Zimmerman found NOT guilty

[TwinFoxes]

Not guilty. Verdict just announced. Floridians, whatever you do, don't get into a confrontation with anyone.

[AnnieW625]

Wow, I hope there are no riots and that everyone stays safe.

[ABO Mama]

Wow. Just wow.

[SnuggleBuggles]

Not good.

[wellyes]

Not a surprise. He will be found guilty in civil court I'm sure.

[JBaxter]

Not surprised. I've been following the trial.

[dcmom2b3]

I pray that people disappointed with the verdict and inclined to start trouble will take a deep breath, and consider that they'd be stooping to Zimmerman's level if they did.

[liamsmom]

According to the Associated Press, a verdict has been reached but not yet announced. The jury asked for clarification on the manslaughter charge.

[JBaxter]

According to the Associated Press, a verdict has been reached but not yet announced. The jury asked for clarification on the manslaughter charge.

just watched it on Fox news live

[AngB]

Maybe Zimmerman and Casey Anthony can be bff's now. I would guess that he will need to go into hiding now as well.

[liamsmom]

just watched it on Fox news live

You're right. My feeds are slow

[TwinFoxes]

According to the Associated Press, a verdict has been reached but not yet announced. The jury asked for clarification on the manslaughter charge.

I saw it read live. Trust me, it was not guilty.

I am not surprised. The Florida law is, let's just go with unusual.

[TwinFoxes]

Amen, M-H.

[westwoodmom04]

Maybe Zimmerman and Casey Anthony can be bff's now. I would guess that he will need to go into hiding now as well.

Two of the many reasons I will never live in Florida.

[kara97210]

Not a surprise. He will be found guilty in civil court I'm sure.

Yeah, the HOA has already settled for >$1 million and it'll be another settlement against him personally. He also will likely have the same life sentence that Casey Anthony has, not being able to get a job, live in normal society, etc.

[randomkid]

Many of these comments are unnecessary. The law exists to protect people who defend themselves or others against an attacker. I'm not going to argue the points of this case, but I have been listening to it all week. The evidence strongly supports GZ's claims that TM attacked him - one example was the grass stains on the knees of TM's pants. How did GZ know that the next time his head was slammed into the ground he wouldn't be knocked unconcious and that kid could have seriously injured him or even killed him? GZ had every right and reason to follow an unfamiliar person walking through his neighborhood once you know the history of the crimes that were being committed there. TM should have just gone on home. He was the one who chose to make it a confrontation. He was not an upstanding individual (all you have to do is Google him and you'll find out) and honestly, if he had not been suspended from school for drugs and suspected burglary, he would not have even been here. He would have still been in Miami.

I am not saying it is his fault that GZ shot him, but he made a choice to have a confrontation. If he was truly as innocent as they claim, he would have hightailed it home and GZ would have seen him enter his home without breaking in and that likely would have ended the whole thing. I think GZ was an idiot and handled the whole thing wrong. When he was told not to follow the kid, he should have not followed him, but the bottom line is that it doesn't matter what led up to the confrontation. A person has no right to start punching somebody just for following him or even if words are exchanged. I think GZ got in over his head and panicked. He was stupid. No matter what, his life is over. He cannot go on living his life as he was. His family will have to be protected, he will have to be protected and they will have to move to who knows where and live in secrecy. That's no kind of life to have. The protestors got what they wanted - an arrest and a trial. Honestly, the comment about GZ and Casey Anthony being BFFs is disgusting to me. These are the kinds of words that have caused so much animosity in the community as it is. I live very close to all of this and now I have to be fearful for a while because people are so full of hatred. People outside the courthouse are saying things that make it sound like GZ tracked TM down, cornered him and shot him in cold blood as if he was hunting him like a wild animal. It needs to stop and the comments here are perfect examples of it. Go ahead and flame away. I am still entitled to my opinion and my freedom to express it. I don't like what happened and I don't especially like GZ, but I don't think he should go to prison for what he did.

[JBaxter]

Thank you.
Many of these comments are unnecessary. The law exists to protect people who defend themselves or others against an attacker. I'm not going to argue the points of this case, but I have been listening to it all week. The evidence strongly supports GZ's claims that TM attacked him - one example was the grass stains on the knees of TM's pants. How did GZ know that the next time his head was slammed into the ground he wouldn't be knocked unconcious and that kid could have seriously injured him or even killed him? GZ had every right and reason to follow an unfamiliar person walking through his neighborhood once you know the history of the crimes that were being committed there. TM should have just gone on home. He was the one who chose to make it a confrontation. He was not an upstanding individual (all you have to do is Google him and you'll find out) and honestly, if he had not been suspended from school for drugs and suspected burglary, he would not have even been here. He would have still been in Miami.

I am not saying it is his fault that GZ shot him, but he made a choice to have a confrontation. If he was truly as innocent as they claim, he would have hightailed it home and GZ would have seen him enter his home without breaking in and that likely would have ended the whole thing. I think GZ was an idiot and handled the whole thing wrong. When he was told not to follow the kid, he should have not followed him, but the bottom line is that it doesn't matter what led up to the confrontation. A person has no right to start punching somebody just for following him or even if words are exchanged. I think GZ got in over his head and panicked. He was stupid. No matter what, his life is over. He cannot go on living his life as he was. His family will have to be protected, he will have to be protected and they will have to move to who knows where and live in secrecy. That's no kind of life to have. The protestors got what they wanted - an arrest and a trial. Honestly, the comment about GZ and Casey Anthony being BFFs is disgusting to me. These are the kinds of words that have caused so much animosity in the community as it is. I live very close to all of this and now I have to be fearful for a while because people are so full of hatred. People outside the courthouse are saying things that make it sound like GZ tracked TM down, cornered him and shot him in cold blood as if he was hunting him like a wild animal. It needs to stop and the comments here are perfect examples of it. Go ahead and flame away. I am still entitled to my opinion and my freedom to express it. I don't like what happened and I don't especially like GZ, but I don't think he should go to prison for what he did.

[Kymberley]

Many of these comments are unnecessary. The law exists to protect people who defend themselves or others against an attacker. I'm not going to argue the points of this case, but I have been listening to it all week. The evidence strongly supports GZ's claims that TM attacked him - one example was the grass stains on the knees of TM's pants. How did GZ know that the next time his head was slammed into the ground he wouldn't be knocked unconcious and that kid could have seriously injured him or even killed him? GZ had every right and reason to follow an unfamiliar person walking through his neighborhood once you know the history of the crimes that were being committed there. TM should have just gone on home. He was the one who chose to make it a confrontation. He was not an upstanding individual (all you have to do is Google him and you'll find out) and honestly, if he had not been suspended from school for drugs and suspected burglary, he would not have even been here. He would have still been in Miami.

I am not saying it is his fault that GZ shot him, but he made a choice to have a confrontation. If he was truly as innocent as they claim, he would have hightailed it home and GZ would have seen him enter his home without breaking in and that likely would have ended the whole thing. I think GZ was an idiot and handled the whole thing wrong. When he was told not to follow the kid, he should have not followed him, but the bottom line is that it doesn't matter what led up to the confrontation. A person has no right to start punching somebody just for following him or even if words are exchanged. I think GZ got in over his head and panicked. He was stupid. No matter what, his life is over. He cannot go on living his life as he was. His family will have to be protected, he will have to be protected and they will have to move to who knows where and live in secrecy. That's no kind of life to have. The protestors got what they wanted - an arrest and a trial. Honestly, the comment about GZ and Casey Anthony being BFFs is disgusting to me. These are the kinds of words that have caused so much animosity in the community as it is. I live very close to all of this and now I have to be fearful for a while because people are so full of hatred. People outside the courthouse are saying things that make it sound like GZ tracked TM down, cornered him and shot him in cold blood as if he was hunting him like a wild animal. It needs to stop and the comments here are perfect examples of it. Go ahead and flame away. I am still entitled to my opinion and my freedom to express it. I don't like what happened and I don't especially like GZ, but I don't think he should go to prison for what he did..

Agreed

[edurnemk]

Randomkid, after following the trial a bit and knowing more of the details, I agree 100% with everything you said. And I'll add that the whole thing only furthers my opinion that there should be no concel carry permits, since without a gun things would not have ended like they did, but that is my very personal opinion.

[carolinacool]

Not guilty. Verdict just announced. Floridians, whatever you do, don't get into a confrontation with anyone.

And if some stranger starts questioning you, make sure you announce your name and address and make sure you let them see you go into your house so they will be satisfied.

Please.

I agree that Trayvon should have kept walking. But Zimmerman started the confrontation when he started following him. But I'm also not surprised at the outcome.

[Fairy]

Not a surprise. He will be found guilty in civil court I'm sure.

What she said.

[TwinFoxes]

If he was truly as innocent as they claim, he would have hightailed it home and GZ would have seen him enter his home without breaking in and that likely would have ended the whole thing.


What exactly was Trayvon Martin guilty of? How was he not innocent? I am actually not surprised, given the Florida law, that Zimmerman was found not guilty. But to say Trayvon Martin is somehow at fault is a bit flabbergasting. I'm serious, what exactly did he do that would qualify him as not being innocent? What crime was he committing? I can easily imagine teenagers who don't want to be seen as wimps not high tailing it home. You're entitled to your opinion, but I'd be interested in what you're basing that statement on. Seriously, you can't imagine a scenario where an innocent guy might confront another guy following him?

[megs4413]

Many of these comments are unnecessary. The law exists to protect people who defend themselves or others against an attacker. I'm not going to argue the points of this case, but I have been listening to it all week. The evidence strongly supports GZ's claims that TM attacked him - one example was the grass stains on the knees of TM's pants. How did GZ know that the next time his head was slammed into the ground he wouldn't be knocked unconcious and that kid could have seriously injured him or even killed him? GZ had every right and reason to follow an unfamiliar person walking through his neighborhood once you know the history of the crimes that were being committed there. TM should have just gone on home. He was the one who chose to make it a confrontation. He was not an upstanding individual (all you have to do is Google him and you'll find out) and honestly, if he had not been suspended from school for drugs and suspected burglary, he would not have even been here. He would have still been in Miami.

I am not saying it is his fault that GZ shot him, but he made a choice to have a confrontation. If he was truly as innocent as they claim, he would have hightailed it home and GZ would have seen him enter his home without breaking in and that likely would have ended the whole thing. I think GZ was an idiot and handled the whole thing wrong. When he was told not to follow the kid, he should have not followed him, but the bottom line is that it doesn't matter what led up to the confrontation. A person has no right to start punching somebody just for following him or even if words are exchanged. I think GZ got in over his head and panicked. He was stupid. No matter what, his life is over. He cannot go on living his life as he was. His family will have to be protected, he will have to be protected and they will have to move to who knows where and live in secrecy. That's no kind of life to have. The protestors got what they wanted - an arrest and a trial. Honestly, the comment about GZ and Casey Anthony being BFFs is disgusting to me. These are the kinds of words that have caused so much animosity in the community as it is. I live very close to all of this and now I have to be fearful for a while because people are so full of hatred. People outside the courthouse are saying things that make it sound like GZ tracked TM down, cornered him and shot him in cold blood as if he was hunting him like a wild animal. It needs to stop and the comments here are perfect examples of it. Go ahead and flame away. I am still entitled to my opinion and my freedom to express it. I don't like what happened and I don't especially like GZ, but I don't think he should go to prison for what he did.

ITA! I watched most of the trial live (bedrest...) and the evidence just didn't support the charges. I'm not saying GZ did a good thing. I certainly wish he hadn't been carrying that gun. But, there were REASONS the police didn't initially arrest and charge GZ... The court of public opinion isn't enough for a conviction and TBH I'm glad it's not.

[Zukini]

We would not be having this conversation if George Zimmerman had followed instructions and never left his vehicle. Having the right to bear arms and the right to defend yourself does not give you the right to play "police".

[icunurse]

GZ had every right and reason to follow an unfamiliar person walking through his neighborhood once you know the history of the crimes that were being committed there. TM should have just gone on home. He was the one who chose to make it a confrontation.

I am not saying it is his fault that GZ shot him, but he made a choice to have a confrontation. If he was truly as innocent as they claim, he would have hightailed it home and GZ would have seen him enter his home without breaking in and that likely would have ended the whole thing. I think GZ was an idiot and handled the whole thing wrong. When he was told not to follow the kid, he should have not followed him, but the bottom line is that it doesn't matter what led up to the confrontation. A person has no right to start punching somebody just for following him or even if words are exchanged. I think GZ got in over his head and panicked. He was stupid. .

It is totally GZ fault. Being part of a neighborhood watch does not give you the right to NOT follow police orders. And he didn't just follow him, he took the effort to get out of his car and find him. GZ made it a confrontation. If he had just moved on as the police said to do. If he had just stayed in his car. He was the adult. He should have known better. But he hated "thugs" and he had a gun, so I'm guessing he probably planned to corner the kid until the police showed and when TM, perhaps scared, fought back, he shot him. Not fair.

No, TM, wasn't some innocent kid. But he was a kid. And he wasn't doing anything wrong in the first place. Imagine if your son was walking past an older man whose garage had been robbed, the man followed him even after police said to stay back and they were on their way. Scared, your son tries to get a punch to the older man before the older man beats him. Does he deserve to be shot and die for that? I don't think so, but that's just me.

[westwoodmom04]

Many of these comments are unnecessary. The law exists to protect people who defend themselves or others against an attacker. I'm not going to argue the points of this case, but I have been listening to it all week. The evidence strongly supports GZ's claims that TM attacked him - one example was the grass stains on the knees of TM's pants. How did GZ know that the next time his head was slammed into the ground he wouldn't be knocked unconcious and that kid could have seriously injured him or even killed him? GZ had every right and reason to follow an unfamiliar person walking through his neighborhood once you know the history of the crimes that were being committed there. TM should have just gone on home. He was the one who chose to make it a confrontation. He was not an upstanding individual (all you have to do is Google him and you'll find out) and honestly, if he had not been suspended from school for drugs and suspected burglary, he would not have even been here. He would have still been in Miami.

I am not saying it is his fault that GZ shot him, but he made a choice to have a confrontation. If he was truly as innocent as they claim, he would have hightailed it home and GZ would have seen him enter his home without breaking in and that likely would have ended the whole thing. I think GZ was an idiot and handled the whole thing wrong. When he was told not to follow the kid, he should have not followed him, but the bottom line is that it doesn't matter what led up to the confrontation. A person has no right to start punching somebody just for following him or even if words are exchanged. I think GZ got in over his head and panicked. He was stupid. No matter what, his life is over. He cannot go on living his life as he was. His family will have to be protected, he will have to be protected and they will have to move to who knows where and live in secrecy. That's no kind of life to have. The protestors got what they wanted - an arrest and a trial. Honestly, the comment about GZ and Casey Anthony being BFFs is disgusting to me. These are the kinds of words that have caused so much animosity in the community as it is. I live very close to all of this and now I have to be fearful for a while because people are so full of hatred. People outside the courthouse are saying things that make it sound like GZ tracked TM down, cornered him and shot him in cold blood as if he was hunting him like a wild animal. It needs to stop and the comments here are perfect examples of it. Go ahead and flame away. I am still entitled to my opinion and my freedom to express it. I don't like what happened and I don't especially like GZ, but I don't think he should go to prison for what he did.

So George Zimmerman is entitled to use deadly force to "self-defend" in a situation he initiated but trayvon was at fault for trying to defend himself at all. Interesting logic.

[JBaxter]

We would not be having this conversation if George Zimmerman had followed instructions and never left his vehicle. Having the right to bear arms and the right to defend yourself does not give you the right to play "police".

I believe they addressed that in the trial. It is not illegal to follow someone. Like Megs I watched most of the trial < to much darn rain and stuck in side here> The evidence they presented didn't find him guilty in my mind and evidently not in the minds of the 6 jurors.

[megs4413]

So George Zimmerman is entitled to use deadly force to "self-defend" in a situation he initiated but trayvon was at fault for trying to defend himself at all. Interesting logic.

not picking on you AT ALL, but just wondering if you watched the trial live or just read about it....i honestly think the evidence presents MUCH differently if you view it in the way the jury did....I just don't see how they could have found guilty if they were really taking their instructions seriously and sticking to the letter of the law. Before I watched the trial, I was SURE it was going to be guilty and I couldn't wait to see GZ pay for what happened, but the evidence just wasn't there. the key point was who initiated the physical part of the confrontation and there was just no evidence to support that GZ did. just none. It was really hard to understand what might have been going on in TM's mind. So sad all the way around.

[carolinacool]

What exactly was Trayvon Martin guilty of? How was he not innocent? I am actually not surprised, given the Florida law, that Zimmerman was found not guilty. But to say Trayvon Martin is somehow at fault is a bit flabbergasting. I'm serious, what exactly did he do that would qualify him as not being innocent? What crime was he committing? I can easily imagine teenagers who don't want to be seen as wimps not high tailing it home. You're entitled to your opinion, but I'd be interested in what you're basing that statement on. Seriously, you can't imagine a scenario where an innocent guy might confront another guy following him?

I've heard people say Trayvon was partly at fault for not explaining that he lived in the neighborhood. If I'm walking somewhere, I don't have to tell a stranger anything. I certainly don't need to let them see me go into the house. You worried about me? Call the police and sit in your car. If someone was following me, I probably wouldn't say anything and just keep walking. I assure you my husband would not just keep walking.

[wellyes]

I think George Zimmerman is an idiot who chased a kid down, provoking a confrontation, then tuned a fistfight into a killing unnecessarily. He says he only shot Trayvon Martin because Martin saw his gun and he (Zimmerman) was afraid that Trayvon would grab it. So he unholstered his gun, aimed with two hands, and shot him point blank in the chest. Because of the way the FL laws are written, I am not at all surprised he got off, but he is guilty morally of causing that death.

I feel terrible about the message this sends to young black men.

[westwoodmom04]

not picking on you AT ALL, but just wondering if you watched the trial live or just read about it....i honestly think the evidence presents MUCH differently if you view it in the way the jury did....I just don't see how they could have found guilty if they were really taking their instructions seriously and sticking to the letter of the law. Before I watched the trial, I was SURE it was going to be guilty and I couldn't wait to see GZ pay for what happened, but the evidence just wasn't there. the key point was who initiated the physical part of the confrontation and there was just no evidence to support that GZ did. just none. It was really hard to understand what might have been going on in TM's mind. So sad all the way around.

I did not watched but listened. Too many juries, including this one and Casey Anthony, confuse reasonable doubt with no doubt, not the same concept.

[randomkid]

So George Zimmerman is entitled to use deadly force to "self-defend" in a situation he initiated but trayvon was at fault for trying to defend himself at all. Interesting logic.

Well yes, because he didn't attack TM. TM had nothing to "defend himself" against. So, he was being followed. It's not like GZ was 3 feet behind him. He was a distance away, watching him. Maybe TM felt threatened, but he had no right to punch GZ, slam his head into the sidewalk and climb on top of him to continue the attack. It does NOT matter what led to the situation. GZ could have done whatever he wanted as long as he didn't threaten or attack TM. What changed it was when TM became the aggressor. As a matter of fact, my next door neighbor's son was confronted in our neighborhood a few years back - he was just walking on the sidewalk - and he ran home as fast as he could. If TM was really scared, why didn't HE call 911 or run like he!!?

[Fairy]

Peeps, this is what we's gonna be callin' a contentious thread.

I like how there is an effort here to defend and explain why one would be watching the entire trial live. I did not watch any of the trial, live or otherwise, but I do tape Judge Judy and watch it every day.

Concealed carry s a serious problem.

I will never understand how more guns are the answer.

A completely unarmed boy is dead. His killer was acquitted, and I respect the system based on the burden of proof per the Florida law. But in no way is GZ unpunished or remotely free. Sometimes you don't actually need a guilty verdict.

[Fairy]

I did not watched but listened. Too many juries, including this one and Casey Anthony, confuse reasonable doubt with no doubt, not the same concept.

Try serving on a jury and then see if you still think this.

[randomkid]

I think George Zimmerman is an idiot who chased a kid down, provoking a confrontation, then tuned a fistfight into a killing unnecessarily. He says he only shot Trayvon Martin because Martin saw his gun and he (Zimmerman) was afraid that Trayvon would grab it. So he unholstered his gun, aimed with two hands, and shot him point blank in the chest. Because of the way the FL laws are written, I am not at all surprised he got off, but he is guilty morally of causing that death.

I feel terrible about the message this sends to young black men.

See? This is exactly what I'm talking about. There is no evidence that GZ "chased him down". And, the "message to young black men" comment is also another example of breeding hatred. The fact is, all the crimes that had been committed in that neighborhood had been committed by young black males - this was stated by a black woman who lives in that neighborhood. There had been a home invasion, burlaries, etc. Did GZ profile? Yes, and he had a reason, but he did not "chase him down". FWIW, I also think GZ is an idiot. I told DH that I think he thought he was a real tough guy when he really isn't - you know the type - I think bully would be a good term. He got in over his head, got attacked and freaked out resulting in TM's killing. He was stupid, straight up, but he was still being attacked and beaten.

[westwoodmom04]

I don't want to go tit for tat with you, but I think it's a bit of a leap to say that trayvon had no reason to feel threatened.

[boolady]

Try serving on a jury and then see if you still think this.

What do you mean? A jury instruction on reasonable doubt says that it doesn't mean no doubt. Not being contentious, just don't understand.

[Fairy]

See? This is exactly what I'm talking about. There is no evidence that GZ "chased him down". And, the "message to young black men" comment is also another example of breeding hatred. The fact is, all the crimes that had been committed in that neighborhood had been committed by young black males - this was stated by a black woman who lives in that neighborhood. There had been a home invasion, burlaries, etc. Did GZ profile? Yes, and he had a reason.

ALL of them? Every single one? We know this cuz of a byte given by some chick in the neighborhood?

[queenmama]

I pray that people disappointed with the verdict and inclined to start trouble will take a deep breath, and consider that they'd be stooping to Zimmerman's level if they did.

Agreed.

[Kindra178]

I am not surprised at all. This was the defense's case to lose. I am, however, totally disgusted. One can start a fight and then claim self defense?

[westwoodmom04]

Try serving on a jury and then see if you still think this.

I would love to serve on a jury but since I'm a litigator, I'm sure I won't ever get the privilege.

[megs4413]

I would love to serve on a jury but since I'm a litigator, I'm sure I won't ever get the privilege.

As a litigator, let me ask you, did you feel the prosecution did a good job? I didn't, but I'm just a regular person. I wonder if it came off that way to people in the know.

[Kindra178]

One more thing. Totally bizarre to me that Zimmerman was armed as a neighborhood watchman. Sanford, Florida has very little violent crime. Property crime, some.

[TwinFoxes]

See? This is exactly what I'm talking about. There is no evidence that GZ "chased him down". And, the "message to young black men" comment is also another example of breeding hatred. The fact is, all the crimes that had been committed in that neighborhood had been committed by young black males - this was stated by a black woman who lives in that neighborhood. There had been a home invasion, burlaries, etc. Did GZ profile? Yes, and he had a reason.

(My quotes is of the original post, not the edited)

This is why mothers of black boys are fearful. Because their sons are profiled "with reason" even if they have never been in trouble. They are blamed for others' mistakes. Are you sure about who's breeding hatred? Your message seems to be "be afraid of black teenagers".

[boolady]

I would love to serve on a jury but since I'm a litigator, I'm sure I won't ever get the privilege.

You never know...I've known a few criminal trial attorneys who've been on civil juries in the past 10 years. I know of civil attorneys who have been empaneled as grand jurors. No reason it couldn't happen, though I'd be curious who would think that seating a lawyer was to their advantage.

[Fairy]

What do you mean? A jury instruction on reasonable doubt says that it doesn't mean no doubt. Not being contentious, just don't understand.

I went back and re-read it a few times to be sure, cuz I might be reading it wrong. It sounds to me like she is saying that juries have a hard time knowing what constitutes as "reasonable" and default to "no." And I interpreted it as the jury not doing their job, and my point was that it's very easy to say that until you serve on one. That said, I will never get to serve on one, so who the hell am I, I've got no first hand experience, so I should have just said nothing.


I would love to serve on a jury but since I'm a litigator, I'm sure I won't ever get the privilege.

I have a similar'ish background and no one will ever put me on a jury, much to my utter disappointment, cuz I'm dying to serve on one.

[westwoodmom04]

As a litigator, let me ask you, did you feel the prosecution did a good job? I didn't, but I'm just a regular person. I wonder if it came off that way to people in the know.

I think they did a pretty good job considering the police did shoddy work at the time of the crime and the lack of any direct witnesses. I do think that they did a good job of showing that Zimmerman flat out lied about several things and the jury could have reasonably discounted his account on that basis. However, most legal experts on tv are far more critical of the prosecution than I am.

[TwinFoxes]

ALL of them? Every single one? We know this cuz of a byte given by some chick in the neighborhood?

Which would mean ALL the perpetrators had been either caught or seen. Pretty impressive police work, and very bungling criminals.

[carolinacool]

And, the "message to young black men" comment is also another example of breeding hatred.

Well, breeding hatred or not, it does trouble me that as the mother of a black boy child with a Hispanic last name, I have to be extra vigilant about crap like this. That he'll have to answer to or run from strangers because people "who look like him" were up to no good. It's a bit naïve to think that's not a reality for a large segment of the population. I'm not trying to play the much-cited race card, it just is what it is.

And that may or may not have anything to do with this case, but I'm just venting.

ETA: What TwinFoxes said.

[randomkid]

ALL of them? Every single one? We know this cuz of a byte given by some chick in the neighborhood?

No, not because of some chick in the neighborhood - by police reports, reports by people living in the community and arrests. Sorry, I should not have used an absolute like "all", but many or most would have been more appropriate.

[JBaxter]

I have 2 older boys. They keep saying that TM was a kid. I agree he was 17 but I have also had MANY 6ft tall 17 yr olds through my home over the past few years. I know how strong they can be I know how arrogant they can be and how hot headed they can be. < correct me if Im wrong> wasn't GZ like 5'7? Ok So you have someone several inches taller than you sitting on your chest beating your head into the concrete No matter HOW the altercation got started I can see how you could fear for your life. One more hit could have cause more trauma to the point of death. TM was not a choir boy Im not saying GZ is without fault either but I can see that side.

[westwoodmom04]

I went back and re-read it a few times to be sure, cuz I might be reading it wrong. It sounds to me like she is saying that juries have a hard time knowing what constitutes as "reasonable" and default to "no." And I interpreted it as the jury not doing their job, and my point was that it's very easy to say that until you serve on one. That said, I will never get to serve on one, so who the hell am I, I've got no first hand experience, so I should have just said nothing


I have a similar'ish background and no one will ever put me on a jury, much to my utter disappointment, cuz I'm dying to serve on one.

I didn't mean to imply that they didn't take their job seriously, only that they sometimes hold the prosecution to a higher standard than the law intended. I've only done civil cases, but I find juries fascinating.

[Fairy]

I didn't mean to imply that they didn't take their job seriously, only that they sometimes hold the prosecution to a higher standard than the law intended. I've only done civil cases, but I find juries fascinating.

Ok, gotcha. I misinterpreted, my apologies on that.

[specialp]

I would love to serve on a jury but since I'm a litigator, I'm sure I won't ever get the privilege.

Several of the lawyers in my husband's department (litigation) have been on juries and one of the lawyers in my old law firm served. Neither of us have ever been called.

[elektra]

Well yes, because he didn't attack TM. TM had nothing to "defend himself" against.
Well obviously he did have something to defend himself against, seeing that Zimmerman had a gun and shot him.

[Zukini]

If as a woman walking home in her neighborhood, someone started following me in their vehicle and then got out of the vehicle to pursue me, you bet your bottom dollar I would feel threatened and react strongly to defend myself. Why would Trayvon NOT feel threatened? Isn't this what we teach our children every day? To be aware of their surroundings and to protect themselves? How is it somehow a less appropriate response because he is a tall teenager with a hoodie on and who also happens to be black?

[JBaxter]

Yes he did but he was laying on the ground getting his head pounded into the concrete pulled his gun and shot up or according to the testimony anyway.
Well obviously he did have something to defend himself against, seeing that Zimmerman had a gun and shot him.

[TwinFoxes]

I have 2 older boys. They keep saying that TM was a kid. I agree he was 17 but I have also had MANY 6ft tall 17 yr olds through my home over the past few years. I know how strong they can be I know how arrogant they can be and how hot headed they can be.

Which is why I don't understand RandomKid's theory of if he was innocent he would have high tailed it home!! Again, given the law, I'm not surprised by the verdict, I'm not railing against the jury. I just don't get why we should think Trayvon Martin was not innocent simply because he chose to confront his pursuer.

[Zukini]

Also I believe the jury provided their best judgement with the evidence presented to them and the weight of the world on their shoulders. We will never know what really happened that night unfortunately.

[TwinFoxes]

If as a woman walking home in her neighborhood, someone started following me in their vehicle and then got out of the vehicle to pursue me, you bet your bottom dollar I would feel threatened and react strongly to defend myself. Why would Trayvon NOT feel threatened? Isn't this what we teach our children every day? To be aware of their surroundings and to protect themselves? How is it somehow a less appropriate response because he is a tall teenager with a hoodie on and who also happens to be black?

Clearly in your scenario you are not innocent because you didn't run home. You will now be killed. Buh bye.

[JBaxter]

Cant sleep so watching all the news reports.... One asked that question. According to them since no one was doing anything illegal then they looked at it from the start of the altercation. They said no one knows who started the fight but they both fought and the evidence showed a facial impact on GMs nose and cuts from inpacts to the back of the head. He shot from laying on his back upward and an witness testified the guy with the hoodie was on top beating the guy on the bottom. Thats why it wasnt 2nd degree murder or manslaughter. I really didnt have an opinion until I watched the trial. They didnt prove their case.
Which is why I don't understand RandomKid's theory of if he was innocent he would have high tailed it home!! Again, given the law, I'm not surprised by the verdict, I'm not railing against the jury. I just don't get why we should think Trayvon Martin was not innocent simply because he chose to confront his pursuer.

[wellyes]

See? This is exactly what I'm talking about. There is no evidence that GZ "chased him down". And, the "message to young black men" comment is also another example of breeding hatred. The fact is, all the crimes that had been committed in that neighborhood had been committed by young black males - this was stated by a black woman who lives in that neighborhood. There had been a home invasion, burlaries, etc. Did GZ profile? Yes, and he had a reason, but he did not "chase him down". FWIW, I also think GZ is an idiot. I told DH that I think he thought he was a real tough guy when he really isn't - you know the type - I think bully would be a good term. He got in over his head, got attacked and freaked out resulting in TM's killing. He was stupid, straight up, but he was still being attacked and beaten.

Zimmerman did chase Martin. Listen to the 911 tape. Zimmerman is in his truck, says Martin see him. After a minute or two says "S**t he's running", gets out of the truck and follows him in what seems to be a light jog. The 911 operator, after a few more questions during this, tells him stop following him. But, Martin, having seen Zimmerman, was certainly was aware he was being pursued.

The message to black men comment - how exactly does that breed hatred? Saying it was right of Zimmerman to suspect a random teenager of being a criminal worth calling 911, that breeds hatred. A perfunctory and shoddy police investigation of a young dead man -- which helps lead to lack of evidence for the prosecution in the eventual trial - the message from that is crystal clear.

I think the most likely outcome of this trial is a whole lot more people carrying guns.

[wellyes]

I have 2 older boys. They keep saying that TM was a kid. I agree he was 17 but I have also had MANY 6ft tall 17 yr olds through my home over the past few years. I know how strong they can be I know how arrogant they can be and how hot headed they can be. < correct me if Im wrong> wasn't GZ like 5'7? Ok So you have someone several inches taller than you sitting on your chest beating your head into the concrete No matter HOW the altercation got started I can see how you could fear for your life. One more hit could have cause more trauma to the point of death. TM was not a choir boy Im not saying GZ is without fault either but I can see that side.

Zimmerman did have about 25 pounds on him, and had been taking MMA classes. It was not a terribly mismatched fight.
I have never heard that he was one hit away from death. I heard testimony that his wounds were really superficial. But I don't think that matters in a self-defense plea, he just had to think he was in grave danger.

[elektra]

Also I believe the jury provided their best judgement with the evidence presented to them and the weight of the world on their shoulders. We will never know what really happened that night unfortunately.

I do agree. I mean the fact is that Zimmerman did find himself getting beat up and there is not definitive evidence showing exactly how things escalated to that point once they were face to face (right, for those of you who were able to follow it closely?). But I do feel that Trayvon Martin could have felt threatened by someone following him, and that he felt he may have been in danger, which to my earlier point, he obviously was. So even if Martin "struck first" (which we don't really know either way) once things got to the point of hand to hand combat, the whole thing is still totally effed up-- that a man can follow a teenager (after being told by police not to) because he suspects he is up to no good, but who is only walking down the street at the time, and end up shooting him when the teenager confronts him, and have that be legal.

[randomkid]

(My quotes is of the original post, not the edited)

This is why mothers of black boys are fearful. Because their sons are profiled "with reason" even if they have never been in trouble. They are blamed for others' mistakes. Are you sure about who's breeding hatred? Your message seems to be "be afraid of black teenagers".

That's not my message at all and I'm offended that you would imply that it is.

[boolady]

I went back and re-read it a few times to be sure, cuz I might be reading it wrong. It sounds to me like she is saying that juries have a hard time knowing what constitutes as "reasonable" and default to "no." And I interpreted it as the jury not doing their job, and my point was that it's very easy to say that until you serve on one. That said, I will never get to serve on one, so who the hell am I, I've got no first hand experience, so I should have just said nothing.


No reason not to have said it! I was just curious what you meant. I'm tired and not really firing on all cylinders; plus it's an issue I'm always interested in.

[JBaxter]

Zimmerman did have about 25 pounds on him, and had been taking MMA classes. It was not a terribly mismatched fight.
I have never heard that he was one hit away from death. I heard testimony that his wounds were really superficial. But I don't think that matters in a self-defense plea, he just had to think he was in grave danger.

I think thats what happened. I just heard about some evidence that wasn't given to GZ defense team.... off to google that. DS1 < Logan who's 21> just pulled up the pictures of TM with his handgun posing for pictures and smoking pot. I think no one was innocent but it is sad a young man died.

[TwinFoxes]

Cant sleep so watching all the news reports.... One asked that question. According to them since no one was doing anything illegal then they looked at it from the start of the altercation. They said no one knows who started the fight but they both fought and the evidence showed a facial impact on GMs nose and cuts from inpacts to the back of the head. He shot from laying on his back upward and an witness testified the guy with the hoodie was on top beating the guy on the bottom. Thats why it wasnt 2nd degree murder or manslaughter. I really didnt have an opinion until I watched the trial. They didnt prove their case.

But I still don't understand what Trayvon Martin was guilty of. According to RandomKid he wasn't "innocent", because otherwise he would have hightailed it home.

I get that George Zimmerman was found not guilty, and even understand why. It seems to me, given the law, you can shoot anyone and claim you felt threatened, as long as there are no witnesses.

[TwinFoxes]

That's not my message at all and I'm offended that you would imply that it is.

Well, then your post wasn't clear to me. You said Zimmerman had reason to profile. What did you mean?

[Fairy]

No reason not to have said it! I was just curious what you meant. I'm tired and not really firing on all cylinders; plus it's an issue I'm always interested in.

Tempers are hot right now. It's good to question ourselves and be sure what we're reacting to what was actually said. I'm glad you mentioned it, cuz I misinterpreted her.

[JBaxter]

There were a rash robberies in the area. Young black males were seen and one was arrested of that description a few days after TM death. Thats why he was saying they always get away. He thought he was suspicious and was following for that reason. Pretty sure thats what Randomkid meant by his reason to profile.
Well, then your post wasn't clear to me. You said Zimmerman had reason to profile. What did you mean?

[Fairy]

That's not my message at all and I'm offended that you would imply that it is.

She thinks that your message is "be afraid of black teenagers" because you said George Zimmerman WAS profiling and that it was WITH REASON. TM was black. He was a teenager. George was profiling with reason (according to what you said). Ergo, the GZ had a good reason to profile black teenage boys. Foxes is saying, that, golly, that's a very bad message you, therefore, have for black boys, which is that it's ok to profile them.

I am thinking I should go to that neighborhood and pee in the bushes just so that I can get arrested and have a white chick on the books to offset all those blacks being arrested.

[kara97210]

Many of these comments are unnecessary. The law exists to protect people who defend themselves or others against an attacker. I'm not going to argue the points of this case, but I have been listening to it all week. The evidence strongly supports GZ's claims that TM attacked him - one example was the grass stains on the knees of TM's pants. How did GZ know that the next time his head was slammed into the ground he wouldn't be knocked unconcious and that kid could have seriously injured him or even killed him? GZ had every right and reason to follow an unfamiliar person walking through his neighborhood once you know the history of the crimes that were being committed there. TM should have just gone on home. He was the one who chose to make it a confrontation. He was not an upstanding individual (all you have to do is Google him and you'll find out) and honestly, if he had not been suspended from school for drugs and suspected burglary, he would not have even been here. He would have still been in Miami.

Have you also done a Google search on George Zimmerman? His past arrest for assaulting a police officer - http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/03/27/10894561-zimmerman-accused-of-domestic-violence-fighting-with-a-police-officer?lite. The restraining order filed by a previous girlfriend - http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/03/27/10894561-zimmerman-accused-of-domestic-violence-fighting-with-a-police-officer?lite. And his cousin's allegation that he molested her - http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmermans-lawyer-molest-claim-irrelevant-murder-case/story?id=16786905. It's very bizarre to me that this man has become a hero to some. Also in court it came up that he wasn't hired as a police officer because he had both bad credit and a very bad GPA.

I think the prosecution put on a very weak case, and am not sure that (based on that) the verdict is wrong. But I wonder also about the world view of people who write long defenses of him online when I have not heard one positive thing about his character.

[lkoala]

Which is why I don't understand RandomKid's theory of if he was innocent he would have high tailed it home!! Again, given the law, I'm not surprised by the verdict, I'm not railing against the jury. I just don't get why we should think Trayvon Martin was not innocent simply because he chose to confront his pursuer.

I agree. I don't get RandomKids proclamation that it is a free country and she can post what she wants yet in the same thread say TM should have run home when he was being pursued. Why the disparity? Wasn't he entitled to the freedom to walk home unaccosted? It smacks of the 'women shouldn't be out alone after dark or they will get raped' theory. While dangers certainly increase, we technically have the freedom to choose. I don't think TM should have put himself in such a scary situation in the first place however we've all been teenagers and done stupid things. Its just sad that this armed idiotic vigilante decided to destroy another human being instead of letting the cops do their job.

This will just lead the way to more murders. Kill the witness, get away with murder. Simple as that. This country is overrun by people obsessed with their little tools of destruction. Wish they would harness that same kind of energy into productive pursuits. We still haven't cured cancer you know... Why not follow that passion.

[Kindra178]

Have you also done a Google search on George Zimmerman? His past arrest for assaulting a police officer - http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/03/27/10894561-zimmerman-accused-of-domestic-violence-fighting-with-a-police-officer?lite. The restraining order filed by a previous girlfriend - http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/03/27/10894561-zimmerman-accused-of-domestic-violence-fighting-with-a-police-officer?lite. And his cousin's allegation that he molested her - http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmermans-lawyer-molest-claim-irrelevant-murder-case/story?id=16786905. It's very bizarre to me that this man has become a hero to some. Also in court it came up that he wasn't hired as a police officer because he had both bad credit and a very bad GPA.

I think the prosecution put on a very weak case, and am not sure that (based on that) the verdict is wrong. But I wonder also about the world view of people who write long defenses of him online when I have not heard one positive thing about his character.


Absolutely this. His ex-girlfriend filed a restraining order against him. In retribution, he did the same. TM may have not been an angel, but that's not at issue here.

[westwoodmom04]

Have you also done a Google search on George Zimmerman? His past arrest for assaulting a police officer - http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/03/27/10894561-zimmerman-accused-of-domestic-violence-fighting-with-a-police-officer?lite. The restraining order filed by a previous girlfriend - http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/03/27/10894561-zimmerman-accused-of-domestic-violence-fighting-with-a-police-officer?lite. And his cousin's allegation that he molested her - http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmermans-lawyer-molest-claim-irrelevant-murder-case/story?id=16786905. It's very bizarre to me that this man has become a hero to some. Also in court it came up that he wasn't hired as a police officer because he had both bad credit and a very bad GPA.

I think the prosecution put on a very weak case, and am not sure that (based on that) the verdict is wrong. But I wonder also about the world view of people who write long defenses of him online when I have not heard one positive thing about his character.

I agree with you about Zimmerman's character, but most of these prior bad acts are not admissible. the prosecution tried to call the police officer who was assaulted by Zimmerman to rebut the defense witness who said Zimmerman wasn't aggressive but the judge wouldn't let them.

[randomkid]

One more thing. Totally bizarre to me that Zimmerman was armed as a neighborhood watchman. Sanford, Florida has very little violent crime. Property crime, some.

Not true - http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Sanford-Florida.html

[arivecchi]

Well, then your post wasn't clear to me. You said Zimmerman had reason to profile. What did you mean?
I am wondering too. I interpreted it like you did.

[TwinFoxes]

There were a rash robberies in the area. Young black males were seen and one was arrested of that description a few days after TM death. Thats why he was saying they always get away. He thought he was suspicious and was following for that reason. Pretty sure thats what Randomkid meant by his reason to profile.

"They" being young black guys? So pretty much any young black guy is a suspect? I say no, but clearly others think yes. If I saw a kid leaving 7-11 I wouldn't think "criminal!" If I saw a kid lurking in bushes, or loitering in front of a house, then I might. There were a few assaults in my neighborhood (very low crime) committed by a white guy in a baseball cap. I didn't think that every white guy in a baseball cap was a criminal.

[bisous]

I haven't watched any of the trial. I've only read about it online and even then, I don't have many of the facts memorized. From everything I've read, the Florida law that "allowed" this to happen sounds scary and irresponsible. I also just can't get away from thinking that if GZ hadn't been out being a vigilante, none of this would have happened. I think there is a reason that law enforcement is best left to professionals. 1. People know policemen are armed so they are less likely to act up. 2. Police in the US are still widely regarded as law abiding and lawful ergo they are generally trusted and 3. They don't make (as many) stupid mistakes as untrained, hotheaded volunteers!

I think it needs to be known, (and widely) that confrontation of this kind can be deadly. When you choose to engage, you realize your life could be forfeit. Had GZ not had a gun, he might have been the one who ended up dead. Both were foolish for fighting--I don't care who started it. And I don't think only guns allow for deaths in confrontations! That is why they are scary. One evening in my last neighborhood (my amazing, safe neighborhood that I used to walk around in by myself at 10pm) we saw police activity outside our apartment and discovered that a man had died. He had heard a domestic dispute on the street in front of our apartment complex. He jumped down to intervene, started beating the tar out of the guy (banging his head on concrete) when the other dude pulled a knife and killed him. This was all witnesses by the man's 6 yo son watching from the balcony. Fights and confrontations are just bad. So scary. Engage in one regardless of whether or not it is deserved and you might lose and that loss is just tragic!

I guess my take away lesson is: 1. Don't have scary laws that allow for meaningless killing 2. Leave law enforcement to the professionals and 3. Realize that engaging in a physical conflict could have a number of HIGHLY undesirable consequences. Do everything you can to avoid. You just never know what someone else might be carrying and even if you "win" you might be on trial for murder, assault, etc. There really is no win.

[mommy111]

I am thinking I should go to that neighborhood and pee in the bushes just so that I can get arrested and have a white chick on the books to offset all those blacks being arrested.
Dare double dare...

[megs4413]

It's a common misconception that GZ was acquitted because of the controversial "Stand Your Ground Law" but the defense decided to go for a straight self defense strategy and waived the right to a pre-trial "Stand Your Ground" hearing....just to clear that up.

[bisous]

I also want to say that ultimately this death is GZ's fault. I can't see it any other way. 911 told him to stop following the guy but he kept going and now that guy is dead.

[bisous]

It's a common misconception that GZ was acquitted because of the controversial "Stand Your Ground Law" but the defense decided to go for a straight self defense strategy and waived the right to a pre-trial "Stand Your Ground" hearing....just to clear that up.

Thank you for clearing that up! I didn't know that. I guess that makes the verdict that much more interesting to me.

[TwinFoxes]

Leave law enforcement to the professionals and 3. Realize that engaging in a physical conflict could have a number of HIGHLY undesirable consequences. Do everything you can to avoid. You just never know what someone else might be carrying and even if you "win" you might be on trial for murder, assault, etc. There really is no win.

Very wise words. No need to be macho.

[AnnieW625]

Not true - http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Sanford-Florida.html

I had no idea it was that bad, ESP. for a city with less than 60k people and I thought because it was near the water and the photos I saw on tv looked pretty nice.

[randomkid]

Have you also done a Google search on George Zimmerman? His past arrest for assaulting a police officer - http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/03/27/10894561-zimmerman-accused-of-domestic-violence-fighting-with-a-police-officer?lite. The restraining order filed by a previous girlfriend - http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/03/27/10894561-zimmerman-accused-of-domestic-violence-fighting-with-a-police-officer?lite. And his cousin's allegation that he molested her - http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmermans-lawyer-molest-claim-irrelevant-murder-case/story?id=16786905. It's very bizarre to me that this man has become a hero to some. Also in court it came up that he wasn't hired as a police officer because he had both bad credit and a very bad GPA.

I think the prosecution put on a very weak case, and am not sure that (based on that) the verdict is wrong. But I wonder also about the world view of people who write long defenses of him online when I have not heard one positive thing about his character.

I never said he was a hero - read my posts. IIRC, I used terms like "wrong" "stupid", "bully" and "I don't care for him". I never said he was a hero and nobody I have talked to has described him as such. That's ridiculous. I'm not defending him. I am merely saying that others should not say the law is wrong or that Florida is a crappy state to live in because he (and Casey Anthony - which is a ridiculous case to even mention here) was acquitted. Google Trayvon Martin and see what you come up with. Bottom line is that I think they were both wrong. I never said Zimmerman was a hero - far from it. You people need to stop putting words in my mouth. I have really benefitted from these boards, but it really angers me that I get attacked for expressing an my views here. I do have my right to free speech and to express my opinion. Nobody here (or anywhere for that matter) has the right to twist my words and say that I am saying something I'm not . I never defended him. I simply stated that he had the right to protect himself and the law defends him - not me. I can objectively look at the facts, apply them to the law and come up with the answer that I feel is the right one. It does NOT mean I think he is a hero or that I defend him. However, I am confident enough in myself to not really care if you don't agree with me. And, I will still come back here tomorrow and read about lice treatments if I think DD might have lice. I can look past a lot of the political crap here, but apparently, some of you cannot.

[maestramommy]

I haven't watched any of the trial. I've only read about it online and even then, I don't have many of the facts memorized. From everything I've read, the Florida law that "allowed" this to happen sounds scary and irresponsible. I also just can't get away from thinking that if GZ hadn't been out being a vigilante, none of this would have happened. I think there is a reason that law enforcement is best left to professionals. 1. People know policemen are armed so they are less likely to act up. 2. Police in the US are still widely regarded as law abiding and lawful ergo they are generally trusted and 3. They don't make (as many) stupid mistakes as untrained, hotheaded volunteers!

I think it needs to be known, (and widely) that confrontation of this kind can be deadly. When you choose to engage, you realize your life could be forfeit. Had GZ not had a gun, he might have been the one who ended up dead. Both were foolish for fighting--I don't care who started it. And I don't think only guns allow for deaths in confrontations! That is why they are scary. One evening in my last neighborhood (my amazing, safe neighborhood that I used to walk around in by myself at 10pm) we saw police activity outside our apartment and discovered that a man had died. He had heard a domestic dispute on the street in front of our apartment complex. He jumped down to intervene, started beating the tar out of the guy (banging his head on concrete) when the other dude pulled a knife and killed him. This was all witnesses by the man's 6 yo son watching from the balcony. Fights and confrontations are just bad. So scary. Engage in one regardless of whether or not it is deserved and you might lose and that loss is just tragic!

I guess my take away lesson is: 1. Don't have scary laws that allow for meaningless killing 2. Leave law enforcement to the professionals and 3. Realize that engaging in a physical conflict could have a number of HIGHLY undesirable consequences. Do everything you can to avoid. You just never know what someone else might be carrying and even if you "win" you might be on trial for murder, assault, etc. There really is no win.

Where's the LIKE button??

[TwinFoxes]

I am merely saying that others should not say the law is wrong or that Florida is a crappy state to live in because he (and Casey Anthony - which is a ridiculous case to even mention here) was acquitted...
(Edit)

I do have my right to free speech and to express my opinion.

Got it. You have your right to free speech, but we shouldn't criticize Florida. I'm clear on that now.

[arivecchi]

Your latest post still does not explain this. Direct quote:

"There had been a home invasion, burlaries, etc. Did GZ profile? Yes, and he had a reason, but he did not "chase him down"."

I'm pretty sure that if your unarmed child had been killed by a vigilante, you'd be pretty outraged. To think that people rationalize this killing because the victim fit a "profile" is beyond outrageous.

[arivecchi]

And by the way, not directly commenting on this jury, but juries get things wrong a lot. It's hard for laymen to understand the intricacies of the law - which is why in terms of civil law matters, most contracts waive the right to a jury.

[kara97210]

I never said he was a hero - read my posts. IIRC, I used terms like "wrong" "stupid", "bully" and "I don't care for him". I never said he was a hero and nobody I have talked to has described him as such. That's ridiculous. I'm not defending him. I am merely saying that others should not say the law is wrong or that Florida is a crappy state to live in because he (and Casey Anthony - which is a ridiculous case to even mention here) was acquitted. Google Trayvon Martin and see what you come up with. Bottom line is that I think they were both wrong. I never said Zimmerman was a hero - far from it. You people need to stop putting words in my mouth. I have really benefitted from these boards, but it really angers me that I get attacked for expressing an my views here. I do have my right to free speech and to express my opinion. Nobody here (or anywhere for that matter) has the right to twist my words and say that I am saying something I'm not . I never defended him. I simply stated that he had the right to protect himself and the law defends him - not me. I can objectively look at the facts, apply them to the law and come up with the answer that I feel is the right one. It does NOT mean I think he is a hero or that I defend him. However, I am confident enough in myself to not really care if you don't agree with me. And, I will still come back here tomorrow and read about lice treatments if I think DD might have lice. I can look past a lot of the political crap here, but apparently, some of you cannot.

So you can write a post that says "Google Trayvon Martin and see what you come up with" and you are objective, but if I write one that says, yes, and "also Google George Zimmerman and see what you come up with" and I'm biased and "someone who can't look past political crap"? Okey dokey.

[dcmom2b3]

(My quotes is of the original post, not the edited)

This is why mothers of black boys are fearful. Because their sons are profiled "with reason" even if they have never been in trouble. They are blamed for others' mistakes. Are you sure about who's breeding hatred? Your message seems to be "be afraid of black teenagers".

A little OT -- I was in Berkeley when the Rodney King riots happened. The law school convened a forum for the community to express its fears and concerns. My contribution/observation at that forum still sits heavy in my heart: "I'm afraid to reproduce. Because if I have a boy I won't know how to teach him to carry himself to keep him safe short of bowing and scraping."

That was 1992? 93? Nothing's changed in 20 years. I still wouldn't know how to teach an african-american boy to keep himself safe without impinging his self-image.

Glad I had a girl. Other issues to be sure. But nobody's going to look at her in a hoodie and see a threat.

[kara97210]

A little OT -- I was in Berkeley when the Rodney King riots happened. The law school convened a forum for the community to express its fears and concerns. My contribution/observation at that forum still sits heavy in my heart: "I'm afraid to reproduce. Because if I have a boy I won't know how to teach him to carry himself to keep him safe short of bowing and scraping."

That was 1992? 93? Nothing's changed in 20 years. I still wouldn't know how to teach an african-american boy to keep himself safe without impinging his self-image.

Glad I had a girl. Other issues to be sure. But nobody's going to look at her in a hoodie and see a threat.

My kids are 1/2 black and that was my first response tonight, will they be safe? Some of my posts tonight are probably a little crazy, but honestly I've never had this feeling before and it's horrible. My husband is from the UK and all I want to do is move there or to some little island.

[dcmom2b3]

I am thinking I should go to that neighborhood and pee in the bushes just so that I can get arrested and have a white chick on the books to offset all those blacks being arrested.

THIS is why I love you. You're a race traitor. :hug:

[Tenasparkl]

Sure we can google Trayvon Martin, but to state the obvious, he wasn't the person on trial here. Whatever his life was before that night, doesn't change what happened to him.

This whole thing just makes me horribly sad. What a devastating loss of a young life.

[MontrealMum]

She thinks that your message is "be afraid of black teenagers" because you said George Zimmerman WAS profiling and that it was WITH REASON. TM was black. He was a teenager. George was profiling with reason (according to what you said). Ergo, the GZ had a good reason to profile black teenage boys. Foxes is saying, that, golly, that's a very bad message you, therefore, have for black boys, which is that it's ok to profile them.

I am thinking I should go to that neighborhood and pee in the bushes just so that I can get arrested and have a white chick on the books to offset all those blacks being arrested.

Can I come?

But to be serious...today is a sad day, whether the law supports this or no, vigilantism is one scary sad thing.

[randomkid]

So you can write a post that says "Google Trayvon Martin and see what you come up with" and you are objective, but if I write one that says, yes, and "also Google George Zimmerman and see what you come up with" and I'm biased and "someone who can't look past political crap"? Okey dokey.

Um, I think I was agreeing with you that Zimmerman was not a great guy. For crap's sake, it doesn't matter what I say now I will be wrong. I AGREED with you about Zimmerman and you still attack me? I guess you don't agree with your own comments then. I freakin' said they were BOTH wrong! At this point, I could write a book here agreeing with all of you and someone would choose one word or phrase to focus on and make it into something it's not. It you didn't notice, others were agreeing with me, but bowed out because they know it is pointless to try to have a civil discussion here. Therefore, I will be bowing out after this post.

This is stupid and you all are just looking for someone to attack. My comment about political crap was the fact that you can't just look at my viewpoint and find some credibility in it. You are right, I am wrong (even when I agree with you). I've looked at this from all sides. I'm sure the jury did as well. They upheld the law and went with the evidence. Initially, I wasn't so convinced that he should be acquitted. Honestly, my first reaction was that he should be imprisoned, but after listening to the trial (not all of it obviously, but enough), the evidence supports self defense. If someone was beating the crap out of my DH or in my house with a weapon or threatening me or my family in any way and DH killed that person, I am glad there is a law that would protect him. This has nothing to do with "Stand your Ground", but it does have to do with self defense, which I hope every state supports.

[Globetrotter]

But nobody's going to look at her in a hoodie and see a threat.


My kids are 1/2 black and that was my first response tonight, will they be safe? Some of my posts tonight are probably a little crazy, but honestly I've never had this feeling before and it's horrible. My husband is from the UK and all I want to do is move there or to some little island.

:hug: I honestly did not follow the GZ trial closely so I can't comment on that, other than my feelings on guns in general, but I've always thought it was terribly unfair that black males carry this burden.

[randomkid]

deleted

[kellij]

Several of the lawyers in my husband's department (litigation) have been on juries and one of the lawyers in my old law firm served. Neither of us have ever been called.

I think it may depend on where you live too. In Oklahoma if you are a lawyer engaged in the practice of law you "are not qualified" to serve as a juror. I think it's kind of funny that the people who are trained in the law are the ones who are not qualified to apply it. I would also love to be on a jury (as long as the case didn't take forever).

[BunnyBee]

WHAT was the Florida State Attorney Angela Corey doing? Smiling and waving and thanking people and dressed like she was at a party? (FWIW, she's the one who prosecuted and convicted the black woman who fired a warning shot into the ceiling to stop her known violent husband from attacking her and was denied SYG. Twenty years in jail. For shooting the damn ceiling.)

I just skimmed some other pages. Someone asked if the prosecutors did a good job. No, they did not.

The defense attorney O'Mara is a disgusting human being. His comments in the press conference were foul. His client was acquitted. Good job. But show some respect for the dead child. Reverse racism? Are you kidding? His whole demeanor has been nauseating. The Instagram one of another defense attorney West's daughters did mocking Trayvon's friend for being stupid? Foul. Not okay. Being asses in the courtroom is one thing, but they crossed lines.

Zimmerman is a vigilante. Murderer? Not sure. I don't believe his actions were reasonable. A reasonable man doesn't call 911 because a kid on the sidewalk looks like he might be on drugs, then, despite being told to stop by 911, get out of his car and chase the kid down. His injuries were superficial. He didn't seek treatment and went on to work the next day. If I had gotten into a life or death fight and shot someone to death, I think I'd be a little too... HUMAN (for lack of a more concise term) to go to work the next day.

But hey, Zimmerman gets his gun back! That should make us all feel safer, right?

Edited to correct attorney disgusting behavior attributions.

[kijip]

I had no idea it was that bad, ESP. for a city with less than 60k people and I thought because it was near the water and the photos I saw on tv looked pretty nice.

No, Sanford is a pretty rough area and has one of the highest rates of family homelessness in Florida, which is saying a lot. Florida is home to 1/3 of the nation's homeless families.

[specialp]

The defense attorney O'Mara is a disgusting human being. His comments in the press conference were foul. His client was acquitted. Good job. But show some respect for the dead child. Reverse racism? Are you kidding? His whole demeanor has been nauseating. The Instagram one of his daughters did mocking Trayvon's friend for being stupid? Foul. Not okay. Being an ass in the courtroom is one thing, but he crossed lines.

Very minor point, but that was Don West's (the balding defense attorney) daughters with the terrible instagram. Mark O'Mara (lead defense atty) has no children. I agree with you about Angela Corey. I thought her answers were great, but her demeanor and appearance a little strange.

[specialp]

No, Sanford is a pretty rough area and has one of the highest rates of family homelessness in Florida, which is saying a lot. Florida is home to 1/3 of the nation's homeless families.

Seriously?! I had no idea. I wonder why they are so concentrated in that one state. One side of our family lives in FL, but we rarely visit there.

[Melaine]

Seriously?! I had no idea. I wonder why they are so concentrated in that one state. One side of our family lives in FL, but we rarely visit there.

A warm place seems like the smart choice if you are homeless. I really like Florida.

I haven't followed the trial but the whole thing is very sad.

[Momit]

What a heartbreaking situation. I have not followed the trial in detail so can't comment much other than to say that I find vigilante justice to be an alarming trend. I wonder if people will be more likely to take the law into their own hands when they see that others have done it and not been found guilty.

[TwinFoxes]

It's a common misconception that GZ was acquitted because of the controversial "Stand Your Ground Law" but the defense decided to go for a straight self defense strategy and waived the right to a pre-trial "Stand Your Ground" hearing....just to clear that up.

True. But I believe self-defense laws in Florida are different from other states...not positive on that, but I think that's why Zimmerman could claim self defense even though he followed Trayvon Martin.

[boolady]

I think it may depend on where you live too. In Oklahoma if you are a lawyer engaged in the practice of law you "are not qualified" to serve as a juror. I think it's kind of funny that the people who are trained in the law are the ones who are not qualified to apply it. I would also love to be on a jury (as long as the case didn't take forever).

I had only posted regarding the issue because I thought Westwood lives in the same state as me, though I could be wrong about that.

[westwoodmom04]

I live in Maryland so I think I am technically eligible to serve on a jury.

I'm copying below in its entirety an editioral that appeared in the Miami Herald last week written by a former U.S. Attorney for Florida. While everyone is entitled to their opinion as to whether the jury was right based on the evidence before it, it is worth remembering that the standard for manslaughter is much lower than that for second degree murder:

I am troubled with what I perceive to be the failure to focus on the obvious in the death of the teenage boy in the trial of George Zimmerman.

Perhaps I have a vantage point because I have teenage boys. I think of how our sons would react if they were being chased and pursued by a stranger at night. I have no doubt that if our sons felt that the man was trying to hurt them and they could not flee, that they would confront the man, and, if they felt threatened, fight in self-defense. I think the teenager in the Zimmerman case was doing the same.

I am not a proponent that the evidence demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman maliciously pursued and attacked the teen, Trayvon Martin, because he was black. That should be irrelevant to the legal case.

But, I am saddened to say that if the teen had been white I doubt anyone would seriously consider that a man carrying a loaded handgun could be innocent of killing with that gun a white teen armed only with Skittles candy. But, because the teenage boy was black, the defense has sought to create a plausible scenario of self-defense sufficient to argue reasonable doubt, without mentioning anyone’s race. In other words, the self-defense defense might work because the teen was black.

Let’s examine the undisputed evidence:

1. The man thought the teen looked suspicious.

2. The man called the police to report his suspicions about the teen.

3. The man was told by the police not to chase and pursue the teen.

4. The man decided to chase and pursue the teen anyway.

5 . The man was carrying a loaded gun.

6. The teen was not carrying a gun.

7. The teen was not carrying any weapon.

8. The teen was carrying candy.

9. The teen was not committing any crime.

10. The teen was not trespassing, as he was walking toward his father’s condo.

11. The man and the teen met in a physical confrontation.

12. The man and the teen fought, wrestled to the ground, and punches were exchanged.

13. The man shot the teen with his gun.

14. The man shot the teen while both were on the ground.

15. The shot from the man’s gun killed the teen.

16. There is no evidence that the teen was committing a crime or about to commit any crime.

17. But for the man chasing and pursuing the teen, there would have been no physical confrontation.

18. But for the physical confrontation, there would have been no fight.

19. But for the fight, the man would not have shot the teen.

20. But for the shot, the teen would be alive.

The man’s actions created a course of conduct that led to a dangerous situation: the physical confrontation and the fight. The dangerous situation subjected the man and the teen to the risk of death or injury, as the man was carrying a loaded gun.

Manslaughter is defined as: “The killing of a human being by the . . . culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification . . . ”

Does the evidence support a finding of guilty of manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt?

I believe it does. But for the man’s negligence in carrying a loaded gun and chasing and pursuing the teen, after being told not to by the police, there would have been no physical confrontation and the teen would be alive.

No reasonably careful person would do what the man did, and that should be obvious to everyone.

And, that is without considering anyone’s race.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/07/11/3496085/zimmerman-trial-man-carrying-loaded.html#storylink=cpy

[Kindra178]

I had no idea it was that bad, ESP. for a city with less than 60k people and I thought because it was near the water and the photos I saw on tv looked pretty nice.

I stand corrected. I know people from there and they said it was pretty neighborhood by neighborhood.

[vludmilla]

Westwoodmom, thank you for posting that editorial. It is excellent and I agree with it completely. It more eloquently and concisely states what I have been thinking about this case.

[queenmama]

I'm not going to quote that long post but I agree 100%!!!!!!

[Kindra178]

WHAT was the Florida State Attorney Angela Corey doing? Smiling and waving and thanking people and dressed like she was at a party? (FWIW, she's the one who prosecuted and convicted the black woman who fired a warning shot into the ceiling to stop her known violent husband from attacking her and was denied SYG. Twenty years in jail. For shooting the damn ceiling.)

I just skimmed some other pages. Someone asked if the prosecutors did a good job. No, they did not.

The defense attorney O'Mara is a disgusting human being. His comments in the press conference were foul. His client was acquitted. Good job. But show some respect for the dead child. Reverse racism? Are you kidding? His whole demeanor has been nauseating. The Instagram one of his daughters did mocking Trayvon's friend for being stupid? Foul. Not okay. Being an ass in the courtroom is one thing, but he crossed lines.

Zimmerman is a vigilante. Murderer? Not sure. I don't believe his actions were reasonable. A reasonable man doesn't call 911 because a kid on the sidewalk looks like he might be on drugs, then, despite being told to stop by 911, get out of his car and chase the kid down. His injuries were superficial. He didn't seek treatment and went on to work the next day. If I had gotten into a life or death fight and shot someone to death, I think I'd be a little too... HUMAN (for lack of a more concise term) to go to work the next day.

But hey, Zimmerman gets his gun back! That should make us all feel safer, right?

Well said. I couldn't believe his defense attorneys. I couldn't believe when Don West said something about wanting to keep his bar license. I hope he gets sanctioned by the Florida bar.

[Philly Mom]

Westwoodmom, thank you for posting that editorial. It is excellent and I agree with it completely. It more eloquently and concisely states what I have been thinking about this case.

Yes. Thank you for posting.

[♥ms.pacman♥]

i 100% agree with bisous. even not considering race, we don't need more vigilantes or people taking law into their own hands. This verdict makes me fearful. Now people are going to be armed people thinking they have the right to play cop. this is scary. really really scary. i don't have a teen son (yet) but when i do i am going to be so fearful of things like this.

and meanwhile, also in Florida, a black mother was sentenced to 20 years in prison for firing warning shots at her home in fear of her abusive husband. apparently the "stand your ground " law didn't apply to her. And she didn't even kill him.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57433184/fla-mom-gets-20-years-for-firing-warning-shots/

i am just shocked that some people on this board seem to be in denial of the racial discrimination in our justice system. do you HONESTLY think that if a black man had chased down a white teen and shot and killed him it would have the same outcome?

eta: i was just talking to dh about this and he was saying how he knows its bad but things like this make him glad that ds is not too dark-skinned and could pass for white (lighter skinned that their cousins, who obviously look Hispanic)..that way he is less likely to be suspected by some random person when he is a teen. i remember the other day walking with the kids by some gate with a no trespassing sign and making a mental note that in a few years i will have to drill in to my son's head that he is never ever jump fences ANYWHERE, even if all his friends are, lest he could get his head blown off (and i will use those words to scare him..we are in Texas..castle doctrine and all that). It's a little sad, i think...

[mommylamb]

I haven't read the whole thread so forgive me if this was already brought up. Has anyone seen this case of a woman in Florida who was a domestic violence victim, and just got sentenced to 20 years in prison for firing a warning shot to scare off her abuser. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57434757-504083/fla-woman-marissa-alexander-gets-20-years-for-warning-shot-did-she-stand-her-ground/ Juxtaposition.

oops, and clearly I didn't read the post directly above mine referencing the same case. Sorry Ms. Pacman. .

[ray7694]

http://livedifferently.wordpress.com/2013/07/14/anything-short-of-justice-isnt-cause-for-celebration/

Despite the extremely bizarre opening argument made by Defense Counsel, Don West, he happened to be one who probably had the best analysis of the trial verdict when he declared, “Nobody won here.”

A seventeen year old young man had his life taken from him. A mother and father lost a son. And sadly for them, even a “guilty” verdict against Zimmerman will not bring Trayvon back. Was this justice?

George Zimmerman, for whatever you think of him, will have to live with this for the rest of his life. Perhaps that may give solace to those who believed he “got away with murder.” But what if everything he and his defense team claim was true? What if Zimmerman is racked with remorse day after day after day? Does this constitute justice?

Today violent crimes perpetrated by blacks on blacks goes virtually unnoticed. The number one cause of death among African American men between the ages of 15-34: Homicide.* And yet when it’s white-on-black or black-on-white crime we’re both captivated and agitated.

If only we became captivated and agitated for all the right reasons.

Now that….That would be justice.

[MamaMolly]

Westwoodmom, thank you for posting that editorial. It is excellent and I agree with it completely. It more eloquently and concisely states what I have been thinking about this case.

Me too. I've read through this thread, read my friend's FB posts, and the whole thing makes me terribly sad.

[carolinacool]

i am just shocked that some people on this board seem to be in total denial of the racial discrimination in our justice system.

Yeah that. Look, I understand that some people claim racism over every.thing. I often sit back and just roll my eyes. That said, I also don't get the opposite view that seems to suggest that NOTHING is ever racist.

I do believe race played a role in this, and am seriously side-eyeing the white men on my FB page who are telling everything they are overreacting. Easy for them to say.

[dcmom2b3]

i 100% agree with bisous. even not considering race, we don't need more vigilantes or people taking law into their own hands. This verdict makes me fearful. Now people are going to be armed people thinking they have the right to play cop. this is scary. really really scary. i don't have a teen son (yet) but when i do i am going to be so fearful of things like this.

and meanwhile, also in Florida, a black mother was sentenced to 20 years in prison for firing warning shots at her home in fear of her abusive husband. apparently the "stand your ground " law didn't apply to her. And she didn't even kill him.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57433184/fla-mom-gets-20-years-for-firing-warning-shots/

i am just shocked that some people on this board seem to be in denial of the racial discrimination in our justice system. do you HONESTLY think that if a black man had chased down a white teen and shot and killed him it would have the same outcome?

I agree with you 100% ms. pacman re: bias in our justice system. However the "warning shot" case doesn't seem to be as clear-cut as the media has made it out to be. For starters it seems that the physical evidence wasn't consistent with it being a "warning shot" rather a missed shot at her estranged husband's head. Or at least that's part of what the prosecution argued. Haven't read all of the linked brief (and of course it was drafted by the prosecution so there's certainly going to be "slant") but it's evident to me that there's been media gloss on this case that ignores important details. Like the fact that she went to her car to retrieve her weapon and then went back into the house with it.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/89763383/States-Motion-in-Opposition-of-Defendants-Motion-for-Immunity

[Melbel]

I watched most of the trial and overall agree with the verdict of not guilty based upon the evidence presented. However, not guilty does not equate with innocence. It merely means that the state did not meet its burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We do not know who threw the first punch, but it appears as though Martin was getting the better of Zimmerman toward the end. The two were described as tussling/wrestling. We do not know why Martin did not go immediately home. As I recall, at one point, he thought he had lost Zimmerman. He very well could have been chatting on the phone, or simply standing under cover to avoid the rain. If he had been lying in wait to attack Zimmerman, I find it incredulous that he would also be chatting on the phone. But we simply do not know because 1 of the 2 key witnesses was unable to testify. I suspect that Zimmerman came upon Martin, startling him and the fight ensued. Being engaged in a fist fight does not give one the right to use deadly force. I think Zimmerman's injuries were superficial (any facial/head wounds bleed like crazy), and seriously doubt that deadly force was necessary. But this is not the standard of proof. We also do not know who was crying for help in the 911 tapes because there was conflicting evidence. I can see why the jury found reasonable doubt. I do feel that the Martin family stands a much better chance in a civil court where there is a much lower standard of proof, the elements of the cause of action are easier, and there are different evidentiary rules.

Zimmerman was not innocent. He chose to get out of his car and pursue Martin. He shot and killed an unarmed teen. The entire situation could have been avoided if only Zimmerman had listened to the police dispatcher.

Based upon the facts/witnesses available, I think the prosecution did a great job, particularly John Guy (we may have some bias here though). His opening statement was widely regarded as brilliant. The commentators (much of whom had faulty/inaccurate analysis) started widely criticizing the prosecutors once witnesses were presented at trial, but it was generally a criticism of the quality of the evidence. I do wish that the prosecution had pursued manslaughter from the beginning (which would have carried a 30 year sentence). I think they lost credibility by over charging. However, some of the prosecution's key evidence was excluded at trial (i.e. expert testimony stating that the cries for help were that of Martin), which made proving 2nd degree murder much more difficult. It is also critical to note that the prosecution had to call unfavorable witnesses and play Zimmerman's statements, or they would have come under fire by the defense for hiding evidence. Prosecutors do not have the luxury of only calling favorable witnesses, something the commentators do not seem to grasp. The prosecutors could not cross examine Zimmerman (he chose not to testify) or his statements, leaving them at a distinct disadvantage. I do think the prosecution effectively showed that Zimmerman's descriptions were inaccurate/implausible in numerous respects (i.e. Zimmerman claimed that Martin had his hand over Zimmerman's mouth/nose but Martin did not have any blood on his hands; this claim is also inconsistent with Zimmerman's claim that he was screaming for help at the time and the screams were not muffled on the 911 tape).

This was a very tough case with no winners.

[flashy09]

Trayvon would have been alive if GZ had not decided to arm himself and follow him down the street. Trayvon would also be alive if he were a white man dressed smartly walking down the street. GZ brought it all on and then either realized he bit off more than he could chew or looked for any excuse to use his gun. Guilty.

I get being nervous. My house was broken into while I was home at 2 am and it's also happened to my neighbors. I was very on guard and looking out for the person I saw walking out of my house. If I saw a similar looking person , I would have been suspicious too and kept an eye on him as he walked by. That is neighborhood watch - not grabbing a gun and following him or calling the police for no reason. GZ was looking for a fight and certainly is not the pitiful looking doughboy he portrayed in court. His blood was up on the phone to the cops and he was on a power trip. I think he is gross and the worst part is I don't think he even has any remorse beyond self pity.

[Still-in-Shock]

And by the way, not directly commenting on this jury, but juries get things wrong a lot. It's hard for laymen to understand the intricacies of the law - which is why in terms of civil law matters, most contracts waive the right to a jury.

Juries also go into the deliberation room without transcripts of the trial, without some of the prior knowledge that the media has, and without Google. When you are on a jury, you have to rely on your memory, and the memories of your co-jurors. You also have to follow the judge's instructions. It's a difficult job, even when you aren't on a murder trial.

[dogmom]

I think the obvious thing is if had been in a different neighborhood with a different set of sex/skin colors this would have be perceived very differently. Sure, one could say TM shouldn't have confronted GZ, but I don't think he has to be a bad kid for a 17 year old boy/man to confront a creepy looking man following him when he's on the phone with a girl. It's practically in their DNA. I'm sure he had some issues about being suspended from school. But knowing my DH long term friends and their late high school and early 20's if they were suspended or went to jail every time they smoked pot none of them would have gotten to their married lives, with good professional jobs, 401K and kids. Of course they were all white and from the suburbs. I don't know if the jury made the wrong decision or not, I did not follow the trial.

These are the things I'm fairly sure of. If there was no gun, no one would be dead. That the FL law sucks and is unneeded. Do you really think if you are defending your home and family against an intruded that someone is going to convict you of killing them? It just makes the water muddied for cases like this. Or more common cases of one drug dealer saying he shot another drug dealer because he was threatened. Yep, I bet you always feel threatened in that situation. We are no closer to dealing with the inequities in our justice system. If you have HBO I suggest your watch Gideon's Army.

http://www.hbo.com/documentaries/gideons-army/index.html

[liamsmom]

Today violent crimes perpetrated by blacks on blacks goes virtually unnoticed. The number one cause of death among African American men between the ages of 15-34: Homicide.* And yet when it’s white-on-black or black-on-white crime we’re both captivated and agitated.

If only we became captivated and agitated for all the right reasons.

Now that….That would be justice.

Yeah, but in those circumstances the suspects are arrested. There might have been a lot less controversy in this case had the Sanford PD not dropped the ball from the very beginning.

Sabryna Fulton and Tracey Martin have shown such grace and fortitude throughout this whole ordeal. I just can't imagine.

[BunnyBee]

Quoting a snip from Westwoodmom04:
Manslaughter is defined as: “The killing of a human being by the . . . culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification . . . ”

Does the evidence support a finding of guilty of manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt?


Without the self defense claim, yes. With The jury instructions given and the self-defense claim, maybe no. The prosecution had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the altercation didn't occur the way the defense portrayed it based on the evidence allowed in at trial. The jurors knew less than we did, or were allowed to consider less than is out there. I can't shut the other out of my mind enough to say whether yes or no.

Stand Your Ground wasn't used in the trial, but it affected the police investigation. Or "investigation" as it were.

[westwoodmom04]

\

Sabryna Fulton and Tracey Martin have shown such grace and fortitude throughout this whole ordeal. I just can't imagine.

I agree; I really admire their incredible dignity.

[queenmama]

When you choose to engage, you realize your life could be forfeit.(snip)

3. Realize that engaging in a physical conflict could have a number of HIGHLY undesirable consequences. Do everything you can to avoid. You just never know what someone else might be carrying and even if you "win" you might be on trial for murder, assault, etc. There really is no win.

Aside from westwood's post of the editorial, this stands out for me.

I am against gun control and for the right to defend oneself. However, when you go looking for trouble, why would you be surprised to find it? I'm not going to walk through a scary neighborhood and pick a fight with someone. I have common sense. I'm going to keep my head down and not make eye contact, and if I suspect someone of shady activity I sure as hell won't confront that person!

Maybe it doesn't matter with regard to the law, but I feel like intent is everything. GZ went and started $#*&. And as stated in the editorial, he started $#*& with a teenager who -- even if suspected or found guilty of PAST criminal wrongdoing -- wasn't doing anything wrong at the time. In my legally-uneducated opinion, he "threw the first punch" by pursuing TM. If TM actually hit first, I can't say that I blame him.

I just can't believe anyone would defend a guy who needlessly pursued and killed a child.

[wellyes]

I watched most of the trial and overall agree with the verdict of not guilty based upon the evidence presented. However, not guilty does not equate with innocence. It merely means that the state did not meet its burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We do not know who threw the first punch, but it appears as though Martin was getting the better of Zimmerman toward the end. The two were described as tussling/wrestling. We do not know why Martin did not go immediately home. As I recall, at one point, he thought he had lost Zimmerman. He very well could have been chatting on the phone, or simply standing under cover to avoid the rain. If he had been lying in wait to attack Zimmerman, I find it incredulous that he would also be chatting on the phone. But we simply do not know because 1 of the 2 key witnesses was unable to testify. I suspect that Zimmerman came upon Martin, startling him and the fight ensued. Being engaged in a fist fight does not give one the right to use deadly force. I think Zimmerman's injuries were superficial (any facial/head wounds bleed like crazy), and seriously doubt that deadly force was necessary. But this is not the standard of proof. We also do not know who was crying for help in the 911 tapes because there was conflicting evidence. I can see why the jury found reasonable doubt. I do feel that the Martin family stands a much better chance in a civil court where there is a much lower standard of proof, the elements of the cause of action are easier, and there are different evidentiary rules.

Zimmerman was not innocent. He chose to get out of his car and pursue Martin. He shot and killed an unarmed teen. The entire situation could have been avoided if only Zimmerman had listened to the police dispatcher.

Based upon the facts/witnesses available, I think the prosecution did a great job, particularly John Guy (we may have some bias here though). His opening statement was widely regarded as brilliant. The commentators (much of whom had faulty/inaccurate analysis) started widely criticizing the prosecutors once witnesses were presented at trial, but it was generally a criticism of the quality of the evidence. I do wish that the prosecution had pursued manslaughter from the beginning (which would have carried a 30 year sentence). I think they lost credibility by over charging. However, some of the prosecution's key evidence was excluded at trial (i.e. expert testimony stating that the cries for help were that of Martin), which made proving 2nd degree murder much more difficult. It is also critical to note that the prosecution had to call unfavorable witnesses and play Zimmerman's statements, or they would have come under fire by the defense for hiding evidence. Prosecutors do not have the luxury of only calling favorable witnesses, something the commentators do not seem to grasp. The prosecutors could not cross examine Zimmerman (he chose not to testify) or his statements, leaving them at a distinct disadvantage. I do thing the prosecution effectively showed that Zimmerman's descriptions were inaccurate/implausible in numerous respects (i.e. Zimmerman claimed that Martin had his hand over Zimmerman's mouth/nose but Martin did not have any blood on his hands; this claim is also inconsistent with Zimmerman's claim that he was screaming for help at the time and the screams were not muffled on the 911 tape).

I agree with most of this - well put. I'll also add, if the police had done a more thorough job at the crime scene, we may have learned more, and may have had a different verdict. Shame on them.

[boolady]

Sorry, Westwood...didn't mean to relocate you involuntarily. Thought we lived in the same state for some reason.

[westwoodmom04]

Sorry, Westwood...didn't mean to relocate you involuntarily. Thought we lived in the same state for some reason.

We've been all over the east coast, and in California, so I may have responded in some other threads based on that thereby creating the confusion.

[TwinFoxes]

Well said Melbel.

[anonomom]

Aside from westwood's post of the editorial, this stands out for me.

I am against gun control and for the right to defend oneself. However, when you go looking for trouble, why would you be surprised to find it? I'm not going to walk through a scary neighborhood and pick a fight with someone. I have common sense. I'm going to keep my head down and not make eye contact, and if I suspect someone of shady activity I sure as hell won't confront that person!

Maybe it doesn't matter with regard to the law, but I feel like intent is everything. GZ went and started $#*&. And as stated in the editorial, he started $#*& with a teenager who -- even if suspected or found guilty of PAST criminal wrongdoing -- wasn't doing anything wrong at the time. In my legally-uneducated opinion, he "threw the first punch" by pursuing TM. If TM actually hit first, I can't say that I blame him.

I just can't believe anyone would defend a guy who needlessly pursued and killed a child.

:applause: Aside from the fact that I'm for some gun control, I agree with everything you just said.

[HannaAddict]

:applause: Aside from the fact that I'm for some gun control, I agree with everything you just said.

Luckily, in our state, self defense cannot be considered or argued if you are as Zimmerman was, the "initial aggressor." Starting the confrontation, trolling around with a gun, getting out of the car to chase down a kid with Skittles is definitely something that would have thrown his "self defense" claim right out the window. I don't buy the "injuries" to Zimmerman was being from Treyvon - no injuries that match up on the child, no DNA, nothing. And a few minute gap after the gun shot and Zimmerman making the call, and he was a cop wannabe who had taken enough classes to know he was in deep s&*@ and needed to do something to cover it up. If the injuries were from Treyvon, why are the Fox "news" crowd not acknowledging that the teen was defending himself, against a large, armed, strange adult man in the dark, who first followed him in a car, then got out and hunted him down? Treyvon's past history of pot use or whatever is not relevant too, since he wasn't high or armed and Zimmerman didn't know his history so had no reason to be afraid because of it. (Versus if you know someone is the town druggie or bad guy and have a fear based on that knowledge.) But I am not surprised at all at the verdict, the prosecutor was lame, lawyers in my old court would have done a much better job, even the baby district court crew. Glad I'm not in Florida.

[Indianamom2]

Many of these comments are unnecessary. The law exists to protect people who defend themselves or others against an attacker. I'm not going to argue the points of this case, but I have been listening to it all week. The evidence strongly supports GZ's claims that TM attacked him - one example was the grass stains on the knees of TM's pants. How did GZ know that the next time his head was slammed into the ground he wouldn't be knocked unconcious and that kid could have seriously injured him or even killed him? GZ had every right and reason to follow an unfamiliar person walking through his neighborhood once you know the history of the crimes that were being committed there. TM should have just gone on home. He was the one who chose to make it a confrontation. He was not an upstanding individual (all you have to do is Google him and you'll find out) and honestly, if he had not been suspended from school for drugs and suspected burglary, he would not have even been here. He would have still been in Miami.

I am not saying it is his fault that GZ shot him, but he made a choice to have a confrontation. If he was truly as innocent as they claim, he would have hightailed it home and GZ would have seen him enter his home without breaking in and that likely would have ended the whole thing. I think GZ was an idiot and handled the whole thing wrong. When he was told not to follow the kid, he should have not followed him, but the bottom line is that it doesn't matter what led up to the confrontation. A person has no right to start punching somebody just for following him or even if words are exchanged. I think GZ got in over his head and panicked. He was stupid. No matter what, his life is over. He cannot go on living his life as he was. His family will have to be protected, he will have to be protected and they will have to move to who knows where and live in secrecy. That's no kind of life to have. The protestors got what they wanted - an arrest and a trial. Honestly, the comment about GZ and Casey Anthony being BFFs is disgusting to me. These are the kinds of words that have caused so much animosity in the community as it is. I live very close to all of this and now I have to be fearful for a while because people are so full of hatred. People outside the courthouse are saying things that make it sound like GZ tracked TM down, cornered him and shot him in cold blood as if he was hunting him like a wild animal. It needs to stop and the comments here are perfect examples of it. Go ahead and flame away. I am still entitled to my opinion and my freedom to express it. I don't like what happened and I don't especially like GZ, but I don't think he should go to prison for what he did.

This sums up my opinion beautifully. Both sides were wrong, in the sense that they both could have avoided the confrontation to begin with, but I do not believe that GZ intended to kill anyone that night...he was defending himself, which he had the right to do.

[BunnyBee]

Luckily, in our state, self defense cannot be considered or argued if you are as Zimmerman was, the "initial aggressor." Starting the confrontation, trolling around with a gun, getting out of the car to chase down a kid with Skittles is definitely something that would have thrown his "self defense" claim right out the window. I don't buy the "injuries" to Zimmerman was being from Treyvon - no injuries that match up on the child, no DNA, nothing. And a few minute gap after the gun shot and Zimmerman making the call, and he was a cop wannabe who had taken enough classes to know he was in deep s&*@ and needed to do something to cover it up. If the injuries were from Treyvon, why are the Fox "news" crowd not acknowledging that the teen was defending himself, against a large, armed, strange adult man in the dark, who first followed him in a car, then got out and hunted him down? Treyvon's past history of pot use or whatever is not relevant too, since he wasn't high or armed and Zimmerman didn't know his history so had no reason to be afraid because of it. (Versus if you know someone is the town druggie or bad guy and have a fear based on that knowledge.) But I am not surprised at all at the verdict, the prosecutor was lame, lawyers in my old court would have done a much better job, even the baby district court crew. Glad I'm not in Florida.

Zimmerman claimed that he was simply following Martin to provide his location to police, and that Trayvon ran back at him and was the initial aggressor in the physical altercation. It doesn't sit right to me, but that was the basis of the self defense claim, and I believe the judge had to allow him to present the defense. The prosecutors couldn't cross examine his claim directly, and they did a poor job of indirectly shredding it. Like the claim that Martin was bashing Zimmerman's head against concrete. The altercation ended in grass, a significant distance away from the concrete. And his claims that he was punched 25-30 times in the face? Ludicrous! I've gotten a black eye from being inadvertently whacked by a toddler! If a 17 year old boy, allegedly in a life or death fight, punched me full on in the face 25-30 times, either on grass or concrete, I'd need more than a Band-Aid. Plus, all of this in a minute? It's a completely implausible scenario, and even without being able to cross him, they should've been able to discredit it.

[BunnyBee]

This sums up my opinion beautifully. Both sides were wrong, in the sense that they both could have avoided the confrontation to begin with, but I do not believe that GZ intended to kill anyone that night...he was defending himself, which he had the right to do.

What could Trayvon have done to avoid being profiled, stalked, and pursued by Zimmerman? No, no way you can put any WRONG on him. He was the victim to Zimmerman's hero complex. I don't think anyone believes Zimmerman intended to murder Trayvon, but in no way does that place blame on the dead kid. Just no.

[♥ms.pacman♥]

Many of these comments are unnecessary. The law exists to protect people who defend themselves or others against an attacker. I'm not going to argue the points of this case, but I have been listening to it all week. The evidence strongly supports GZ's claims that TM attacked him - one example was the grass stains on the knees of TM's pants. How did GZ know that the next time his head was slammed into the ground he wouldn't be knocked unconcious and that kid could have seriously injured him or even killed him? GZ had every right and reason to follow an unfamiliar person walking through his neighborhood once you know the history of the crimes that were being committed there. TM should have just gone on home. He was the one who chose to make it a confrontation. He was not an upstanding individual (all you have to do is Google him and you'll find out) and honestly, if he had not been suspended from school for drugs and suspected burglary, he would not have even been here. He would have still been in Miami.

I am not saying it is his fault that GZ shot him, but he made a choice to have a confrontation. If he was truly as innocent as they claim, he would have hightailed it home and GZ would have seen him enter his home without breaking in and that likely would have ended the whole thing. I think GZ was an idiot and handled the whole thing wrong. When he was told not to follow the kid, he should have not followed him, but the bottom line is that it doesn't matter what led up to the confrontation. A person has no right to start punching somebody just for following him or even if words are exchanged. I think GZ got in over his head and panicked. He was stupid. No matter what, his life is over. He cannot go on living his life as he was. His family will have to be protected, he will have to be protected and they will have to move to who knows where and live in secrecy. That's no kind of life to have. The protestors got what they wanted - an arrest and a trial. Honestly, the comment about GZ and Casey Anthony being BFFs is disgusting to me. These are the kinds of words that have caused so much animosity in the community as it is. I live very close to all of this and now I have to be fearful for a while because people are so full of hatred. People outside the courthouse are saying things that make it sound like GZ tracked TM down, cornered him and shot him in cold blood as if he was hunting him like a wild animal. It needs to stop and the comments here are perfect examples of it. Go ahead and flame away. I am still entitled to my opinion and my freedom to express it. I don't like what happened and I don't especially like GZ, but I don't think he should go to prison for what he did.

wow. i am just flabbergasted by all this. REALLY? so it doesn't matter than GZ followed him?? Are you serious?? So, the fact that this guy followed him (even though the dispatcher said not to) doens't matter...it's the same difference as if Trayvon had approached him? It seems to make a huge difference. Someone jumping you in a dark alley is totally different than you going out of your way to follow someone in your car, don't you think??

And this would not have happened if Travyon would not have been suspended from school comment, wow. This type of reason smacks of the same types of defense people use when women get raped. "If she hadn't been out at 2am clubbing by herself, this would have never happened." Talk about blaming the victim here.

As arivecchi mentioned, if it had been YOUR child who had been mistaken for a criminal, followed by some vigilante and then killed i have a hard time believing you would have the same opinion. For many people, this is a genuine concern. I find it a bit off-putting that outrage over the verdict is labeled as "hatred." Wow.

I agree with Melbel's post..there are no winners here. It's sad that this happened. I just hope there are no more repeats of these types of events. I am really really scared of people taking the law into their own hands.

[♥ms.pacman♥]

What could Trayvon have done to avoid being profiled, stalked, and pursued by Zimmerman?

I am wondering the same thing.

[TxCat]

I agree with Melbel's post..there are no winners here. It's sad that this happened. I just hope there are no more repeats of these types of events. I am really really scared of people taking the law into their own hands.

I feel like this case, combined with the Joe Horn case in Texas a few years ago (man in Pasadena, TX who shot and killed two men who were burglarizing his neighbor's house, including shooting one of the men in the back as he was fleeing the scene, I believe) should get people asking serious questions about their state laws - stand your ground and such. We're getting further and further from the concept of self-defense and closer towards state-sanctioned vigilantism.

[♥ms.pacman♥]

I feel like this case, combined with the Joe Horn case in Texas a few years ago (man in Pasadena, TX who shot and killed two men who were burglarizing his neighbor's house, including shooting one of the men in the back as he was fleeing the scene, I believe) should get people asking serious questions about their state laws - stand your ground and such. We're getting further and further from the concept of self-defense and closer towards state-sanctioned vigilantism.

I agree a thousand percent. It seems to be turning into the Wild West here. Many people here (here, i mean Texas) don't seem to be that bothered by these stories, but then again these are the same people whose children will NEVER profiled by the color of their skin, so I guess it doesn't bother them.

The Ezekiel Gilbert case in San Antonio case comes to mind..Gilbert was acquitted after shooting and killing a woman AS SHE WAS FLEEING his house IN HER CAR. He was acquitted because under Texas law (castle doctrine), you can shoot someone on your property if you think they are or will steal from you. She was an escort he found on Craigslist and after he gave her $150 she refused to have sex with him. He got his gun and shot her as she was trying to leave. So, the argument was she stole from him because she didn't provide the service (sex) he had paid her to do. He claimed she was a prostitute, but never mind that prostitution is illegal...he was in the right because it was "self-defense" of his PROPERTY. As in, the life of this woman (who was the mother of a young child, btw) is lower than this guys 150 bucks. That, to me, is sickening. I think TX laws really need to change.

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/eichenwald/2013/05/why-ezekiel-gilbert-s-acquittal-proves-the-lunacy-of-texas-s-gun-laws

[tropicalmom]

The Ezekiel Gilbert case in San Antonio case comes to mind..Gilbert was acquitted after shooting and killing a woman AS SHE WAS FLEEING his house IN HER CAR. He was acquitted because under Texas law (castle doctrine), you can shoot someone on your property if you think they are or will steal from you. She was an escort he found on Craigslist and after he gave her $150 she refused to have sex with him. He got his gun and shot her as she was trying to leave. So, the argument was she stole from him because she didn't provide the service (sex) he had paid her to do. He claimed she was a prostitute, but never mind that prostitution is illegal...he was in the right because it was "self-defense" of his PROPERTY. As in, the life of this woman (who was the mother of a young child, btw) is lower than this guys 150 bucks. That, to me, is sickening. I think TX laws really need to change.

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/eichenwald/2013/05/why-ezekiel-gilbert-s-acquittal-proves-the-lunacy-of-texas-s-gun-laws

Oh my! Thanks for sharing that. That is absolutely craaazy

[NJ_Mom2011]

A perfunctory and shoddy police investigation of a young dead man -- which helps lead to lack of evidence for the prosecution in the eventual trial - the message from that is crystal clear.

I totally agree with this. The Sanford police was horrible, and I hope that after this trial is reformed. (I know that they have already started with hiring an African American police chief, but more needs to be done.) If it weren't for Trayvon Martin's parents kicking up a fuss, the killing of Trayvon Martin would never have been properly investigated. Examples of the bad police work: George Zimmerman never received a drug test; Martin's phone records were not examined by the police until the Martin family pushed for it; Zimmerman was not put under tough questioning until days after the killing; and Martin's body was left in the rain for hours without getting specimens for testing. And the biggest misjudgment of them all, the police were going to let Zimmerman go without a trial, even though "Stand your ground" defense was meant for a court to use, not the police. If the Sanford police got their way, they would be both the investigator and the judge of crimes.

I think that Sanford has an Old Boy Network that Zimmerman was trying to leverage to get away with his outrageous behavior. Some previous posters were claiming that the only reported crime in Sanford was being done by African Americans, but I am wondering if the crime statistics are being slanted by the shoddy police that allow their favorites to get away with crime.

[kijip]

What could Trayvon have done to avoid being profiled, stalked, and pursued by Zimmerman? No, no way you can put any WRONG on him. He was the victim to Zimmerman's hero complex. I don't think anyone believes Zimmerman intended to murder Trayvon, but in no way does that place blame on the dead kid. Just no.

ITA. Zimmerman alone is responsible for getting out of his car with a gun.

In most states if you cause a fistfight and bring a knife to the fistfight, you've committed a crime, even if the person you stabbed was punching you.

Zimmerman also has a history of violence and the luxury of being alive to tell the tale. Which he wasn't willing to do under oath. His injuries do not seem consistent with the sheer level of violence he claimed Martin directed at him, the medical examiner testified to that. Was he scared? Sure. Is everything he is saying true? No freaking way. He killed a young man he had no business following in the first place. He may not be guilty in that Florida court, but in a larger sense he is "guilty as sin."

[marymoo86]

What could Trayvon have done to avoid being profiled, stalked, and pursued by Zimmerman? No, no way you can put any WRONG on him. He was the victim to Zimmerman's hero complex. I don't think anyone believes Zimmerman intended to murder Trayvon, but in no way does that place blame on the dead kid. Just no.

I mostly agree with this up until Trayvon starting punching and jumped on top of him on the concrete pavement. I don't know what prompted Trayvon to do so. I missed that part. However, Zimmerman was the adult and should have backed away sine he didn't know if Trayvon was armed or not.

There were a lot of what ifs that could have prevented this senseless travesty on both sides.

[randomkid]

wow. i am just flabbergasted by all this. REALLY? so it doesn't matter than GZ followed him?? Are you serious?? So, the fact that this guy followed him (even though the dispatcher said not to) doens't matter...it's the same difference as if Trayvon had approached him? It seems to make a huge difference. Someone jumping you in a dark alley is totally different than you going out of your way to follow someone in your car, don't you think??

And this would not have happened if Travyon would not have been suspended from school comment, wow. This type of reason smacks of the same types of defense people use when women get raped. "If she hadn't been out at 2am clubbing by herself, this would have never happened." Talk about blaming the victim here.

As arivecchi mentioned, if it had been YOUR child who had been mistaken for a criminal, followed by some vigilante and then killed i have a hard time believing you would have the same opinion. For many people, this is a genuine concern. I find it a bit off-putting that outrage over the verdict is labeled as "hatred." Wow.

I agree with Melbel's post..there are no winners here. It's sad that this happened. I just hope there are no more repeats of these types of events. I am really really scared of people taking the law into their own hands.

Maybe you should have read EVERYTHING I wrote and not just bolded the parts that were convenient for you. Taking things out of context changes them significantly. You conveniently did not highlight the parts of my post that blamed Zimmerman for his role and wrongdoing. And, FYI, I was referring to the law, not my opinion when I said it doesn't matter what led up to the confrontation. My post was aimed at the verdict and finding fault with both sides. Quite honestly, I find your post offensive and baiting.

[AngelaS]

Many of these comments are unnecessary. The law exists to protect people who defend themselves or others against an attacker. I'm not going to argue the points of this case, but I have been listening to it all week. The evidence strongly supports GZ's claims that TM attacked him - one example was the grass stains on the knees of TM's pants. How did GZ know that the next time his head was slammed into the ground he wouldn't be knocked unconcious and that kid could have seriously injured him or even killed him? GZ had every right and reason to follow an unfamiliar person walking through his neighborhood once you know the history of the crimes that were being committed there. TM should have just gone on home. He was the one who chose to make it a confrontation. He was not an upstanding individual (all you have to do is Google him and you'll find out) and honestly, if he had not been suspended from school for drugs and suspected burglary, he would not have even been here. He would have still been in Miami.

I am not saying it is his fault that GZ shot him, but he made a choice to have a confrontation. If he was truly as innocent as they claim, he would have hightailed it home and GZ would have seen him enter his home without breaking in and that likely would have ended the whole thing. I think GZ was an idiot and handled the whole thing wrong. When he was told not to follow the kid, he should have not followed him, but the bottom line is that it doesn't matter what led up to the confrontation. A person has no right to start punching somebody just for following him or even if words are exchanged. I think GZ got in over his head and panicked. He was stupid. No matter what, his life is over. He cannot go on living his life as he was. His family will have to be protected, he will have to be protected and they will have to move to who knows where and live in secrecy. That's no kind of life to have. The protestors got what they wanted - an arrest and a trial. Honestly, the comment about GZ and Casey Anthony being BFFs is disgusting to me. These are the kinds of words that have caused so much animosity in the community as it is. I live very close to all of this and now I have to be fearful for a while because people are so full of hatred. People outside the courthouse are saying things that make it sound like GZ tracked TM down, cornered him and shot him in cold blood as if he was hunting him like a wild animal. It needs to stop and the comments here are perfect examples of it. Go ahead and flame away. I am still entitled to my opinion and my freedom to express it. I don't like what happened and I don't especially like GZ, but I don't think he should go to prison for what he did.

I agree.

[AngelaS]

Peeps, this is what we's gonna be callin' a contentious thread.

I like how there is an effort here to defend and explain why one would be watching the entire trial live. I did not watch any of the trial, live or otherwise, but I do tape Judge Judy and watch it every day.

Concealed carry s a serious problem.

I will never understand how more guns are the answer.

A completely unarmed boy is dead. His killer was acquitted, and I respect the system based on the burden of proof per the Florida law. But in no way is GZ unpunished or remotely free. Sometimes you don't actually need a guilty verdict.

Concealed carry is not a serious problem. I think you should some research on the number of lives that have been saved by a citizen with a gun coming to their aid and stopping a crime. A concealed carrying man recently stopped another man from beating a woman in Milwaukee. Not everyone who carries a gun is chasing down young men and starting a fight and then shooting them when they start losing the fight.

[Kindra178]

Concealed carry is not a serious problem. I think you should some research on the number of lives that have been saved by a citizen with a gun coming to their aid and stopping a crime. A concealed carrying man recently stopped another man from beating a woman in Milwaukee. Not everyone who carries a gun is chasing down young men and starting a fight and then shooting them when they start losing the fight.

Pretty sure the research supports the exact opposite conclusion.

[BunnyBee]

I mostly agree with this up until Trayvon starting punching and jumped on top of him on the concrete pavement. I don't know what prompted Trayvon to do so. I missed that part. However, Zimmerman was the adult and should have backed away sine he didn't know if Trayvon was armed or not.

There were a lot of what ifs that could have prevented this senseless travesty on both sides.

The only person who has presented this scenario is the guy who killed Trayvon. His story has changed and the evidence does not support it. The altercation ended in the grass, a significant distance away from any concrete (among other inconsistencies).

[HannaAddict]

Pretty sure the research supports the exact opposite conclusion.

You are correct, don't have a handy cite, but concealed weapons don't help. We have a sadly paralyzed man in our area who pulled a lawfully carried gun at a mall shootout and lived to tell the tale but would have been better off not trying to engage. He wasn't a cop and shouldn't have played one, sadly. Our local paper did a large article on the stats and most hobbyists with guns are not a help, no matter how "safe" it makes them feel.

[TwinFoxes]

FYI, The AP is reporting that the Justice Department is investigating the case for civil rights violations.

Whoever said some of this reads like blaming a rape victim for being out clubbing is spot on. I remember when Nicole Brown Simpson was murdered my dad saying "she was no angel, why was that guy bringing her sunglasses so late". I was appalled. Some of these arguments are in the same vein.

[HannaAddict]

Exactly, the physical evidence did not support his convenient version. No scraped knuckels, no DNA, etc. Sad, very sad.

[R2sweetboys]

I just can't get past the fact that NONE of this would have happened if George Zimmerman had just stayed in his truck. It was not his job to pursue someone just because he assumed he might be a criminal! He stalked and provoked TM for no other reason than that he was a young black male. We only have one side of the story regarding the altercation because the other person involved is dead. GZ very clearly was the aggressor as is evidenced by the 911 calls GZ made. Even if TM initiated the physical confrontaton(and that's a big if), he clearly felt that his life was being threatened. I personally think GZ is a liar and a cop wannabe who grievously over-stepped his boundaries. It's very scary to me that one can instigate like this and then kill with no legal consequences.

[kijip]

The only person who has presented this scenario is the guy who killed Trayvon. His story has changed and the evidence does not support it. The altercation ended in the grass, a significant distance away from any concrete (among other inconsistencies).

What sticks out for me is that Zimmerman claims to have been punched upwards of 18 times and that his head repeatedly slammed into the sidewalk yet he had a bloodied nose and some minor abrasions. Either that is the softest sidewalk in the world or dude is lying. He did not require medical attention that night when the cops arrived. Trayvon was on the grass and his body was left out in the elements, evidence going uncollected. Trayvon's knuckles didn't back up that many punches.

I've defended myself on a sidewalk before (unknown attacker). There's only so many times someone's head can hit concrete and the guy on bottom just gets up and walks away without a trip to the ER. Something just stinks about Zimmerman's claims and this is a guy with a dubious background (previous arrests for violent offenses) and every reason in the world to lie. Who wouldn't stretch the truth in their favor if they killed an unarmed kid?

[Fairy]

Concealed carry is not a serious problem. I think you should some research on the number of lives that have been saved by a citizen with a gun coming to their aid and stopping a crime. A concealed carrying man recently stopped another man from beating a woman in Milwaukee. Not everyone who carries a gun is chasing down young men and starting a fight and then shooting them when they start losing the fight.

I think you should some [sic] research on the concept of bystander apathy. Most citizens do not jump to the aid of others in the midst of assailants. Oh, but guns, yes, the great equalizer. Such bravery when one has a gun in their hand. I am sure that those brave souls who are now concealingly armed are all engaging in regular target practice and have kept their skills very sharp. And that when they do intervene, if the presence of the great and terrible gun doesn't actually scare off would-be assailant and that suddenly brave soul who otherwise would have kept on walking is forced to put their money where their trigger-finger is that they don't f*ck up completely and shoot the wrong person. Or that they don't misjudge the situation they happen upon and shoot without full understanding of what they've wandered into.

Please. Spare me, ok?

[kijip]

Here is a summary of some fairly dubious self defense claims in Florida. Apparently SYG has even been used as a basis not to charge some gang members and known dealers. While Zimmerman did not make a SYG claim, SYG is what the police cited in their initial lack of arrest and questioning after Martin's death and Florida has a pretty generous self defense law.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/florida-stand-your-ground-law-yields-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133

There are definitely states where Zimmerman likely would have faced a much more skeptical justice system.

[citymama]

NYT editorial from today:
Trayvon Martin's legacy (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/15/opinion/trayvon-martins-legacy.html?smid=fb-share)

"Trayvon Martin was an unarmed boy walking home from the convenience store. If only Florida could give him back his life as easily as it is giving back George Zimmerman’s gun."

Yes.

[marymoo86]

What sticks out for me is that Zimmerman claims to have been punched upwards of 18 times and that his head repeatedly slammed into the sidewalk yet he had a bloodied nose and some minor abrasions. Either that is the softest sidewalk in the world or dude is lying. He did not require medical attention that night when the cops arrived. Trayvon was on the grass and his body was left out in the elements, evidence going uncollected. Trayvon's knuckles didn't back up that many punches.

I've defended myself on a sidewalk before (unknown attacker). There's only so many times someone's head can hit concrete and the guy on bottom just gets up and walks away without a trip to the ER. Something just stinks about Zimmerman's claims and this is a guy with a dubious background (previous arrests for violent offenses) and every reason in the world to lie. Who wouldn't stretch the truth in their favor if they killed an unarmed kid?

I wasn't questioning or supporting the # of times GZ was punching/pummeled what have you but Trayvon did assault him, correct? What prompted that. Just the few articles I read said GZ's story was consistent meaning that he was hit and showed the pictures. None delved into how many times the man was hit.

I think the hardest part is that you can't get inside his mind to understand what level of fear, adrenaline, what have you to prompt him. What if Trayvon was going for his gun as he claimed. Why did Travyon confront him instead of leaving, running away, etc? I'm not blaming him just curious as I haven't heard about that bit. Just the news clips of his friend whom he called ( I felt really sorry for her on the stand) and how terribly they portrayed her.

Again, this could have easily been avoided if GZ had not pursued or even if Trayvon had not confronted. It is a terrible, terrible tragedy. I do believe GZ had the greater responsibility in this but many of the posts (and perhaps I am wrong) seem as if Trayvon had no part in this when clearly he did assault and as Bisous stated earlier you don't know what can happen. That was really my main point - not to nitpick details. Apologies if I was unclear.

[janine]

The way I see this (and I'm sure to get flamed) is Zimmerman is not necessarily innocent, and at the very least it is clear he made several poor decisions that led to this fatal tragic result.
But based on Florida laws he had the authority to carry and shoot when felt threatened and we simply cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he intentionally shot vs. out of perceived belief he was being threatened.

Outrage over this is understandable but I personally do see how the jury came to this conclusion and it was a fair trial with as far as I can tell - a fairly selected and impartial jury. To me the furor should be directed at Florida state laws and questions over their liberal policy over neighborhood watches etc.

[westwoodmom04]

I wasn't questioning or supporting the # of times GZ was punching/pummeled what have you but Trayvon did assault him, correct? What prompted that. Just the few articles I read said GZ's story was consistent meaning that he was hit and showed the pictures. None delved into how many times the man was hit.

I think the hardest part is that you can't get inside his mind to understand what level of fear, adrenaline, what have you to prompt him. What if Trayvon was going for his gun as he claimed. Why did Travyon confront him instead of leaving, running away, etc? I'm not blaming him just curious as I haven't heard about that bit. Just the news clips of his friend whom he called ( I felt really sorry for her on the stand) and how terribly they portrayed her.

Again, this could have easily been avoided if GZ had not pursued or even if Trayvon had not confronted. It is a terrible, terrible tragedy. I do believe GZ had the greater responsibility in this but many of the posts (and perhaps I am wrong) seem as if Trayvon had no part in this when clearly he did assault and as Bisous stated earlier you don't know what can happen. That was really my main point - not to nitpick details. Apologies if I was unclear.

We do not know that Trayvon "confronted" or "assaulted' GZ, that is GZ's story. Since GZ demonstrably lied about other things, there is no reason to accept that as fact. Zimmerman's account is not consistent with the testimony of the girl on the phone with Trayvon, or with his call with the police dispatcher. We know there was a scuffle, but don't know who started it or when exactly Zimmerman first showed his gun.

[TwinFoxes]

The way I see this (and I'm sure to get flamed) is Zimmerman is not necessarily innocent, and at the very least it is clear he made several poor decisions that led to this fatal tragic result.
But based on Florida laws he had the authority to carry and shoot when felt threatened and we simply cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he intentionally shot vs. out of perceived belief he was being threatened.

Outrage over this is understandable but I personally do see how the jury came to this conclusion and it was a fair trial with as far as I can tell - a fairly selected and impartial jury. To me the furor should be directed at Florida state laws and questions over their liberal policy over neighborhood watches etc.

I think a lot of people feel this way, it's pretty close to how I feel. I don't think anyone's said the jury was anything but impartial. (But it's a long thread, I could have missed it).

[wellyes]

Why did Travyon confront him instead of leaving, running away, etc? I'm not blaming him just curious as I haven't heard about that bit. Just the news clips of his friend whom he called ( I felt really sorry for her on the stand) and how terribly they portrayed her.


I can only speculate, but.... Martin did try to evade from Zimmerman when he was in the truck, Zimmerman followed. After that, if Martin confronted him (that's Zimmerman's story), I think he wanted to get rid of him. I'd guess Martin didn't run home based because he didn't want to show the guy following him where he lived. I don't know if he had family home etc. Again, who knows, but I can see that being a reason, especially for a teenaged boy. He should have called 911, but culturally, it is not surprising that he didn't.

[TwinFoxes]

Why did Travyon confront him instead of leaving, running away, etc? I'm not blaming him just curious as I haven't heard about that bit. Just the news clips of his friend whom he called.


No one will ever know. I think it's completely understandable that a 17 year old, who wants to think of himself as a man not a little boy, tried to act tough and turned around to say "what up, why are you following me". He was a high school kid out buying candy. He doesn't have the pleasure of hindsight, or really even time to think out his reaction. As jbaxter pointed out, teenage boys can be hot heads. Fear may have made him act like a tough guy. (This is all assuming Zimmerman told the truth that he was confronted...for all we know he grabbed Trayvon Martin by the arm and the fight started).

I don't think you're blaming him, but there are certainly others who have.

[icunurse]

I think the biggest part for me thinking that GZ is lying is the lack of DNA. Yes, I know that there were issues with *possible* degradation, but, still, if TM was causing all this physical damage to GZ, why wasn't there any blood or DNA on TM at all? Grabbing the guys head and bashing it an unknown number of times and there is zero DNA under his nails? GZ is bleeding from a broken nose and yet no DNA on the hoodie at all? I always wonder if GZ went and, in self preservation, bashed his head and face on some concrete before the police came. Sorry, but for the scuffle that GZ is alleging, those two should have had at least a little DNA on them, IMO.

[janine]

There is alot of gray in everyone's interpretations - with no witnesses or definitive proof one way or the other that is what we are left with. When there is gray area, our system always leans towards no conviction because of the courts' interest in protecting the innocent, even if means one innocent person is spared while 100's might have possibly got away with something. We can speculate but we do not know. If GZ had the legal backing to carry and shoot and we can't prove his intentions were criminal, well then have to acquit.

[JBaxter]

There was a man who testified that he saw the hoodie wearing man < TM> on top of < discription of what GZ was wearing>
thumping/striking him at the trial. I just saw a few minutes of that part.

Pretty sure I heard that part but my memory is getting fuzzy with everything Ive heard/read now

http://www.ibtimes.com/george-zimmerman-trial-jonathan-good-testifies-trayvon-martin-was-top-zimmerman-during-fight-1327855#

Ok he said he couldn't tell if he was striking him or not.

[Kindra178]

There is alot of gray in everyone's interpretations - with no witnesses or definitive proof one way or the other that is what we are left with. When there is gray area, our system always leans towards no conviction because of the courts' interest in protecting the innocent, even if means one innocent person is spared while 100's might have possibly got away with something. We can speculate but we do not know. If GZ had the legal backing to carry and shoot and we can't prove his intentions were criminal, well then have to acquit.

Unfortunately, gray areas don't always lead to acquittals, especially when the alleged assailant/perp is black. You highlighted the crux of the issue.

On another note, does anyone know why the jury in a criminal murder trial only had 6 jurors on it?

[janine]

Unfortunately, gray areas don't always lead to acquittals, especially when the alleged assailant/perp is black. You highlighted the crux of the issue.

On another note, does anyone know why the jury in a criminal murder trial only had 6 jurors on it?

Of course the system has flaws (and I had said the system leans this way, not an absoute), but then that isn't the purpose of this trial..to right all perceived previous wrongs.

[AngB]

Unfortunately, gray areas don't always lead to acquittals, especially when the alleged assailant/perp is black. You highlighted the crux of the issue.

On another note, does anyone know why the jury in a criminal murder trial only had 6 jurors on it?

It's a Florida thing, except for trials seeking the death penalty have to have 12.

[icunurse]

There was a man who testified that he saw the hoodie wearing man < TM> on top of < discription of what GZ was wearing>
thumping/striking him at the trial. I just saw a few minutes of that part.

Pretty sure I heard that part but my memory is getting fuzzy with everything Ive heard/read now

Nope, you are right. But it seems as though every witness kept changing their account as to who was on top, what kind of fighting was happening, etc. I don't doubt that they fought, I have doubts about the severity of it, I guess. Was it punches thrown and blocked by GZ (which would decrease DNA if you are hitting mostly his jacket)? I also think that in my line of work (trauma), I have seen a lot of fight victims and GZ just didn't look bad enough for the amount of hits he claimed to take. Again, JMO.

[♥ms.pacman♥]

The way I see this (and I'm sure to get flamed) is Zimmerman is not necessarily innocent, and at the very least it is clear he made several poor decisions that led to this fatal tragic result.
But based on Florida laws he had the authority to carry and shoot when felt threatened and we simply cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he intentionally shot vs. out of perceived belief he was being threatened.

Outrage over this is understandable but I personally do see how the jury came to this conclusion and it was a fair trial with as far as I can tell - a fairly selected and impartial jury. To me the furor should be directed at Florida state laws and questions over their liberal policy over neighborhood watches etc.
thank you for this post. i totally agree with the bolded. as i posted earlier about the Ezekiel Gilbert case and as TxCat mentioned we have a similar issue in Texas...people can shoot not only if in self-defense but also if they are being robbed (and not even under direct attack). That along with the lax gun laws is really really scary to me...as the the vanity fair article said, people could extend this to shooting people who they THINK are committing a crime (but not threatening you in any way). Re: the Ezekiel Gilbert acquittal it seemed to barely make the news here..there was definitely no uproar that i saw...which to me was disturbing.

and i do agree that the outrage should be focused on the laws, vigilantism etc and not race...ironically however the same folks who say they don't understand the outrage, that it's not about race are the same ones who claim that GZ had the right to profile TM because he was black, as "all the local crimes were being committed by blacks," etc aren't exactly helping the situation at all. It's comments like these that actually DO make people think there were racist components to the trial.

[westwoodmom04]

There is alot of gray in everyone's interpretations - with no witnesses or definitive proof one way or the other that is what we are left with. When there is gray area, our system always leans towards no conviction because of the courts' interest in protecting the innocent, even if means one innocent person is spared while 100's might have possibly got away with something. We can speculate but we do not know. If GZ had the legal backing to carry and shoot and we can't prove his intentions were criminal, well then have to acquit.


Certainly this is one way to look at the evidence. Another is that the facts that are not "gray" are enough to convict. You don't need "criminal" intentions to convict for manslaughter (although you do for second degree murder), only reckless actions that caused the death of another. Many people, including myself, believe that the jury would not have accepted the self-defense argument under the exact same facts if Trayvon Martin was an unarmed white teenager.

[marymoo86]

We do not know that Trayvon "confronted" or "assaulted' GZ, that is GZ's story. Since GZ demonstrably lied about other things, there is no reason to accept that as fact. Zimmerman's account is not consistent with the testimony of the girl on the phone with Trayvon, or with his call with the police dispatcher. We know there was a scuffle, but don't know who started it or when exactly Zimmerman first showed his gun.

Wasn't it proven that the girl on the phone also had several inconsistencies? From what was shown of her testimony, I can't believe she would be credible. I really felt bad for her.

[janine]

Certainly this is one way to look at the evidence. Another is that the facts that are not "gray" are enough to convict. You don't need "criminal" intentions to convict for manslaughter (although you do for second degree murder), only reckless actions that caused the death of another. Many people, including myself, believe that the jury would not have accepted the self-defense argument under the exact same facts if Trayvon Martin was an unarmed white teenager.

Manslaughter requires intention to kill (vs a self defensive reaction). The jury had to believe that that was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. They did request details on the definition of manslaughter right before reaching their verdict. The belief that the result would have been different if the teen was white is just pure speculation with emotion interjected, it IMO has no place in making a decision based on the facts of this trial. Those issues are real, don't get me wrong, but the jury's role was not to render a decision in that context.

[wendibird22]

TwinFoxes;3831014]I think it's completely understandable that a 17 year old, who wants to think of himself as a man not a little boy, tried to act tough and turned around to say "what up, why are you following me". He was a high school kid out buying candy. He doesn't have the pleasure of hindsight, or really even time to think out his reaction. As jbaxter pointed out, teenage boys can be hot heads. Fear may have made him act like a tough guy. (This is all assuming Zimmerman told the truth that he was confronted...for all we know he grabbed Trayvon Martin by the arm and the fight started).

And I also think it's reasonable to assume that this probably wasn't the first time TM felt that he was being followed, watched, sized up and judged. I could certainly imagine that eventually you just get sick of that and wanting to confront the person doing it with a "leave me the f alone attitude." A colleague and I were discussing this and she reminded me of the movie Crash and a scene where Terrence Howard is pulled over by a cop and asked to stay in the car but he doesn't cause he's trying to be a man and make up for the last time he and is wife were pulled over and he didn't stand up for her and he felt belittled.

[westwoodmom04]

Wasn't it proven that the girl on the phone also had several inconsistencies? From what was shown of her testimony, I can't believe she would be credible. I really felt bad for her.

Really, why would you find it unbelievable that she would be found credible?

[Kindra178]

It's a Florida thing, except for trials seeking the death penalty have to have 12.

Thanks. That is INSANE and lazy.

[marymoo86]

Really, why would you find it unbelievable that she would be found credible?

Just based on the limited testimony, it might have been the day she was caught in the lie about here whereabouts during the funeral. I also didn't state it was unbelievable, just that I didn't believe her as credible. AGAIN, I didn't follow that closely but it was my impression based on the news clips of how they portrayed. Is that okay?

[westwoodmom04]

Manslaughter requires intention to kill (vs a self defensive reaction). The jury had to believe that that was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. They did request details on the definition of manslaughter right before reaching their verdict. The belief that the result would have been different if the teen was white is just pure speculation with emotion interjected, it IMO has no place in making a decision based on the facts of this trial. Those issues are real, don't get me wrong, but the jury's role was not to render a decision in that context.

With all due respect, you are mistaken. Manslaughter does not require an intent to kill; it only requires an intent to commit an act that led to the death of another (that is what distinguishes it from murder). Self defense is still available as a defense. The jury requested clarification and then went ahead and reached a decision before receiving the clarification (the judge had sent back a note asking what they wanted clarification on, and they did not respond).

As to whether the jury would have reached a different decision if Trayvon was white, that is my opinion. Everyone is free to differ on that.

[wellyes]

Just based on the limited testimony, it might have been the day she was caught in the lie about here whereabouts during the funeral. I also didn't state it was unbelievable, just that I didn't believe her as credible. AGAIN, I didn't follow that closely but it was my impression based on the news clips of how they portrayed. Is that okay?

She did have some inconsistencies, but George Zimmerman had slightly different stories told to different people too. He said his head was bashed in the concrete 25 times, but his injuries do not remotely back that up (and he changed his story later). Doesn't mean everything either one said is a lie.

[janine]

With all due respect, you are mistaken. Manslaughter does not require an intent to kill; it only requires an intent to commit an act that led to the death of another (that is what distinguishes it from murder). The jury requested clarification and then went ahead and reached a decision before receiving the clarification (the judge had sent back a note asking what they wanted clarification on, and they did not respond).

As to whether the jury would have reached a different decision is Trayvon was white, that is my opinion. Everyone is free to differ on that.

Intent to commit an act that led to the death still requires a high level of proof to result in a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt - and that was simply not there in this case. And if the jury went forward before receiving clarification (that piece was not clear to me) then perhaps the hold out(s) felt sufficiently satisfied the bar was not met, even without the clarification. All which is reasonable and sound behavior from a jury.

And the last line of your post when you say this is just your opinion is fair, but not relevant to not guilty result.

[Fairy]

Wasn't it proven that the girl on the phone also had several inconsistencies? From what was shown of her testimony, I can't believe she would be credible. I really felt bad for her.

Wait, why? Why would her testimony not be credible? I haven't heard this before, can you please clarify?

[westwoodmom04]

Just based on the limited testimony, it might have been the day she was caught in the lie about here whereabouts during the funeral. I also didn't state it was unbelievable, just that I didn't believe her as credible. AGAIN, I didn't follow that closely but it was my impression based on the news clips of how they portrayed. Is that okay?

Of course, you can have any personal opinion you chose, but the language in your original post suggested no one could find her credible. I asked only because she was made an object of ridicule by some segments of the media because of her lack of sophistication. I found her actual testimony to be credible and her explanation for her "lies" to be understandable, i.e. did not go to the funeral because she didn't want to see the body of her friend, lied about her age (to make herself a juvenile) in an effort to not be a part of the investigation.

[Fairy]

Manslaughter requires intention to kill (vs a self defensive reaction). The jury had to believe that that was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. They did request details on the definition of manslaughter right before reaching their verdict. The belief that the result would have been different if the teen was white is just pure speculation with emotion interjected, it IMO has no place in making a decision based on the facts of this trial. Those issues are real, don't get me wrong, but the jury's role was not to render a decision in that context.

NOOOO no no no no. Manslaughter does NOT require an intention to kill, that's murder. Manslaughter is what happens when someone dies as a result of some kind of other act. That's the foundation of manslaughter, someone died, accidentally or at least without any intention, due to another act you committed.

[Fairy]

Sorry, clearly, I'm reading these out of order. On this reply to a similar post that I made correcting your defn of manslaughter ...


Intent to commit an act that led to the death still requires a high level of proof to result in a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt - and that was simply not there in this case.

Well ... you're mistaken here, too, and GZ would agree with me. His intent was more than clear. He intended to stop TM from walking this neighborhood. His intent was clear when he got out of the car. When he used force with a gun. I, myself, am not 100% sure it's murder instead of manslaughter (cuz I don't buy self defense, but that's water under the bridge and out of scope for this comment), but his INTENT behind the ACTIONS that led to him shooting Trayvon and thereby killing him are absolutely rock solid.

[secchick]

Thanks. That is INSANE and lazy.

It depends, under the constitution, the SC has held that a conviction by a six person jury has to be unanimous. That is not the case with a 12 person jury, where IIRC, a state can convict with a 10-2 or 9-3 verdict. I think that less than 6 jurors is considered to violate the 6th amendment, as is less than 9 votes out of 12.

[Kindra178]

It depends, under the constitution, the SC has held that a conviction by a six person jury has to be unanimous. That is not the case with a 12 person jury, where IIRC, a state can convict with a 10-2 or 9-3 verdict. I think that less than 6 jurors is considered to violate the 6th amendment, as is less than 9 votes out of 12.

http://www.floridalawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Saks-BK.pdf

[janine]

NOOOO no no no no. Manslaughter does NOT require an intention to kill, that's murder. Manslaughter is what happens when someone dies as a result of some kind of other act. That's the foundation of manslaughter, someone died, accidentally or at least without any intention, due to another act you committed.

"In most jurisdictions, voluntary manslaughter consists of an intentional killing that is accompanied by additional circumstances that mitigate, but do not excuse, the killing.."

"According to Florida law, it states in part,”The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification…, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree.” That is the definition currently used in Florida based on a decision of the Florida Supreme Court.

To be convicted of the act of manslaughter, intent to kill is not required but a determination of an intentional act that causes the death of the victim is necessary according the state’s laws/definition".

So Florida's interpretation varies abit (as WW had earlier posted) but there is an intention that must be proven. Also it is not clear (to me)that there was differentiation between voluntary/involuntary manslaughter (with earlier requiring intent). In any case, the bar was not there even in these interpretations for the case to be proven. Also the prosecution's decision to not have the jury consider manslaughter from the get go was a misstep perhaps.

[Fairy]

You're right, there is voluntary vs. involuntary. My mind was on the involuntary kind. But I believe GZ's intent in his actions were very clear for involuntary manslaughter.

[janine]

You're right, there is voluntary vs. involuntary. My mind was on the involuntary kind. But I believe GZ's intent in his actions were very clear for involuntary manslaughter.

I think there was a fair case for that (involuntary manslaughter). I don't know what was presented to the jury though, all I heard is that they were told to consider manslaughter last minute - I think the prosecution should answer to that, why they went for 2nd degree or nothing -- maybe it was due to various external pressures or maybe it was overconfidence. That decision likely lost the case. I have no legal background though so just thinking aloud.

[westwoodmom04]

"In most jurisdictions, voluntary manslaughter consists of an intentional killing that is accompanied by additional circumstances that mitigate, but do not excuse, the killing.."

"According to Florida law, it states in part,”The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification…, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree.” That is the definition currently used in Florida based on a decision of the Florida Supreme Court.


To be convicted of the act of manslaughter, intent to kill is not required but a determination of an intentional act that causes the death of the victim is necessary according the state’s laws/definition".

So Florida's interpretation varies abit (as WW had earlier posted) but there is an intention that must be proven. Also it is not clear (to me)that there was differentiation between voluntary/involuntary manslaughter (with earlier requiring intent). In any case, the bar was not there even in these interpretations for the case to be proven. Also the prosecution's decision to not have the jury consider manslaughter from the get go was a misstep perhaps.

This is still not entirely correct. The intent requirement was met here by Zimmerman intending to fire the gun. That is all the intent that is required for manslaughter. The reason he was not convicted is the "without lawful justification", his self defense argument created the lawful justification, at least with this jury. In contrast, an unintentional act would be dropping the gun and it going off.

For murder, you do need intent to harm.

[kara97210]

I think there was a fair case for that (involuntary manslaughter). I don't know what was presented to the jury though, all I heard is that they were told to consider manslaughter last minute - I think the prosecution should answer to that, why they went for 2nd degree or nothing -- maybe it was due to various external pressures or maybe it was overconfidence. That decision likely lost the case. I have no legal background though so just thinking aloud.

I don't think the jury is told what charges to consider until the end, that's how it was on the jury that I served on (which was not a murder case). We were given the evidence and then, just before deliberations, list of charges.

My understanding from what I read on the Zimmerman case manslaughter was always in the charge (and that that is typical for murder cases), where there was criticism was that the prosecutors tried to add murder in the 3rd degree at the last minute, but the judge didn't allow it.

[kara97210]

and i do agree that the outrage should be focused on the laws, vigilantism etc and not race...ironically however the same folks who say they don't understand the outrage, that it's not about race are the same ones who claim that GZ had the right to profile TM because he was black, as "all the local crimes were being committed by blacks," etc aren't exactly helping the situation at all. It's comments like these that actually DO make people think there were racist components to the trial.

:yeahthat:
On the radio this morning, someone pointed out that the vast majority of mass shooters have been young, white men, but that most reasonable people would agree that it would be absurd to start profiling all white men between 15-30 as potential deranged gunmen. I think when people say it's ok to profile a certain group, they just reveal their own bias.

[megs4413]

My understanding from what I read on the Zimmerman case manslaughter was always in the charge (and that that is typical for murder cases), where there was criticism was that the prosecutors tried to add murder in the 3rd degree at the last minute, but the judge didn't allow it.

This is actually NOT my understanding. My understanding is that it was added after both sides rested while they were going over jury instructions and that it was VEHEMENTLY objected to by defense because they were not prepared for the charge and hadn't presented a defense to it. The prosecution also tried to add a 3rd degree murder option, but the judge rejected that one. the judge allowed the lesser included of manslaughter despite objections. that's my understanding (as a layman!) from actually watching the proceedings live.

[kara97210]

This is actually NOT my understanding. My understanding is that it was added after both sides rested while they were going over jury instructions and that it was VEHEMENTLY objected to by defense because they were not prepared for the charge and hadn't presented a defense to it. The prosecution also tried to add a 3rd degree murder option, but the judge rejected that one. the judge allowed the lesser included of manslaughter despite objections. that's my understanding (as a layman!) from actually watching the proceedings live.

Hmm, I watched this live (I was off work last week helping my mom recover from surgery) and the legal expert (pretty sure it was CNN). that it was almost always included with every murder charge including Casey Anthony, etc. in fact they pointed out that the initial police investigators wanted to charge manslaughter, once it went to the special prosecutor it was upgraded to murder 2.

The outrage from the defense was definitely about the murder 3, which was attached to a child abuse claim. Here's a clip of the defense - http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UW6K_nXySGA&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DUW6K_nXySGA

[megs4413]

Hmm, I watched this live (I was off work last week helping my mom recover from surgery) and the legal expert (pretty sure it was CNN). that it was almost always included with every murder charge including Casey Anthony, etc. in fact they pointed out that the initial police investigators wanted to charge manslaughter, once it went to the special prosecutor it was upgraded to murder 2.

The outrage from the defense was definitely about the murder 3, which was attached to a child abuse claim. Here's a clip of the defense - http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UW6K_nXySGA&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DUW6K_nXySGA

you know, I don't really want to argue about this, but I am pretty sure it is incorrect that the lesser charge of manslaughter was included in the original complaint. That's all I'm trying to say. It may be the case that it frequently is included in trials like this, but what I'm saying is that it wasn't brought up in THIS trial until testimony was completed on the wednesday before the verdict. (maybe that's standard in a criminal proceeding generally?) The defense originally objected to both proposed lesser included charges (3rd degree murder and manslaughter) but the judge completely overruled the objection to manslaughter. That happened on thursday. I don't have a transcript to work off of, but these running updates from HLN help a little. you have to read from the bottom up chronologically and note that the judge doesn't allow for objections to the charge of manslaughter because she's already ruled it's included by law, but she does ask for objections to the jury instructions for the charge:

[Updated at 10:08 a.m. ET]
Nelson says that based on case law she will charge Zimmerman with manslaughter. Nelson is now asking if there are any objections the manslaughter jury instruction.
[Updated at 10:06 a.m. ET]
Prosecutor Mantei is giving his argument as to why Florida law demands that lesser included charges in this case.
[Updated at 10:04 a.m. ET]
Prosecutors are no longer seeking the lesser included charge of aggravated assault. They are now asking that Zimmerman be charged with third-degree felony murder.
[Updated at 10:03 a.m. ET]
Nelson is asking Zimmerman if he understands that his attorneys are objecting to the lesser included charges and that his attorney plans to argue during his closing argument that it's either second-degree murder or not guilty.

You are quite right that the original recommendation to the prosecutor's office was for a manslaughter charge. I have not been able to find anywhere why that wasn't followed up on before the whole hoopla involving the inquest go going and all those people originally in charge got fired.