I can only assume that you didn't bother to read my post.

about who attacked who. He made up various stories about being jumped from the bushes, etc. When one can see what he intended to do from his comments to 911. He wasn't going to let this punk get away. He'd already decided the "punk" was casing houses. He hardly approached objectively. He had decided about Trayvon already.

And so Trayvon just happened to hide in the bushes and jump him. Yeah, how convenient for Zimmerman. And to be sure Zimmerman politely asked Trayvon if he belonged in the area. Sometimes I wonder how black people manage. That would be so maddening to be walking down the street and have someone ask you why you are there. Granted it would be wiser to say "sir, I live here," or "I'm staying here" but when the heck will this stuff stop? You know why he's doing it to you - you're young and black.

Zimmerman is responsible - it should at least have been manslaughter, or something. He prejudged someone, didn't want them to get away, and golly gee, just happened to "have to" use his gun. And fatally.

The jury should have had the brains to figure that out. The state met the burden of proof - they showed Zimmerman's intent. They showed how Zimmerman's story did not add up. Zimmerman's lies should have sunk his credibility.

Zimmerman was the pursuer, with a loaded gun, from the start. We're supposed to believe TM was justifiably killed simply because he -- at WORST -- tried to defend himself from a stranger stalking him??

The fact that we don't know that Martin attacked Zimmerman would only be relevant if he were the one being prosecuted.

Since Zimmerman was the one on trial, what matters is that we don't know that he didn't.

With all the vitriol, aspersions, and emotionally-based arguments being thrown your way from the crowd.

As much as I felt (and said many times on this board) that I though Zimmerman was a liar, deserved jail, etc. Yet I also had a feeling he'd get off based on the bullshit that is FL's stand-your-ground and self-defense laws.

It appears that just because you're arguing that the Jury 'came to the LEGALLY proper decision' based on the law, and instructions they were given, this means you have naked pics of Zimmerman with which you pleasure yourself, and a poster of a lynching hanging your living room.

Everything you've said is perfectly reasonable and accurate, but nobody wants to accept it and prefers to call you names and such instead. It's really a sad display of ad-hominem going on in this thread.

Apparently nobody considers it even possible to simultaneously believe the Justice was NOT properly served, that SYG is BULLSHIT, and and that what's happened here is painfully unfair, and fundamentally just WRONG ... while ALSO believing that the Prosecution failed to make their case, and that the Jury reached a legally proper decision based on the applicable LAW, and Jury INSTRUCTIONS.

The burden of proof was basically on the prosecution to PROVE that Zimmerman began the physical altercation. That's the ONLY way they could win this case. Due in part to their shitty police work at the scene, they were simply unable to do this.

It sucks, and we're all pissed off about it. But Donald's argument here makes sense. Nobody can prove Zimmerman started the fight, and nothing he did prior to the fight was illegal. Once the fight began, according to SYG, all ZimZim's team had to do was prove he 'feared' for his life. It's a ridiculous law, but the jury decided this case 'right'.

I'm deeply sorry about what's happened here, despise Zimmerman with a passion, but ... what you've argued here is true and correct, no matter how much I wish it were not.

Protecting yourself from someone who is following you at night for no known reason is legal.

We live in a pretty sad world when a black kid with skittles and a hoodie causes every white dick with a gun to fear for his life.

They used to call that lynching. I don't know what they call it now days. Oh, yes, they call that innocent.

Now if GZ grabbed TM, tried to detain him, or even tackled him, then yes.

Zimmerman bagged him one.

That is what it is.

There is another trial in Florida about to start, Older white guy shot an unarmed black teenager. I bet the guy walks.

You're allowed to fight back if attacked, and there are some limited circumstances (e.g. a home intruder) where you're allowed to initiate a fight, but it's absolutely not legal to attack someone for following you.

"Lynching" is a fair description of the mood here on DU vis a vis Zimmerman, I'm afraid.

You'll pardon my asking, but how much time have you actually spent in this country (if any), and what direct exposure do you have to the deeply layered and inflammatory racial territory you're diving into here?

I usually see you posting in the I/P forum, where you are invariably a calm voice of reason. But on this, you're completely off base.

on. A Black teenager was minding his own business returning from a quick mart with Skittles and Arizona Tea. He was followed by a man with a gun and killed. Because this man profiled the Black teenager as a criminal. I think he was murdered. But murder is also a technical term as described by law. He was killed by an adult with a loaded weapon. Trayvon was not a criminal. Zimmerman knew he was carrying a loaded weapon. I 'think' Zimmermen was looking for an opportunity to prove himself so he would have credibility when he applied again to be a 'real' policemen. This man was a killing waiting to happen.

We teach our minors to run, scream, fight, kick -- DRAW ATTENTION TO YOURSELF when someone stalks you. He did exactly as he had been told.

17 is more than old enough to know that it's not OK to attack people in the street, and more than old enough to present a serious physical danger if he did.

We don't know that he *did* do that, but *if* he did then shooting him would have been an entirely legitimate response.

And, yes, 17 is still legally a child.

Do you consider Martin to be an adult? I'm aware that you prefaced child with "hardly," but why the need to portray him as being something other than what he is, which is a child? How out-of-date do you think the photos are that have been "bandied" around? A year or two? 5-10 years? Just 5 would make him 12 in such a photo. Either the photos aren't that out of date or he's more of a child than an adult. Which is it?

It's telling that you continue to use the word attack, and in this particular post, the phrase "attack people in the street" as if he was some wild teenager assaulting random people. It's absolutely nothing wrong with an real adult following a teenager for no apparent reason, who just happened to be armed? I'd like to know why you have no problem with an adult stalking a teenager with a loaded weapon. I know from previous posts you say it's legal. Would it have been fine with you if it was your 17 year old (since it's legal)?

many DU'ers have regarding this case. Too many people have invested in what they believe (or hope) to be a certain set of events. Everyone supports the jury system until there's a verdict they don't agree with.

Am sureprised it hasn't been hidden.

Hide that!

ZIMMERMAN IS FOREVER GUILTY

especially since at least one of them had her mind made before even being selected...

Funny how in that big-assed wall of text you cover everything but the racial profiling...And for the love of god please stop with the "The-only-reason-Zim-got-tried-was-due-to-political-pressure" RW talking point...It makes you appear more ignorant, callous and unfeeling than you probably are in real life...

and said everything correct to get on the jury.

When fairly and objectively considering the entire situation.. its clear that Zimmerman acted irrationally and irresponsilby by using his weapon to kill that kid. At the very least he should be convicted of manslaughter.

It was all demographics. White, southern and racist.

I read many of the comments from white southerns on the other case of the white guy who shot up a car with a bunch of black kids in it, and the responses were very upsetting.

If a black guy had shot up a car full of white kids, Florida would have called for a national day mourning and dubbed it the Florida massacre.