 sj |
||
|
||
BS: George Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 14 Jul 13 - 09:29 PM 800! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Bobert Date: 14 Jul 13 - 09:36 PM BTW, are you going to answer the question. GfinS??? You ask me lots of questions and I try to answer them... I've asked you hundreds of questions over the years and you have never answered one single one... That is called truth avoidance... Until you start answering some of my questions don't ask me any more... All you are doing is playing games and avoiding reality with you games... Square business... Now, you ready to discuss Southern black women??? If not, then don't ask me to answer your "ahh-hah-excuse-me-I'm-ignorant-but-I'm-tryin'-to-hide-it" dumbass questions... No more fucking games... Just answer the question... Tell us about your past living here in the South... That is a fair question since you seem to want to speak as someone who understands the South... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Bobert Date: 14 Jul 13 - 09:37 PM 800??? Wrong twice, GfinS... You are on a roll... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 14 Jul 13 - 09:52 PM Bobert: "800???" Yeah, we cross posted..pretty close to the same time! Now, to my question...I already know the answer, as to why the black woman voted to acquit..I just wanted you to think about it, and come to your senses. Look, I avoided even coming on this thread, till about the very end...and when I got here, I gave you VERY straight answers and insight to the trial..ALL of which, turned out accurate. I didn't say that either you or I were going to like it or agree..but I hung and walked you through it...even the aftermath..right? What else can I do??..I've been a good enough friend to be accurate for you. I've pleaded with you to 'Get off the tracks', in other words do NOTHING to inspire or instill hated, bigotry, and racism into anyone else. I've tried to dissuade you from taking parts in any protests or demonstrations, where someone might get hurt..including YOU! What else can I do, with these little letters on the screen?? so..I'll pop in and take a look here and there, but for the most part, I'm done! BTW, my Dad was born in Missouri. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Bobert Date: 14 Jul 13 - 09:54 PM So, GfinS... Tell us why a Southern black woman would vote to acquit... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Don Firth Date: 14 Jul 13 - 09:56 PM Fascinating reading: Sanford, Florida Has a History of Brutal Racist Oppression: KKK Once Drove Hall-Of-Famer Jackie Robinson Out of TownCLICKY Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Bobert Date: 14 Jul 13 - 10:04 PM Thank you, Don... Apparently GfinS thinks that the world is filled with all these wonderful people who wouldn't dare be racists... Maybe GfinS will read what you have posted and realize where I am going with my questioning... Doesn't much matter... GfinS wants to hide a terrible jury decision behind the vote on one black woman... I understand this as do most Southerners... Everything plays into these stories... So, GfinS... Please enlighten us as to you knowledge of the South... Your experiences here...Your knowledge of bacl women in the South... These are reasonable questions since you are justifying your opinion of the verdict by singling out a blackwoman... Now, GfinS... Please answer the question... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: CET Date: 14 Jul 13 - 10:23 PM "Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Bobert - PM Date: 14 Jul 13 - 11:43 AM Greg, There is such a fund... Google TrayvonMartin.com and see if that works... Yo, Jeri, I guess you were perfectly okay with the O.J. Simpson verdict, as well..." B~ That's unworthy of you Bobert. This case is nothing like O.J.'s. Jeri makes a good point. Zimmerman was racially biased. That seems clear enough. A bad law allowed him to be carrying a gun. No doubt on that score. He had no business following Martin. However, none of that leads inevitably to the conclusion that he murdered Trayvon Martin. There was some evidence on which the jury could conclude that Zimmerman acted in self defence and the prosecution seems to have failed to disprove self defence beyond a reasonable doubt. The law requires that guilt be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Sometimes that means that people who are possibly or even likely guilty are acquitted. Some of those people have repugnant habits and ideas. I don't mean that jury verdicts are never perverse. Sometimes they are and O.J. Is a case in point. However, juries are obliged to, and usually do, decide on the basis of the evidence presented to them and not on emotion and popular pressure. I don't we can say that the Zimmerman jury failed to do that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Bobert Date: 14 Jul 13 - 10:44 PM Sorry, GUEST, but I didn't initiate the comment that the jury had spoken so get over it... That was Jeri's take on the verdict... Verdicts are wrong... O.J., the most famous of today's murderers who got away with it, is the obvious case... The number of folks exonerated from death row is "Argument B" seein' as a lot of folks don't keep up with that little factoide... As for this jury and the thousands of juries though out the South in the past??? Sad grade... So, GUEST, I disagree with you that my post was "unworthy"... I came up in the civil rights movement... My mom and I were both arrested for civil-disobedience... I worked in the jail house as a teacher... I was a social worker... All in the South... I went years were I barely saw white people... If anyone here is ***worthy*** of talking about race and having seen up-close Southern justice, it is me... This ain't no brag... This is fact... If you doubt my resume then PM and I'll give you references... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Bobert Date: 14 Jul 13 - 10:46 PM Sorry, that last post was to CET... My bad... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Songwronger Date: 15 Jul 13 - 12:35 AM The current stack of headline links on the Drudge Report. The Obama/Ayers team is pushing hard to get their race riots: VERDICT DIVIDES... Sanford residents wary, on edge... Demonstrators in cities across country... CA protesters break windows, start fires... Cause Gridlock In Midtown Manhattan... Teen threatens 'mass homicide' on TWITTER... NY Giants Star: 'Zimmerman Doesn't Last Year Before Hood Catches Up to Him'... Beyonce holds moment of silence at concert... Celebs React... Sharpton: 'Slap in Face'... OBAMA: HONOR TRAYVON WITH GUN-CONTROL... Justice Dept: Under Review... *PAPER: Federal case would face obstacles... **Lead Cop Told FBI Zimmerman Not A Racist... Sen. Reid: 'This isn't over'... Pastor delivers sermon in hoodie... Will jury remain anonymous? TIMELINE: Media's prosecution of Zimmerman... Legal Team Sets Sights On NBC... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: michaelr Date: 15 Jul 13 - 12:38 AM CET: "none of that leads inevitably to the conclusion that he murdered Trayvon Martin." Really? Which one had the gun? Which one is dead? Someone please retitle this thread "Justice withheld". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 15 Jul 13 - 04:35 AM ""Everyone who is bitching vociferously, obviously DON'T understand the LAW!!. Also, the 'stand your ground' premise was NOT used in this case, but may be used 'successfully in any civil lawsuits."" No Goofus, it is you who don't understand, because you are too busy spouting your own opinions to listen to any incoming comment. The authorities didn't screw up this case through incompetence, in fact they did the most deliberate and competent job of wrecking a case they didn't want to win that I have ever seen. They didn't want to arrest him....FACT! They didn't want to charge him....FACT! They didn't want to try him.......FACT! The made DAMN SURE they didn't convict him. This is not about the LAW, as you seem to think, it's about WHITE LAW! Today Zimmerman is a white hero, but when the case is over and forgotten, he'll be just another goddam wetback to them. ___________________________________________________________________ BTW, Here's something to try for yourself. Lie down on the floor and get a friend to kneel astride your chest. With his thigh between your arm and your torso and his lower leg along your side to well below your waist, try to reach the point on the rear half of your side, which Zimmerman identified as the position of his gun. I tried this, and I coudn't reach it at all, but even had I got my fingertips there, I could not have drawn a gun, because it would be trapped in the crook of his knee, or between his leg and my body. The same experiment with my arms between his leg and my body, trapped at my side, was equally impossible. The only possible conclusion is that liar George drew the weapon before he was knocked to the ground by a punch, and the struggle that ensued was Trayvon's desperate attemts to stay alive. Try it out for yourself if you doubt my word. The greenest prosecution lawyer should have thought of having that demonstrated. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Richard Bridge Date: 15 Jul 13 - 04:53 AM Above it is argued that Dershowitz asserts there was reasonable doubt. If you want to know what he REALLY thinks about reasonable doubt look at the list of people he has defended. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 15 Jul 13 - 05:03 AM Don, how did he manage it in the reconstruction? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 15 Jul 13 - 06:07 AM Richard, how would a list of his clients tell us anything about his view of "reasonable doubt" which is a well understood concept anyway? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: CET Date: 15 Jul 13 - 06:47 AM Bobert: I actually knew about your civil rights work. I've also been reading your stuff on Mudcat for years and I have always considered you to be one of the voices of sanity. That's why I wrote "unworthy". It seemed to me that you were taking a dig at Jeri that wasn't up to your usual standard. I meant no disrespect to you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 15 Jul 13 - 06:56 AM ""Don, how did he manage it in the reconstruction?"" Don't be naive Keith, it was a reconstruction and the bloke on top wasn't trying hard to stop him. If Trayvon Martin (17 to Zimmerman's 29) were the "Younger, stronger man", as portrayed by the defence, Zimmerman would never have reached that gun. The truth is that Zimmerman either drew the gun before he was punched, or threw the three and a half stone lighter kid off, and then shot him dead. Self defence?....NO WAY! Still don't believe it Keith? Don't make an ass of yourself. Try it out with someone who is really trying to hold you down. That's what I did! Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Greg F. Date: 15 Jul 13 - 08:26 AM Since when did the South secede, and NOT be a part of the U.S.?? 1861. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Bobert Date: 15 Jul 13 - 08:58 AM CET, I was taking a dig at Jeri... This idea that since the jury decided that Zimmerman had a right to shoot and kill Martin that everyone should just accept that and move on doesn't sit well with me... I felt the same way when the jury acquitted O. J. Simpson and am happy knowing that O.J. is now in jail where he belongs... What I am mostly concerned about is this ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Committee) that is pushing all these extreme right wing laws where-ever they see a chance of getting these laws on the books... The way the law in Florida reads anyone can murder anyone if they say they felt threatened... It doesn't matter who instigates the conflict... That is insanity and these laws come directly from the NRA to ALEC to a statehouse in your neighborhood... So, yeah, CET... Anyone who agrees that it's okay to gun down people because a jury will let them off is going to get a "dig", at the very least, by me... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: number 6 Date: 15 Jul 13 - 09:29 AM From a poet friend of mine ... he's a Vietnam Vet, and a U.S. expat now living here in N.B. There Seems To Be Something Wrong There seems to be something wrong with America as those of us on the outside look in the question is why won't America fix it.. there seems to be something wrong with America that those of us on the outside see which many Americans will staunchly disagree .. on the outside we thought America was the land of freedom and equality perhaps it was and still could but right now today it's an elusive dream.. it's the wild old west it's every man or woman for themselves a nation of shoot em up or pass the buck and if you want to see how corruption is done just turn your television to an American new organization in full view you'll see American's disintegration not one word will be spoken on how to save their nation there's seems to be something wrong with America that those of us on the outside see which many Americans will tragically and VIOLENTLY disagree.. Clyde A. Wray July 15, 2013 All Rights Reserved |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Richard Bridge Date: 15 Jul 13 - 09:42 AM To be fair Bobster, I don't see many persons of colour being likely to be acquitted by reason of those laws. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 15 Jul 13 - 09:53 AM Some points of English Law for comparison. 4. In court, the claim of self defence is proved if the defendant,genuinely believed they were being attacked, or where in imminent danger of attack and the response was proportionate to the perceived threat. 5. If you are attacked, the courts will not expect you to calculate an exact amount of reasonable force. 6. If you perceive you are threatened, you are entitled to act in self defence and not be penalised by the courts – "…if the defendant makes a genuine mistake about the exsistence of a threat, they are entitled to rely on self defence as a defence even if no threat actually existed…..". 7. In law you do not have to wait for the first blow – "…. a defendant need not wait until they are struck before using force in their defence…." The court of appeal has ruled that, – "……a defendant is entitled to use self defence by striking their assailant before they are struck; and in exceptional circumstances, arm themselves against an expected imminent attack. 8. Although you are expected to show reasonable restraint, as a matter of law you are not obliged to retreat or show unwillingness to fight. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Greg F. Date: 15 Jul 13 - 10:02 AM Source? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Bobert Date: 15 Jul 13 - 10:06 AM You are 100% correct, Richard... The application of these laws is up to the local authorities... In Florida, the local authorities didn't even want to bring charges against Zimmerman... You missed an important fact, Keith, in that it was Zimmerman who initiated the conflict by stalking Martin... By your "points of English Law" Martin had every right to defend himself... Even if it meant pounding Zimmerman's head into the concrete... Nice piece, Number 6... Yes, there is something very wrong with America and it all could be fixed by making our elections fair... Right now we have 90% of elected officials who come from "safe districts" meaning there is no value in compromise... That creates grid-lock where there really is no "governance"... Like I have suggested over and over... We would do much better if we appointed our representative by a blind lottery - much like jury duty... That way we would get a cross-section of America without BIG $$$ buying and owning representatives... BTW, two very rich guys -the Koch brothers - have bought representatives in just about every state in the United States... They own - yes, own, - half of out North Carolina delegation in both the US House of Representative and our statehouse in Raleigh... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 15 Jul 13 - 10:21 AM No Bobert. Wiki. " Furthermore, a defendant does not lose the right to claim self-defence merely because they instigated the confrontation that created the alleged need for self-defence. A person who kills in the course of a quarrel or even crime they started might still act in self-defence if the 'victim' retaliates or counterattacks." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Elmore Date: 15 Jul 13 - 10:31 AM Thread drift. When we lived in New Hampshire we worked for the Democratic party despite the fact that our town was very conservative. Now that we've moved to the most conservative congressional district east of the Mississippi (in the North Georgia Mountains), it hardly seems worth the effort. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Greg F. Date: 15 Jul 13 - 10:31 AM AH! Blog-O-Paedia! Must be true, Keith. Absolutely. Have you got any real sources you can quote? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Ebbie Date: 15 Jul 13 - 10:31 AM KeithA, does "self defense" include killing? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 15 Jul 13 - 10:32 AM ""6. If you perceive you are threatened, you are entitled to act in self defence and not be penalised by the courts – "…if the defendant makes a genuine mistake about the exsistence of a threat, they are entitled to rely on self defence as a defence even if no threat actually existed…..". 7. In law you do not have to wait for the first blow – "…. a defendant need not wait until they are struck before using force in their defence…." The court of appeal has ruled that, – "……a defendant is entitled to use self defence by striking their assailant before they are struck; and in exceptional circumstances, arm themselves against an expected imminent attack. 8. Although you are expected to show reasonable restraint, as a matter of law you are not obliged to retreat or show unwillingness to fight."" Thank you Keith for proving MY point. Since Zimmerman followed Martin, and instigated the confontation (indisputable since, had he stayed in his car as advised, there would have been no confrontation), Martin was entitled to claim self defence, and since Martin used bare hands against the threat of a gunshot, a claim of unreasonable force could not possibly prevail. Yet Martin was accorded no such entitlement to a claim of self defence, and under US law as applied to this case, using a gun is a reasonable response to a punch in the face and being physically restrained by an unarmed teenager. I don't believe that the concept of "reasonable force" is known to the US legal system in general, and more specifically to the Southern States. Did you try what I suggested yet? I thought not. You never would agree to anything which would make you have to withdraw an argument. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Jim Carroll Date: 15 Jul 13 - 10:43 AM It has just been announced on the news that there are moves afoot to have the case re-tried by the Federal Court - rightly so. It has been long established without doubt that people of the 'wrong colour' are unlikely to receive a fair hearing in certain parts of the US - as shown by the Rodney King beating and the fact that the 'Death Rows' of America are predominantly populated by 'blacks' - or maybe it's just true that Afro-Americans are just 'culturally implanted' killers and natural criminals!! Interesting but far from surprising to see the usual suspect defending a verdict which is obviously flawed. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 15 Jul 13 - 10:43 AM ""No Bobert. Wiki. " Furthermore, a defendant does not lose the right to claim self-defence merely because they instigated the confrontation that created the alleged need for self-defence. A person who kills in the course of a quarrel or even crime they started might still act in self-defence if the 'victim' retaliates or counterattacks."" Keith, a simple yes or no question. If a man in street clothes followed you in a car, then on foot, and then finally confonted you face to face, late at night in a deserted street, would you deny that you would fear, or have reason to fear that he meant you harm? That is what happened to Trayvon Martin. He had genuine reason to fear harm or risk to life and limb. That was not taken into account, because he was: 1. Black! 2. Walking through a gated community! 3. Wearing dark clothes and a hoodie! Heaven help the next black kid who fancies a bag of sweets and a drink after dark. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 15 Jul 13 - 10:45 AM Ebbie, yes. Don.I thought not. You never would agree to anything which would make you have to withdraw an argument. Neither of us has rolled on the floor with someone over this Don, and I have not put forward any argument to withdraw. Just stated facts and asked questions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 15 Jul 13 - 10:48 AM Sorry. Ebbie, yes. Don.I thought not. You never would agree to anything which would make you have to withdraw an argument. Neither of us has rolled on the floor with someone over this Don, and I have not put forward any argument to withdraw. Just stated facts and asked questions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 15 Jul 13 - 10:49 AM Bugger! I forgot reason 4: 4. Because he can't argue the point, since he is most conveniently DEAD! Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 15 Jul 13 - 10:53 AM Once again the Hertford LIAR accuses someone without any evidence at all. One of us did lie (not roll) on the carpet and test this. One of us hasn't the guts to risk being not just wrong, but stupidly wrong. Guess which is which folks. There's no prize because it's too easy. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 15 Jul 13 - 11:08 AM After interviewing nearly three dozen people in the George Zimmerman murder case, the FBI found no evidence that racial bias was a motivating factor in the shooting of Trayvon Martin, records released Thursday show. Even the lead detective in the case, Sanford Det. Chris Serino, told agents that he thought Zimmerman profiled Trayvon because of his attire and the circumstances — but not his race. Serino saw Zimmerman as "having little hero complex, but not as a racist." The Duval County State Attorney released another collection of evidence in the Zimmerman murder case Thursday, including reports from FBI agents who investigated whether any racial bias was involved in Trayvon's Feb. 26 killing. The evidence includes bank surveillance videos from the day of the killing, crime scene photos and memos from prosecutors. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/07/12/155918/more-evidence-released-in-trayvon.html#.UeQPehZ1CS1 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Richard Bridge Date: 15 Jul 13 - 11:10 AM Shooting someone is not a reasonably proportionate response - not least because the gun Z was carrying could not have been lawfully so carried in the UK. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 15 Jul 13 - 11:13 AM MIAMI — After five weeks of trial and 56 witnesses, few legal observers believed prosecutors came close to proving Sanford, Fla., neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman committed second-degree murder when he shot and killed Trayvon Martin in February 2012. So for many legal analysts, it was no surprise that jurors rejected even a lesser "compromise" verdict of manslaughter, acquitting Zimmerman outright of all criminal charges and deciding he acted in a reasonable way to protect his own life. The acquittal was a stinging blow for prosecutors and their decision to file the second-degree murder charge against Zimmerman, who was not initially arrested by Sanford police after claiming self-defense. And it was a resounding embrace of the defense's strategy during closing arguments not just to establish that prosecutors hadn't proven Zimmerman guilty, but also to show he was "absolutely" innocent. "The jury clearly believed that you have a right to defend yourself," said Jude M. Faccidomo, the former president of Miami's Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "Especially when cases are so gray, like this one was, self-defense really resonates because people can associate with being afraid." And while some also have questioned the state attorney's office acceptance of a mostly white jury, a more diverse panel would have returned the same verdict, lawyers who have watched the case believe. "After seeing the quality of the evidence presented by the state, the diversity of the jury really didn't matter in the end," said Larry Handfield, a prominent African American Miami criminal defense lawyer. "But it would have helped the community in giving more credibility to the decision to acquit Zimmerman." By now, the basic outline of the confrontation between the 29-year-old volunteer watch coordinator and the 17-year-old Miami Gardens, Fla., student have become familiar through wall-to-wall television coverage and thousands of news stories. Prosecutors said Zimmerman "profiled" Martin, who was returning from a nearby convenience store and was walking through the gated Retreat at Twin Lakes neighborhood where he was staying with his father. Zimmerman called a non-emergency police number to report Martin as "suspicious." A violent struggle followed on rain-slicked grass and a concrete walkway. During the confrontation, Zimmerman shot and killed Martin at point-blank range. A look at the evidence shows why the jury rejected the state's case. For prosecutors intent on proving the more serious charge, proving the "ill-will," "hatred" or "spite" needed to convict on second-degree murder hinged on painting Zimmerman as a frustrated, would-be cop fed up with intruders in his gated Sanford community. To do so, they focused on Zimmerman's past - over defense objections - introducing evidence of his interest in law enforcement, including a ride-along with Sanford police, a class on criminal justice, an unsuccessful application to a Virginia police department. Prosecutors also played five calls to police that Zimmerman made in the several months before the shooting, in an attempt to show a pattern of "profiling." They also introduced evidence about his membership at a mixed martial arts gym. Their most important evidence to prove "ill-will" was Zimmerman's call to a Sanford police non-emergency dispatcher when he first spotted Martin, saying "these assholes always get away" and, according to prosecutors, muttering "fucking punks" under his breath "If there was ever a window into that man's soul, it was that defendant's words on that phone call," prosecutor John Guy told the jury Friday in a poignant closing argument that appeared to have at least one juror emotionally strained. Guy's closing argument was typical of a state's case that drew heavily on emotion and emphasized the youth of the victim, as well as one of the most important witnesses: Martin's friend, Rachel Jeantel, 18 at the time of the shooting. She was speaking to him by phone moments before he died and recounted her recollection that Martin told her someone was following him. Jeantel told jurors that Martin told her of a "creepy-ass cracker" watching him as he walked home from the convenience store, and of hearing the man angrily demand to know what Martin was doing in the neighborhood. Jeantel said she then heard a bump that she assumed was Martin's cell phone headset hitting the ground, followed by Martin's voice: "Get off! Get off!" Her testimony was not polished or articulate, and she sparred for hours with defense attorneys - at one point crying "what!" when told she had to return for a second day of testimony. But her story remained unchanged. "I thought she was a good witness. I thought the jury would be sympathetic to her because she was an (18)-year-old kid, she was inexperienced at testifying and that made her come across as credible," said Miami defense lawyer Andrew Rier. Zimmerman's prosecution was made tougher under Florida's 2005 Stand Your Ground law, which eliminated a citizen's "duty to retreat" before using lethal force in the face of a deadly threat - an instruction given to jurors on Friday. And the state's case also was filled with blunders, legal experts say. Many of the witnesses called by the state seemed to benefit the defense, including one neighbor, John Good, who claimed he saw Martin pin Zimmerman to the ground. Another witness, Sanford Police officer Tim Smith, told jurors that Zimmerman, just after the shooting, claimed he was yelling for help to no avail. Both pieces of testimony seemed to bolster the defense's version of the encounter. Prosecutors also called the lead Sanford police investigators, using them to introduce each of Zimmerman's videotaped statements and a walk-through of the crime scene Zimmerman did with police a day after Martin's death. During one of the statements, lead Detective Chris Serino seemed skeptical when Zimmerman insisted he never "followed" Martin. While there were some inconsistencies between his accounts of what happened, they seemed fairly small, court observers said. And defense attorneys got Serino to agree during testimony that it's normal for stories to vary slightly with each re-telling. Legal observers noted that playing the videos in court eliminated the need for Zimmerman himself to take the stand - a tactic that may have helped the defense by allowing Zimmerman's voice to be heard in court without risk of cross-examination. "I think it was a strategic error (for the state) to allow him to testify without getting cross-examined," Faccidomo said. "I don't think the inconsistencies carried as a great a weight with the jury as they thought it would." Serino, on defense questioning, also suggested he believed Zimmerman's account, a statement later stricken from the record by the judge - but nevertheless heard by jurors. "The state should have objected before he had a chance to answer," said attorney Handfield. "But it's too late. You can't unring the bell. You can't ask the jury to not consider something they already heard. They're human." Prosecutors also pinned their hopes on a chilling recording of a 911 call made by a neighbor near the fight scene. After a number of hearings away from the jury, Nelson ruled against prosecutors' request to allow audio experts to testify that Martin was the one crying out for help on the recording before the fatal gunshot is heard. So prosecutors turned to Sybrina Fulton, Martin's mother, and Jahvaris Fulton, the dead teen's older brother, to identify the voice on the recording as Martin. They served as powerful emotional witnesses. Sybrina Fulton, head held high, told jurors that she wished that her son hadn't died. "My youngest son is Trayvon Benjamin Martin," she articulated carefully when asked his name. "He's in heaven." And Jahvaris Fulton recounted for jurors the shock and grief of listening to the recording for the first time. But their testimony also seemed to spur the defense to call a wave of eight witnesses, from Zimmerman's own mother to his best friend, to make the opposite claim, that the voice crying out for help on the tape was Zimmerman's. The testimony also served a more important purpose: to humanize Zimmerman and show a circle of friends that included an African American neighbor. In the end, neither the state nor the defense dwelled at length on the recording in closing arguments. "A battle of family members, of whom you believe more, that's a big prosecution loser," said Jean-Michel D'Escoubet, a former Miami-Dade prosecutor. "The evidence was so conflicted that the jury can't make heads or tails of it. It just muddied up the water and created reasonable doubt." The defense case suffered some setbacks, too, especially when Nelson on Wednesday refused to allow into evidence text messages from Martin's phone which suggested that the teen was a brawler at home in Miami Gardens. Nor did the judge allow the jury to consider as evidence a high-tech computer animation showing a defense version of how the deadly fight between Zimmerman and Martin unfolded. But in all, lawyers say, the defense presented a mostly confident, methodical case that sought to pick apart the lack of evidence in the state's case. Lawyers Mark O'Mara and Don West even shunned the chance to tarnish Martin though Nelson had allowed the defense to introduce the slain teen's toxicology report showing he had smoked marijuana. "The state would have argued that marijuana doesn't make someone hostile, and the defense probably didn't want to look like they were disparaging Trayvon Martin," Priovolos said. Their approach was evident at closing arguments. While prosecutor Bernardo de la Rionda was mocking and at times shrill, O'Mara was calm and conversational, opening with a long, professorial discussion on the history of trial law, then dissecting the state's case. Zimmerman's neighborhood watch history? "Tell me one witness who said George Zimmerman patrolled that neighborhood . . . not one," he told jurors. The sound of the wind on Zimmerman's call to police, suggesting he was chasing Martin? The weather report shows "the wind was up," O'Mara said. The belief Zimmerman was the aggressor? "One piece of evidence that my client attacked Trayvon Martin?" O'Mara asked jurors. "Landed one blow even?" Miami defense attorney David O. Markus said that the closings arguments offered something of a role reversal for prosecutors and the defense. "The initial summation by the prosecution was what you see many times from defense lawyers - passionate and trying to poke holes or raise doubts in Zimmerman's version of events," he said. "On the other hand, the defense accepted the burden of proof and methodically and dispassionately went through the evidence and the elements, much like a prosecutor would normally proceed." The acquittal vindicated O'Mara's strategy. He not only maintained that the state hadn't proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt, but riskily admitted he wanted to take on the "burden" of proving his client's "absolute innocence." He even wished, half-playfully, that the verdict form has a check box for "completely innocent." Under the law, the defense has no burden to prove anything. Only prosecutors must prove a case, beyond a reasonable doubt. "I really like the strategy," Markus said. "Many times, cases come down to whether you can show the jury that you really believe in your client. What better way to do that than to tell the jury that you aren't relying on burdens of proof but instead that you believe he is innocent?" Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/07/13/196615/state-never-proved-its-case-legal.html#.UeQQohZ1CS0#storylink=cpy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 15 Jul 13 - 11:27 AM An interesting comment I came across... "I'll start out by saying that, in my opinion, George Zimmerman was wrong to continue to follow Trayvon Martin. He should have stayed in his car, called the police, and let them handle the perceived situation. If he would have done that, this entire tragedy would have been avoided. That's the truth of it. That's a fact. That is a hypothetical situation. It didn't happen that way, and we have a young man dead. It's a horrific turn of events and an unnecessary death occurred. Let's look at another hypothetical. Let's look at what would have happened if Trayvon would have turned around to face George Zimmerman. What do you think would have been the end result if Trayvon would have said, "Excuse me sir, but you're following me. Is there something I can help you with?" instead of a physical confrontation. If he would have responded to George Zimmerman with courtesy and opened a dialogue. Would he be dead right now? What would have happened do you think if Trayvon had answered George Zimmerman with politeness; with mutual respect and told George Zimmerman he had just left the store and was on his way home with his Skittles. Does anyone reading this really believe George Zimmerman would have shot him? Do you really believe that George Zimmerman was "hunting"? The fact is Trayvon Martin would be just as alive today as he would be if George Zimmerman would have stayed in his car. If Trayvon had treated Zimmerman with the respect a young man should use whenever dealing with an older person. Instead Trayvon resorted, if the facts brought out in the trial can be believed, to gangster mentality. He resorted to violence and acted in a confrontational manner when dealing with an adult. I am from a different time and it seems a different world sometimes. When I was young, my peers and myself were raised to have a modicum of respect for our elders. Two hypothetical, both with the same result. A tragedy averted. Now, I don't know how Trayvon was raised. I am not saying he wasn't given a loving and proper home life as a child. I am saying that, if he was, he didn't use his parents upbringing when dealing with George Zimmerman. It seems he used his learned behavior from his environment. Who is really to blame for Trayvon Martin's death? Who was it he was emulating with his behavior? Again, in my opinion, Trayvon's death can be laid at the feet of the person or persons that helped to create his environment. Music, sports heroes, examples in his life perhaps? " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 15 Jul 13 - 11:29 AM Richard. Shooting someone is not a reasonably proportionate response - not least because the gun Z was carrying could not have been lawfully so carried in the UK. Thanks. I am sure you are right but, .would the possession of a gun be treated as a separate crime? .the fatal weapon might be, say, a screwdriver. Don. What lie am I accused of now? Unlike you (see cycle thread) I do not do it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: GUEST Date: 15 Jul 13 - 12:00 PM "I'll start out by saying that, in my opinion, George Zimmerman was wrong to continue to follow Trayvon Martin. He should have stayed in his car, called the police, and let them handle the perceived situation. If he would have done that, this entire tragedy would have been avoided. That's the truth of it. That's a fact. Agreed up to that point. The rest of the post reads as a feeble attempt to shift blame and whitewash Zimmerman for not doing that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Greg F. Date: 15 Jul 13 - 12:00 PM Beardy, your latest colossal dump of blogoshit, speculation and nonsense is in aid of what, exactly? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 15 Jul 13 - 12:13 PM Greggie boy, your continued posting and even existence is of what value, exactly? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 15 Jul 13 - 12:27 PM ABC News Chief Legal Affairs Anchor and Mediaite founder Dan Abrams appeared on ABC's This Week predicted that the Department of Justice would not file charges against George Zimmerman, despite the outrage following Saturday night's acquittal and pressure from the NAACP. "There will be a federal investigation, they will publicly discuss it, and there will not be charges filed," Abrams said. "They can't win in this case. They won't win, and they know that." Abrams drew a line between the legal and moral aspects of the case. "There are two separate questions here that we're discussing, and I think it's important to distinguish them," Abrams said. "One is a sort of broad societal right and wrong, and what is wrong with our society. That is a fair question to ask. But that is a different question than talking about what happened in that courtroom." "But every time we get to that nexus, we never seem to accept the fact that race in this country is real, that color will get you killed," Tavis Smiley responded. "I believe in looking at a case by case situation, but in the aggregate, every time we have this issue, somebody can always explain away why this person got off, why this person was not found guilty, and what we have is a bunch of dead black men." Host George Stephanopoulos asked Abrams if the Zimmerman acquittal or the anger surrounding it would have any bearing on future Stand Your Ground cases, or possible repeal of the law. "This didn't end up being a Stand Your Ground case," Abrams reminded him. "They waived the Stand Your Ground hearing, this became a classic self-defense case in Florida. Are people going to talk about it? Yes. Are they going to be able to point to this case and say this is the example of Stand Your Ground? No." http://www.mediaite.com/tv/abcs-dan-abrams-predicts-doj-will-not-charge-zimmerman-they-wont-win-and-they-know-that/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 15 Jul 13 - 12:32 PM ""Especially when cases are so gray, like this one was, self-defense really resonates because people can associate with being afraid."" Pity they can't apparently associate with the fact that unarmed 17 year old black schoolboys might be afraid when accosted by a non uniformed stranger, late at night. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 15 Jul 13 - 12:41 PM ""What would have happened do you think if Trayvon had answered George Zimmerman with politeness; with mutual respect and told George Zimmerman he had just left the store and was on his way home with his Skittles. Does anyone reading this really believe George Zimmerman would have shot him? Do you really believe that George Zimmerman was "hunting"?"" Does anyone reading this really believe George Zimmerman would have listened to him, or believed him? You say Zimmerman wasn't hunting. Are you a mind reader now? He started by carrying out his duty as a neighbourhood watch volunteer. He informed the authorities and was advised to stay in his car. He ignored that advice and went after Martin, confronted him and in the ensuing scuffle picked up a couple of minor cuts, finally executing a totally innocent stranger. I'd hate to see the death toll, if he WAS hunting. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 15 Jul 13 - 12:55 PM more comments... "It is sad that so many define "Justice" as finding Zimmerman guilty in spite of the facts. This lynch_mob mentality is a sad commentary on our society. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 15 Jul 13 - 01:12 PM ""Neither of us has rolled on the floor with someone over this Don, and I have not put forward any argument to withdraw."" Since I did test my belief that it would be impossible to reach the gun in the way Zimmerman described it, the first half of your comment above is a UNTRUE! You put forward the fact that it was possible in a staged reconstruction, as a rebuttal of my comment. Therefore the second half of your sentence above is also UNTRUE! What is the definition of a deliberately untrue statement? According to the Oxford Engish Dictionary (and every other English dictionary}, a LIE! Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Bobert Date: 15 Jul 13 - 01:14 PM The bar for a federal case is set very high in terms of evidence... A DoJ prosecutor would have to to "prove" that Zimmerman wanted to kill Martin because Martin was black... This idea of "proof" when there are no witnesses to the crime is all but impossible unless Zimmerman had told someone that he was going out to "kill a nigger"... That's the level of evidence that would be required for the feds to take the case... They took the Rodney King case because of the video... Had there not been a video then there would not have been a case, even if a witness had come forward because the white cops, like Zimmerman has done, would have created their own story and stuck by it... The problem here is that these "stand-your-ground" laws are too open ended... The concept of self-defense has been around forever but "stand-your-ground" is relatively new and pushed by the NRA to sell more guns and make people fearful... I mean, if I know that someone wants me dead and that all they have to do is make sure there are no witnesses when they shoot me and then claim they were scared that I might harm them, regardless of the facts, then, yeah, makes me want to carry a gun just to shoot back when some asshole thinks he has the right to shoot me 'cuase he doesn't like me... These laws must go... They may sell a lot of guns but they are making everyone a target for someone who wants to kill them and knows they can get away with it... Murder is murder, people... B~ |
