Two people of equal size and equal ability slugging it out shouldn't be a reasonable fear of death for anyone involved.
Large disparities of force are what can indicate a reasonable fear of death.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Juror says Zimmerman went "above and beyond" and has "learned a good lesson"
- Thread starter MThanded
- Start date
- Status
Two people of equal size and equal ability slugging it out shouldn't be a reasonable fear of death for anyone involved.
Large disparities of force are what can indicate a reasonable fear of death.
I would not be surprised. Sure seems like it. Her behaviour has been pretty horrible and she should feel bad. I don't think she believes any of the stuff she is backtracking with now.
Angelus Errare
Banned
Did you see the back of his head?! Clearly it was slammed at least 25 times!
Or Zimmerman could have simply stayed his ass in the car and this entire thing could have been avoided. I hope Trayvon's death eats at him forever, I hope he never has a moment of mental peace, I hope it drives him insane. I wouldn't feel bad at all.
Which is why he should have gone down for manslaughter. The prosecution should have hammered this home over and over again.
There is an issue with an all female jury. In a similar altercation between a man and a woman where the man has pinned and is punching a much smaller woman it could be said that the disparity of force was great enough to cause her to fear for her life and justify deadly force.
However, zimmerman was not that different in size or capability from Martin. If the women imagined themselves as Martin then I can see how they arrived at that verdict. They bought the story of zimmerman's fear for his life.
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
He has no remorse whatsoever. He thinks he fulfilled God's plan.
On the topic of who started the physical altercation, as far as I know we have one piece of evidence that doesn't come from Zimmerman himself, and that's from Jeantel's testimony:
If I had to guess (and without much certainty given how little there is to go by), I would say the most likely scenario is Zimmerman grabbing Martin in an attempt to detain him for the police and then Martin fighting back by punching him. Makes more sense than Martin ambushing Zimmerman as he was returning to his car, given what we know of Zimmerman having chased after Martin thinking he was a criminal and Martin being on a return trip with candy for his little brother.
Obviously we know that the jury disregarded Jeantel's testimony though (except for the creepy ass cracker part, they ate that up).
If I had to guess (and without much certainty given how little there is to go by), I would say the most likely scenario is Zimmerman grabbing Martin in an attempt to detain him for the police and then Martin fighting back by punching him. Makes more sense than Martin ambushing Zimmerman as he was returning to his car, given what we know of Zimmerman having chased after Martin thinking he was a criminal and Martin being on a return trip with candy for his little brother.
Obviously we know that the jury disregarded Jeantel's testimony though (except for the creepy ass cracker part, they ate that up).
Link
The Autumn Wind
Well, now he can feel remorse about how everyone doesn't suddenly forgive him because he was acquitted.
This is what I honestly believe happened.
That is definitely the most logical explanation, and falls right in line with Zimmerman's personality and past history. It falls RIGHT in line with how he acted by even beginning to follow Martin.
Ugh absolutely disgusting. :|
And this is not only supported by Rachel, but also the phone records. The time between the call going dead to the gun shot was 55 seconds at the most. (Tmobile only clarified the phone call end time minute) Rachel said she overheard them having a verbal confrontation. Trayvon's cell phone was 3 feet away from the shell casing. If martin was attempting to ambush someone, why the fuck would he be on his cell phone at the time of the beginning of the conflict?
There are no words for how fucked up that is.
Pretty much everyone trying to defend Zimmerman have ignored Jealtel's testimony. I get that they don't like her, but they would rather believe the words of a murderer who has every reason to lie and has already lied multiple times than hers
It's sad.
It was that, and I think, from a psychological standpoint, Americans have this deep rooted fear of the black male. I think this overpowered reason and evidence to the contrary.
There is this perception that black men are dangerous, aggressive, strong, intimidating, untrustworthy, etc. This is something that has been fed into the public conscious of the American public for generations, to the point where it is nearly impossible for many people to imagine that a black man could be afraid for their own life or safety. People find it hard to think that Trayvon was intimidated and afraid for his life, despite the fact that he was just a 17 year old kid.
I think anybody, even a grown man, would have been unnerved, or uncomfortable, with being followed for as long as Trayvon had by someone in a truck, and then that person gets out of their truck and continues to follow.
But no, black men don't get that consideration, because we're big, and intimidating, and dangerous.
The evidence simply doesn't corroborate Zimmerman's "being pummeled to death" narrative, but the jury of women found it incredibly easy to imagine the aggressive black male Trayvon as being able to overpower Zimmerman by sheer black rage.
B37 even says that she thinks Trayvon was mad, and was trying to "get one up" over Zimmerman because of pride. Never once did she consider that Trayvon feared for his safety. As I said before, there is a deep seeded suspicion and fear of the black male in this country, and I think it manifested in the jury deliberation room.
As I've said before, this should have been the prosecution's narrative from day. fucking. one.
It explains everything.
It coincides perfectly with Rachel's testimony.
It explains how George was the aggressor despite Trayvon having no wounds (because, fucking duh, George's intentions were never to start swinging at Trayvon. His intention from the very beginning was to detain Trayvon until the police arrived. To keep that fucking punk from getting away.
It explains why Trayvon's hoodie looked stretched at the sleaves.
People who get hung up on Trayvon having no wounds (so CLEARLY he was the aggresor) just betray their desperation to believe Zimmerman's account at ANY cost. Of course he didn't go up to Trayvon and start swinging. Of COURSE Trayvon threw the first punch. But likely BECAUSE George Zimmerman attempted to grab him, in which case he's completely in the right defending himself.
THAT should have been the narrative the prosecution hammered from the very start. It fits all the evidence, coincides with Rachel's testimony, and makes a hell of a lot more sense than Trayvon Martin doubling back to get the jump on George Zimmermon...despite initially running from him...and WHILE mid-conversation on the goddamn phone. Fucking please...
I know white kids or more specifically white kid's parents that have talked their way out of their kid getting drug, paraphernalia, and vandalism charges cause they got caught smoking weed in an abandoned house, and getting away with it isn't fucked up, it's that plenty of people don't get away with it and non-violent "criminals" get a felony at a young age thereby completely disenfranchising them from modern society, and this happens in such huge numbers that 1 in 6 black men will spend time in jail during their lifetime.
IcyBlueStrawberry
Member
Everything about this incident and the ensuing trial infuriates me. The whole thing is an embarrassing statement on the American legal system and humanity in general.
The only comfort I get out of this is that I happen to live in Canada, which is thousands of kilometres from Florida.
The only comfort I get out of this is that I happen to live in Canada, which is thousands of kilometres from Florida.
Because people take the "beyond reasonable doubt" bit way to fucking literally. If they have even a tiny amount, but are still pretty sure he did it, then not guilty!
Treefingers
Member
you think "pretty sure" should be enough?
IcyBlueStrawberry
Member
I fully understand why that matters when the question revolves around the act of killing somebody. It's horrible to imagine being jailed for a murder that you didn't commit.
But when it's a fact that you killed the person in question, it should be on you to prove that you had no other option.
Just a little anecdote:
A few months ago, I was talking to my original boss here at my company. He is an older black guy, about 55-60, incredibly nice guy, absolutely stand-up dude. I don't see how anyone could get mad at him or be a dick to him.
We always have in-depth conversations, and we both have agreed on our mutual disgust for the blatant racism and discrimination that minorities, ESPECIALLY BLACKS, receive from others and above all, the police.
I still remember a certain moment where he (paraphrasing) said the following words to me:
That conversation still sticks in my mind, and I think about it every time I see some cop pulling over a black guy.
You know what the other thing that sticks out in my mind about what he said was? Back in the day, he used to be a prison guard. So he was IN Law Enforcement. And he quit because he said he didn't have the heart to, if the time came, blow away some inmate for whatever reason they'd expect him to.
IF you know for a fact that someone did kill someone, then yes. Manslaughter at least, not "Not guilty". You can almost never be 100% sure about anything, you're going to have doubts.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Err, man, I wouldn't recommend trying to write the bar exam any time soon.
Standards of evidence, in descending order:
Absolute truth -- "beyond the shadow of a doubt"
Beyond a reasonable doubt -- The standard for most criminal convictions in many/most western countries
Clear and convincing evidence - This is what you seem to think "beyond a reasonable doubt is" and is used for civil (non-criminal) cases and assigning liability
Preponderance of the evidence - ("More likely than not", "balance of probabilities")
Sub-evidence "reasonable to believe", "probable cause", "reasonable suspicion", other lower standards of evidence - These are typically used for pre-trial proceedings such as obtaining a warrant or making an arrest, or in administrative tribunals that don't require higher standards.
That's not how criminal law works. "You're going to have doubts" is not applicable to "beyond a reasonable doubt". That's what the word reasonable is there for.
There are a few things we know for fact based on testimony from George, Jenteal, Expert Witnesses:
1) Zimmerman was following Trayvon.
2) Zimmerman showed intent to follow Trayvon through his phone call with the 911 dispatcher ("these assholes always get away," "fucking punks," "have the police call me, and I'll tell them where I'm at," etc)
3) Zimmerman asked Trayvon "What are you doing here?" (this rules out Zimmerman's statement of being jumped from behind.
4) Trayvon asked, "Why are you following me?"
5) Zimmerman's injuries were consistent with being hit in the face 1-3 times, and hitting the back of his head 1-2 times on the ground/concrete.
6) There was only one drop of Zimmerman's DNA on Trayvon Martin, on the lower part of his hoody.
7) There was no DNA of Zimmerman on Trayvon's fists, and the laceration on Trayvon's hand had not broken the skin or bled, and was on his left hand. Trayvon was right handed.
8) Zimmerman's holster was behind his back, at his waist, under his jacket (removing the gun from the holster while being pinned to the ground would have required some significant strength from Zimmerman, if the gun was retrieved while they were on the ground, as Zimmerman suggested. This begs the question; if Zimmerman could lift his body with enough strength to pull free his gun, why didn't he have the strength to push off Trayvon Martin, or hit him?)
9) Zimmerman had no defensive bruised/wounds on his arms, hands, etc. There was not a single drop of Trayvon's DNA on Zimmerman at all.
10) Trayvon was on the phone with Rachel Jenteal up to one minute before police arrived.
11) Zimmerman is lying. This is backed up by the facts above.
If this was truly a case where Zimmerman felt justified in using self defense, why is he lying so much?
1) Zimmerman was following Trayvon.
2) Zimmerman showed intent to follow Trayvon through his phone call with the 911 dispatcher ("these assholes always get away," "fucking punks," "have the police call me, and I'll tell them where I'm at," etc)
3) Zimmerman asked Trayvon "What are you doing here?" (this rules out Zimmerman's statement of being jumped from behind.
4) Trayvon asked, "Why are you following me?"
5) Zimmerman's injuries were consistent with being hit in the face 1-3 times, and hitting the back of his head 1-2 times on the ground/concrete.
6) There was only one drop of Zimmerman's DNA on Trayvon Martin, on the lower part of his hoody.
7) There was no DNA of Zimmerman on Trayvon's fists, and the laceration on Trayvon's hand had not broken the skin or bled, and was on his left hand. Trayvon was right handed.
8) Zimmerman's holster was behind his back, at his waist, under his jacket (removing the gun from the holster while being pinned to the ground would have required some significant strength from Zimmerman, if the gun was retrieved while they were on the ground, as Zimmerman suggested. This begs the question; if Zimmerman could lift his body with enough strength to pull free his gun, why didn't he have the strength to push off Trayvon Martin, or hit him?)
9) Zimmerman had no defensive bruised/wounds on his arms, hands, etc. There was not a single drop of Trayvon's DNA on Zimmerman at all.
10) Trayvon was on the phone with Rachel Jenteal up to one minute before police arrived.
11) Zimmerman is lying. This is backed up by the facts above.
If this was truly a case where Zimmerman felt justified in using self defense, why is he lying so much?
soul creator
Member
Yep, I think a core reason for why racism is so tough to discuss for some folks is that people tend to want to believe (even if all available evidence shows otherwise) that we have 100% free will, and are always in control of our own destinies, and environment and social pressures don't matter. So whenever there's an accusation of racism, it immediately gets interpreted as the conscious, willful type, which of course, is very easy to deny. And since people consciously know that racism is bad, then of course they're not racists! They would never knowingly do something bad, right? So this is why some people tend to act as if using the word nigger or being a KKK member is the only standard for whether something is racist or not. "Hidden" racism that's tied up in institutions is much harder for people to process, because hey, my friend is a cop/judge/prision guard/etc. and he totally has black friends and is a perfectly nice guy!
The unfortunate part of this mindset is that it not only affects issues with race, but issues in all sorts of other areas (apparently, all those unemployed folks just one day made a conscious choice to be lazy and out of work! Anti-gay people just started acting that way because they felt like it, and religion, parents, social circle, etc. had nothing to do with it!)
There are a large group of folks that are effectively saying sociology and environment doesn't matter, and it's tough to have a discussion with someone of that mindset. Probably ties into things like a lack of empathy as well. All sorts of theories could come out of this, lol.
Unfortunately that's a very common sentiment that I've heard expressed many times. There is too much history and too many stories of black people being fucked over by the police to not be afraid when they pull you over.
I feel like I have a little glimmer of that, since I had a couple incidents as a teen where police seemed to start with a belief that I was up to no good and accused me of bullshit, but of course, nothing ultimately happened and that's just a vague little glimmer. I have a certain distrust of police, but nothing to the degree a lot of the black population has after so much profiling and awful treatment.
Too many people take the "if you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to be afraid of" stance, which ends up justifying everything in their minds. It works the other way for them. Minorities are afraid, therefore they're doing something wrong.
People keep saying this and I don't think they're thinking it through all the way. If a person acted in self defense they committed no crime. Self defense isn't an excuse that lessens the punishment, it's a complete justification if the response is proportional. So you would end up, under your ideal, with a person who has done nothing legally or morally wrong forced to convince others of his innocence.
The prosecution needs to prove every element of the crime, and murder carries it with it the requirement the killing was unlawful. Therefore, the prosecution needs to show the killing was lawful to meet their burden. This is the standard in almost every state and as many countries as I could look up. Where it isn't the standard the defendant has to provide the lowest form of evidence to shift the burden to the prosecution.
Zoe
Member
What? She said they didn't put any weight behind the slurs because that's how they talk.
Zoe
Member
"I don't think it's really racial. I think it's just everyday life, the type of life that they live, and how they're living, in the environment that they're living in."
Because his lawyer looked at the lack of evidence, said "Hey, if you alter your story like this you'll get away with killing a guy" and it worked.
Indeed. And it did.
And people find it so much easier to swallow the narrative of the "angry black man," that they totally buy that Trayvon, who's sole motivation was to get home and finish watching the game with his brother, would suddenly decide, "Aw hell naw, fuck this creepy as cracka, Imma kill this fool jive turkey!" and actively attempt to throttle him, "just cuz that's how we roll."
It's annoying to see the mental gymnastics people contort themselves into so they can justify the killing of an unarmed minor. I just don't see those same mental gymnastics happening if you were to flip Trayvon's gender or even race.
I guess that's why Zimmerman's defense painted him as the biggest buster this side of the Mississippi.
WHILE on the phone with somebody!
That's the part I just can't shake. I feel like the prosecution should have really gone in on that ONE fact, and I feel that alone would have rendered George's account of Trayvon's actions completely implausible for a truly impartial jury.
I'm sorry, but you would really just have to put in some serious fucking work to convince me that Trayvon planned this Rambo-esque sneak counterattack on George Zimmerman...while on the phone with his BFF.
God, it just makes no fucking sense.
ChainedMaster
Banned
Nobody had to convince anybody of that. I feel like people who hate the verdict just don't understand it.
The jury had to believe that in order to believe that Trayvon threw the first punch and was the aggressor.
Eh, the jury apparently thought Trayvon was the aggressor because...
...who the hell knows.
ChainedMaster
Banned
No, they didn't have to believe that. The prosecutor had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was not acting in self-defense. If they couldn't prove that Zimmerman didn't shot in self-defense, the verdict is not guilty.
SnakeSlashRO
Banned
I think all of us thought race did not play a role. We never had that discussion. I think he just profiled him because he was the neighborhood watch and he profiled anyone that was acting strange.
so walking home is acting strange?!
so walking home is acting strange?!
vas_a_morir
Banned
Zimmerman.
And he is either telling the truth, or lying his ass off. Unless you can force him to do a lie detector test, there's no real way to know which.
But isn't the self-defense claim based on the idea that Trayvon Martin was the instigator of the conflict and the aggressor? Without that, Trayvon isn't the aggressor, Ol' Zimmy is, and then his self-defense claim becomes flimsy at best.Unless, of course, you believe that Zimmerman truly feared for his life, in which case you have to also believe that Trayvon Martin had X-Ray vision and could see George's holstered gun concealed underneath his jacket and behind his back, and made the decision then to kill a man barely a block away from where his father was.
Basically, to arrive at the conclusion that George Zimmerman feared for his life and was defending himself, you have to believe that George Zimmerman has the self-preservation skills of a Thanksgiving ham (well, barring the ability to shoot someone dead), and that Trayvon Martin was a young Rambo in training.
And yet ten years from now if it somehow turned out to be your kid in a car and instead of calling a family member and giving the verbal warning they arrested him and took him to jail we would be blessed with a scathing post about how terrible cops are and how unfair and how fucking they are all crooked and fucked because they should have just called someone because your kid was not hurting anyone and not driving and they should have given him a chance and let his family deal with it.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
He was trying not to get wet. Everyone knows black people don't care about rain. This isn't a racial thing, it's just a known fact.
No, there is no point.
Trying to assert that OMG if it was a black person in the car he would have been arrested on site is fucking asinine..
Sorry, I do not buy into the bullshit drama overload that is sweeping over some of you, people let emotion overrule their head and their common sense far too much when this case comes up.
Again.
No, I didn't because there is none.
Grizzlyjin
Supersonic, idiotic, disconnecting, not respecting, who would really ever wanna go and top that
And that's when you know there is a bias to how this person views the case. What exactly was so strange about him? Didn't this all happen at like 7 at night?
Yeah, I'm sure he was staking out houses to rob while on the phone with his friend carrying candy and a drink. It's 8pm right now and I can't imagine that I would mentally leap to assume someone was up to no good
- Status