OT: Zimmerman Not Guilty

[geneh_33]

Of course a smaller man can win a fight with a larger man.

This last sentence I have quoted from your post is the point I DID MAKE. If you can't see that through the woods of everything else that we discussed then you are too dense to continue an intelligent conversation with me and I will move on to discuss something else with someone who can.

 

[jarrod49]

You cannot go by what you hear one witness say, no matter how credible that witness is. You need to review all of the testimony, especially the eyewitness testimony. Then you need to see how all of the evidence presented "fits together." If it doesn't all fit together, and all of the evidence presented by both sides rarely will, you then need to filter out the pieces of the puzzle that don't fit. Once you've done that if you can't see the person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt then you vote NOT GUILTY.

so you are trying to tell me that a forensic lady who works for the state who took zimmermans gun and his bullets and several pieces of trayvons hoodie and shot it repeatedly from different distances came to the conclusion that the only match was from pressing the barrel of the gun to the fabric and pulling the trigger and then got on the stand and testified to this finding is not credible?

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Why? Why, when you obviously don't value my opinion very much?

The prosecution would have had to prove Martin was guilty of murder or manslaughter. Considering that the only eye witness would have testified that Martin was on top, suggesting he was in control of the scuffle and that Martin, while being on top, didn't need to use a gun to defend himself in an offensive position, I would think that murder or manslaughter would be provable, but perhaps not beyond a reasonable doubt.

It would have been a more interesting trial, I think, because the defense would have been in the precarious position of defending a man who was on top and killed a man while he was on top in a scuffle.

If all the facts were the same then I think murder one would be provable.

1. Trayvon is on top.
2. Trayvon has a gun and knows he has a gun before the scuffle begins while Zimmerman does not know it.
3. Trayvon is not a neighborhood watchman but is on top in a scuffle with a neighborhood watchman. That looks pretty bad right there.
4. Trayvon pulls out his gun and kills Zimmerman.

It should be provable that Trayvon killed Zimmerman with intent to do so. If not then why would he have pulled a gun and used it when he was the one in an offensive position? If not then why would he have attacked Zimmerman, got on top of him and then killed him?

I'm not sure if I would have voted guilty had I been on the jury. But what I am sure of is that I would have been in the minority because I think the other jurors would be pushing at least manslaughter at me in light of the evidence.

I don't devalue your opinion. You got way off-topic talking about the relative weights as they apply to football, but that's the sole aspect of our disagreement.

As for the hypo you have created, you've changed the facts.

1) Again, there is conflicting evidence as to who was on top.

Who was on top in Zimmerman-Martin tussle? Witness testimony in conflict. - CSMonitor.com

2) Martin did not have the gun. Zimmerman did.

3) Martin did not know Zimmerman was in the neighborhood watch.

4) Again, not Martin's gun.

So with the actual fact scenario, how would you vote?

 

[Crimsoncrew]

I already posted this but at the time of the incident trayvon was 5 foot 11 and weighed 158, and Zimmerman was 5 foot 7 and weighed 185, that's only 25 lbs difference and trayvon was 4 inches taller. that's not that big of a difference, don't know where you folks are getting that he was over 200 lbs.

Jarrod, you're the one I really wanted to hear from with my question: if Martin had shot Zimmerman and killed Zimmerman, would you be defending Martin? If not, why not?

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Well, I think you are having a problem admitting that you are wrong. Most people do so you aren't alone in that regard.

What am I wrong about?

 

[geneh_33]

I don't devalue your opinion. You got way off-topic talking about the relative weights as they apply to football, but that's the sole aspect of our disagreement.

As for the hypo you have created, you've changed the facts.

1) Again, there is conflicting evidence as to who was on top.

Who was on top in Zimmerman-Martin tussle? Witness testimony in conflict. - CSMonitor.com

2) Martin did not have the gun. Zimmerman did.

3) Martin did not know Zimmerman was in the neighborhood watch.

4) Again, not Martin's gun.

So with the actual fact scenario, how would you vote?

Oh, so now you elect to tell me these things. Assuming the same scenario, Martin would have had the gun.

The only eyewitness put Martin on top so that is what I elect to go with.

So once again, Martin was on top but he took the gun away from Zimmerman this time, shot him and killed him.

I would vote Guilty of manslaughter, all other things considered. Martin had no reason to be in fear of his life and therefore should not have shot anyone. He is guilty of at least manslaughter.

 

[geneh_33]

Oh, so now you elect to tell me these things. Assuming the same scenario, Martin would have had the gun.

The only eyewitness put Martin on top so that is what I elect to go with.

So once again, Martin was on top but he took the gun away from Zimmerman this time, shot him and killed him.

I would vote Guilty of manslaughter, all other things considered. Martin had no reason to be in fear of his life and therefore should not have shot anyone. He is guilty of at least manslaughter.

Unless you can show that Martin was in fear of his life and he was defending himself as the Zimmerman defense team successfully was able to show, then Martin is as guilty as he can possibly be - as would Zimmerman been guilty if he hadn't been in fear of his life and was defending himself.

 

[geneh_33]

What am I wrong about?

What's wrong with the law?

And - Why don't you believe that Zimmerman was defending himself and in fear for his life when he shot Martin?

I don't think there is anything wrong with the law.

 

[jarrod49]

Jarrod, you're the one I really wanted to hear from with my question: if Martin had shot Zimmerman and killed Zimmerman, would you be defending Martin? If not, why not?

are you asking if the role was the exact opposite and Zimmerman was martin vice versa, then yes if an African American man had followed a Hispanic child and everything else was the same then absolutely.

if you are asking if this exact incident happened the way it did except martin had taken zimmermans gun and killed him and the prosecution was unable to prove that he didn't fear for his life then possibly, although all of trayvons tweets fb posts and pics and his texts would have come into play and he most likely would have been found guilty because of his history for violent fighting, talks through tweets of killing all haters and shooting someone for snitching, and his texts trying to get drugs and a gun.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Oh, so now you elect to tell me these things. Assuming the same scenario, Martin would have had the gun.

The only eyewitness put Martin on top so that is what I elect to go with.

So once again, Martin was on top but he took the gun away from Zimmerman this time, shot him and killed him.

I would vote Guilty of manslaughter, all other things considered. Martin had no reason to be in fear of his life and therefore should not have shot anyone. He is guilty of at least manslaughter.

No, assuming the same scenario, Zimmerman would have had the gun. Everything is the same, it's just Zimmerman who was killed in a struggle for the gun.

Do you really believe that Zimmerman's injuries put him in fear of his life, but someone producing a gun does not?

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Unless you can show that Martin was in fear of his life and he was defending himself as the Zimmerman defense team successfully was able to show, then Martin is as guilty as he can possibly be - as would Zimmerman been guilty if he hadn't been in fear of his life and was defending himself.

That's not the standard. The state has to prove that he was not afraid for his life. Do you believe the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that Martin was not afraid for his life?

 

[Crimsoncrew]

What's wrong with the law?

And - Why don't you believe that Zimmerman was defending himself and in fear for his life when he shot Martin?

I don't think there is anything wrong with the law.

Answer my question and I'll answer yours.

 

[yossarian]

I'm too lazy to read through 17 pages of posts about this topic, but I did want to offer my brief perspective, along with some background. I've been a lawyer for about 20 years, 15 of those years I was a public defender and have actually had trials where I raised self defense as an issue. When the burden is on the prosecutor to prove the absence of self-defense (as in Florida I believe and Washington State) it can be a very powerful defense. I have no idea whether Zimmerman should have been acquitted or not and neither does anyone else unless some 49er fan here was a juror and sat through the entire trial, watching the demeanor of the witnesses, etc. What I will say is that I find it distressing that white people who kill black people, celebrities, rich people all seem to enjoy the presumption of innocence and jurors seem to most times hold the state to the stringent standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt." Others who don't fall into those categories aren't so lucky and I think that's the true travesty.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

are you asking if the role was the exact opposite and Zimmerman was martin vice versa, then yes if an African American man had followed a Hispanic child and everything else was the same then absolutely.

if you are asking if this exact incident happened the way it did except martin had taken zimmermans gun and killed him and the prosecution was unable to prove that he didn't fear for his life then possibly, although all of trayvons tweets fb posts and pics and his texts would have come into play and he most likely would have been found guilty because of his history for violent fighting, talks through tweets of killing all haters and shooting someone for snitching, and his texts trying to get drugs and a gun.

I am talking about the second scenario. Does talking about fighting in the past eliminate self-defense as it would apply in this hypothetical case? Or affect it in any way? Zimmerman was charged with assaulting a police officer, after all, but you don't seem to be taking that into account at all.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

I'm too lazy to read through 17 pages of posts about this topic, but I did want to offer my brief perspective, along with some background. I've been a lawyer for about 20 years, 15 of those years I was a public defender and have actually had trials where I raised self defense as an issue. When the burden is on the prosecutor to prove the absence of self-defense (as in Florida I believe and Washington State) it can be a very powerful defense. I have no idea whether Zimmerman should have been acquitted or not and neither does anyone else unless some 49er fan here was a juror and sat through the entire trial, watching the demeanor of the witnesses, etc. What I will say is that I find it distressing that white people who kill black people, celebrities, rich people all seem to enjoy the presumption of innocence and jurors seem to most times hold the state to the stringent standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt." Others who don't fall into those categories aren't so lucky and I think that's the true travesty.

I agree with that entirely. Part of my problem with the stand your ground law is that it can easily be manipulated to benefit certain people, but its use can be controlled by any number of people including unelected judges.

 

[geneh_33]

No, assuming the same scenario, Zimmerman would have had the gun. Everything is the same, it's just Zimmerman who was killed in a struggle for the gun.

Do you really believe that Zimmerman's injuries put him in fear of his life, but someone producing a gun does not?

There is more to this scenario than that. You can't make this that simple because it isn't that simple. That's what I hate about all the "What if's."

I accept that Martin was on top. I also accept that Zimmerman was pulling his gun because he was the one in fear for his life. I also accept that Martin was the aggressor at this time. How could Martin be defending himself in light of these things? Oh sure, he's defending himself AFTER he sees the guy whose ass he is kicking has a gun, sure he is! But if he takes that gun away from Zimmerman and kills him with it how can he prove he is defending himself? I don't think he can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

And I do think it would be a relatively easy thing for a prosecutor to prove that Martin killed Zimmerman and intended to do so after he saw that gun. That's manslaughter right there.

I don't see the prosecution even having to prove that Martin didn't do it in self defense because it's pretty obvious to me that wouldn't have been the case. Instead, Martin's defense attorneys would find themselves attempting to prove that he did it in self defense and I don't see a jury buying that at all.

 

[jarrod49]

I am talking about the second scenario. Does talking about fighting in the past eliminate self-defense as it would apply in this hypothetical case? Or affect it in any way? Zimmerman was charged with assaulting a police officer, after all, but you don't seem to be taking that into account at all.

apparently he wasn't convicted of assaulting a police officer or he would not have been able to have a CCW permit.

 

[geneh_33]

What I will say is that I find it distressing that white people who kill black people, celebrities, rich people all seem to enjoy the presumption of innocence and jurors seem to most times hold the state to the stringent standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt." Others who don't fall into those categories aren't so lucky and I think that's the true travesty.

What about OJ Simpson? Tell me about how Simpson was presumed guilty and convicted by the jury because he was presumed guilty and therefore convicted?

Tell me about why the judge disallowed damning evidence against Simpson and how the judge allowing evidence that condemned that stupid detective of being a racist hurt Simpson by presuming him guilty?

 

[Crimsoncrew]

There is more to this scenario than that. You can't make this that simple because it isn't that simple. That's what I hate about all the "What if's."

I accept that Martin was on top. I also accept that Zimmerman was pulling his gun because he was the one in fear for his life. I also accept that Martin was the aggressor at this time. How could Martin be defending himself in light of these things? Oh sure, he's defending himself AFTER he sees the guy whose ass he is kicking has a gun, sure he is! But if he takes that gun away from Zimmerman and kills him with it how can he prove he is defending himself? I don't think he can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

And I do think it would be a relatively easy thing for a prosecutor to prove that Martin killed Zimmerman and intended to do so after he saw that gun. That's manslaughter right there.

I don't see the prosecution even having to prove that Martin didn't do it in self defense because it's pretty obvious to me that wouldn't have been the case. Instead, Martin's defense attorneys would find themselves attempting to prove that he did it in self defense and I don't see a jury buying that at all.

Again, that's not the standard. The prosecution would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Martin was NOT afraid for his life. And you're assuming in this scenario that Martin got the gun entirely. What's to say they weren't wrestling for the gun? Not to mention, of course, that you have simply chosen to believe - despite conflicting testimony - that Martin was on top when he was shot.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

apparently he wasn't convicted of assaulting a police officer or he would not have been able to have a CCW permit.

No, he wasn't convicted. My understanding is that the DA agreed to some sort of diversion program in which he did alcohol treatment and they dropped the charges. But that's more concrete evidence of violence than texts from Martin about fighting, and you're more than happy to condemn Martin without a conviction.