"Not criminally."

No, but a civil judgment could be even more damaging to him. How about this? The first 10 percent of the proceeds Zimmerman receives from selling his story goes to Martin's family, and the remainder is disbursed among public colleges in Florida, at the Martin family's choosing. You know, like one of the ones Trayvon didn't get to attend because Zimmerman shot and killed him?

forsberg_us wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

"Not criminally."

No, but a civil judgment could be even more damaging to him. How about this? The first 10 percent of the proceeds Zimmerman receives from selling his story goes to Martin's family, and the remainder is disbursed among public colleges in Florida, at the Martin family's choosing. You know, like one of the ones Trayvon didn't get to attend because Zimmerman shot and killed him?

I don't have a problem with any of that.

In a way, this whole spectacle is similar to the discussion a couple weeks back about the cross on the mound.  No one would have cared about George Zimmerman until Al Sharpton and others like him took up the cause against him.  That gained GZ popularity among those who hate Sharpton.  Then some genius at NBC decided to doctor the audio tape to make Zimmerman look worse than he already did, and now GZ was an example of "liberal media bias."  Then Obama decided he needed to weigh in on the situation and it became a complete shitstorm.

Even today, we have the announcement that the Justice Department will be looking into the case despite the fact the FBI has already interviewed dozens of witnesses and concluded that race didn't play a part in the shooting.  Now GZ is the poster child for big government intervention.

George Zimmerman is no hero, but any fame or benefit he gains from this incident can be directly credited to those who most wanted to bring him down.
 

Well said.
 

JV wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

That's the main problem the prosecution had with its case.  This entire incident doesn't occur if GM doesn't follow TM, but GZ isn't breaking the law by doing so.  If TM responds with physical force, he's the first one to break the law, and GZ is justified in defending himself.  Because TM is dead, the prosecution only had GZ's version of the story, and that version allowed for self-defense.  Absent a witness, or some other form of evidence to refute GZ's version of the events, the prosecution had to know it couldn't prove its case.  That's why the trial was a farce.  It was unwinnable from the moment it was brought.  Prosecutors don't bring cases they can't win unless they are forced to do so.  This entire trial was a political spectacle brought to appease Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, etc...  The only chance they had of winning was to get a jury that was either too stupid or too afraid to follow the law.

Fors, I've been reading some people's comments declaring "jury nullification" a perfectly legitimate tool and complaining that this jury failed to use it. Although I'd heard the phrase before, I'd never paid it much heed until now, and the idea that a group of jurors can (and in the opinion of some, SHOULD) with impunity ignore law, evidence, and judge's instructions scares the hell out of me. What's your opinion of this concept?
 

In theory there are safeguards to protect against something like that.  In a typical trial, after the plaintiff (prosecution in a criminal case) rests its case, the defense will move for a directed verdict.  Basically, its a motion arguing that the plaintiff hasn't produced sufficient evidence to allow a reasonable jury to find in its favor.  Directed verdicts are rarely granted, but they are a procedural prerequisite to the next step.  After the defense completes its case (along with any rebuttal from the plaintiff), the defense will again move for a directed verdict.  Usually with the same result, but again, it's a precedural prerequisite.  After a jury comes back and renders its verdict, the losing side will move for a Judgment notwithstanding the verdict.  It's basically the same standard as a Directed Verdict (that a reasonable jury, based on the evidence presented) could not reach the conclusion it did--said differently, that the jury's decision cannot be supported by the evidence.  Part of the reason a directed verdict is so rare, is the judge wants to wait to see if the jury will reach the right conclusion, which lessens the chance on appeal.  But if the jury clearly reaches a conclusion not supported by the evidence, the judge (and subsequently an appellate court) has the authority to overturn the jury's verdict.

"it seems that you have ruled out any chance that trayvon made some bad decisions that night as well."

None of which he deserved to die for, AP.

APIAD wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

"it seems that you have ruled out any chance that trayvon made some bad decisions that night as well."

None of which he deserved to die for, AP.

you dont believe someone has a right to defend themselfs?
 

It never should have come to that, AP. All Zimmerman has to do is leave Martin alone, and he doesn't have to defend himself. Instead, he sees a kid he thinks he can bully, so he seeks out a confrontation, but he starts getting his ass kicked, so pulls out a weapon and kills the kid. 
 

Funny thing is, I didn't follow this trial when it was happening.  But now that we've been discussing it, I've read quite a bit about what supposedly happened.  Here's the thing that bugs me, and if I'm the attorney representing the Martin family should they decide to file a civil suit, here's the perspective from which I approach this case.

AP, I'm sure you're familiar with the concept of a force continuum.  The force continuum is something taught to police officers to explain justifiable levels of force.  On the least extreme side, the continuum begins with verbal commands.  It ends with deadly force.  In between the two, there are a variety of levels: hands on, non-striking (pressure points and arm holds); striking, no weapon; non-lethal baton strikes, etc...  Also, technology and new products such as pepper spray and tasers added to the force continuum.  My point is that there are many levels of force that exist between telling someone its time to leave and shooting someone.

Going back to my civil suit scenario--GZ fancied himself a wannabe cop/security guard.  A completely stupid idea, but one that isn't illegal.  But putting yourself in that position, it becomes reasonably foreseeable that at some point force will become necessary.  My guess is many part of U. City where I worked are significantly worse than the gated community where this incident occurred, but rarely a week went by that I didn't have to at least "grab and guide" someone from a scene (which, BTW, constitutes low-level force).  GZ isn't going to have to use force on a weekly basis, but it's certainly foreseeable that he'll have to use some level of it at some point.

As a police officer, we receive training on how to employ every level of force--voice training to be more commanding, training on using pressure points and other coercive tactics, hand-to-hand defensive tactics, use of pepper spray and tasers, and of course, deadly force.  Contrast this with testimony about GZ from witnesses who testified on his behalf that GZ was the overweight lop of shit who had no physical stamina and couldn't defend himself from a 17 year old kid who weighed 50 pounds less than GZ.  GZ had little to no training.  He was apparently too much of a pussy to defend himself in any form of hand-to-hand confrontation.  He didn't carry pepper spray, a taser or any other form of non-lethal weapon. 

From what I can tell, GZ was only capable of employing one option of many on the force continuum--deadly force.  Given that a confrontation was foreseeable, and given GZ's inability to employ other forms of force, it was foreseeable that he would ultimately employ deadly force.

GZ was negligent, not necessarily in what occured on the evening TM was killed--he was negligent in the days, weeks and months that led up to that incident.  He was negligent by not training or equipping himself to use some form of non-lethal force when the inevitable confrontation occurred.  He was negligent because a reasonable person who puts himself in the position of "neighborhood watch captain" doesn't assume that role without the ability to avoid getting his ass kicked by a teenager such that he then fears for his life and has to shoot the kid.

That's my argument if I represent the Martins, and I'd use the testimony of GZ's own witnesses to make that argument.

" Except the bolded part never happened.  You're correct that nothing happens if GZ doesn't follow TM.  But TM initiated the physical confrontation.  If TM keeps walking, TM is still alive."

it is to bad we will never know the exact exchange.  Judging by tm statements to his gf, calling gz a creepy cracker or whatever i doubt what ever he said to gz was very polite.  


 

"One, get a black jury memeber. I am sure the defense though it did okay because they got 6 females a figured the youth of tm would appeal to them. Still, you want to figure out a way to get a black jury member during jury selection. Maybe they tried and failed."

The prosecution excluded a black juror because the potential juror admitted watching FoxNews.

http://www.inquisitr.com/853074/zimmerman-prosecutors-bounced-fox-news-watching-black-juror-from-panel-video/

Last edited by forsberg_us (7/17/2013 11:11 am)

"The prosecution excluded a black juror because the potential juror admitted watching FoxNews."

LMAO. It's a shame the prosecution was forced to use a preemptory challenge to exclude him/her. They should have "Can you watch more than 15 minutes of Fox News without laughing?" on the questionnaire, and if anyone checks the yes box, they ought to be reflexively excused. 

artie_fufkin wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

It never should have come to that, AP. All Zimmerman has to do is leave Martin alone, and he doesn't have to defend himself. Instead, he sees a kid he thinks he can bully, so he seeks out a confrontation, but he starts getting his ass kicked, so pulls out a weapon and kills the kid. 
 

 Except the bolded part never happened.  You're correct that nothing happens if GZ doesn't follow TM.  But TM initiated the physical confrontation.  If TM keeps walking, TM is still alive.

Well, we don't know for sure what happened because we only have one version. Because the person who could provide the other side of the story was killed.
The thing I keep coming back to is all Zimmerman has to do is pay attention to the cops. Again, I don't know what it's like to be black and 17-years-old, but I think it wouldn't take very long for me to start being resentful of people referring to me as a "suspect" when all I'm doing is walking home from the 7-Eleven with my hood pulled over my head because it's raining. 

this cant be  proven to have been said but just in theroy maybe tm shouldnt have played into the stereo type.  Instead of calling gz a creepy ass cracker maybe he could instead politly say "sir, i just went to the gas station to get some snacks and am walking to my gf house".  there never anything wrong with being the bigger man.  That does excuse gz but even if gz was found guilty tm is still dead.  nothing fixes that. 

artie_fufkin wrote:

"Instead of calling gz a creepy ass cracker maybe he could instead politly say "sir, i just went to the gas station to get some snacks and am walking to my gf house".

True, but on the other hand, what Martin was or wasn't doing really wasn't any of Zimmerman's concern in the first place. He wasn't breaking the law. There was no reason for Zimmerman to follow him, or even call the cops. Again, I think Zimmerman was looking for a reason to start shit because he was a "neighborhood watch captain" and thought he could push a 17-year-old kid around. Did that come out during the trial? Of course not. No one would testify to that after the way it ended. 

i dont disagree at all that gz was looking for some sort of ego boast.  He has every right to call the cops imo.  People do for every stupid thing anyway.  He can follow him.  It is a free world.  I dont think he has a right to confront him as neighborhood watch captain.  i dont think it is proper.  Anyone can ask anyone what they are up to.  As neighborhood watch captain i think he is acting under authority he doesnt have.  That title should be used as a title of authority.  as a citizen i think gz right to speak with tm is stronger.  The person being asked has the right to tell the other to fuck off to.  However if you end up in a tussle and dead that is kind of the end of the story.  Convictions dont fix dead.  i didnt follow the trial.  Does anyone know how gz acting as neighbrohood watchman was used?

Did obama really need to speak on this subject again?

Regardless of the situation, if I'm not misunderstanding the Florida law on the situation, it doesn't really stipulate for who is the instigator. Just makes the allowance that if you feel your life is in danger, you're allowed to pull the trigger.

The moment EMT's treated Zimmerman for "suffering through an ass-beating", he fell into this realm of protection.

As a personal side note, I don't personally like that it's this easy to gun someone down, and that the law should be revisited to ensure people cannot push a confrontation and then hide behind a gun when it occurs. I truly feel that's a loophole that needs to be corrected, but it is the law right? (Fors help me with this man, you know more than me here).

If anyone needs me I'll be trying to figure out a way to get my Ex-Wife to Florida for a friendly chat.