The future George Zimmerman Acquittal Trial Megathread!

[Admiral Yi]

He ran, didn't he?

Did he?

I don't profess to have heard every minute of testimony, but sometimes I get the feeling that you and Raz are stating what you wish were true as fact.

[CountDeMoney]

He ran, didn't he?

Did he?

I don't profess to have heard every minute of testimony, but sometimes I get the feeling that you and Raz are stating what you wish were true as fact.

7:11:33 — Zimmerman tells the police dispatcher that Trayvon Martin is running.

[CountDeMoney]

but sometimes I get the feeling that you and Raz are stating what you wish were true as fact.

Oh, and for that one, go fuck yourself.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Arch-Liberal legal writer Andrew Cohen is typically someone I only read just to confirm how much I disagree with him. However, he's spot on about this case:

To me, on its most basic level, the startling Zimmerman verdict -- and the case and trial that preceded it -- is above all a blunt reminder of the limitations of our justice system. Criminal trials are not searches for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. They never have been. Our rules of evidence and the Bill of Rights preclude it. Our trials are instead tests of only that limited evidence a judge declares fit to be shared with jurors, who in turn are then admonished daily, hourly even, not to look beyond the corners of what they've seen or heard in court.

Trials like the one we've all just witnessed in Florida can therefore never fully answer the larger societal questions they pose. They can never act as moral surrogates to resolve the national debates they trigger. In the end, they teach only what each of us as students are predisposed to learn. They provide no closure, not to the families or anyone else, even as they represent the close of one phase of the rest of the lives of the people involved. They are tiny slivers of the truth of the matter, the perspective as narrow as if you were staring at the horizon with blinders on, capable only of seeing what was not intentionally blocked from view.

Of course the deadly meeting last year between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman had at its core a racial element. Of course its tragic result reminds us that the nation, in ways too many of our leaders refuse to acknowledge, is still riven by race. The story of Martin and Zimmerman is the story of crime and punishment in America, and of racial disparities in capital sentencing, and in marijuana prosecutions, and in countless other things. But it wasn't Judge Debra Nelson's job to conduct a seminar on race relations in 2013. It wasn't her job to help America bridge its racial divide. It was her job to give Zimmerman a fair trial. And she did.

So the murder trial of George Zimmerman did not allow jurors to deliberate over the fairness of Florida's outlandishly broad self-defense laws. It did not allow them debate the virtues of the state's liberal gun laws or its evident tolerance for vigilantes (which we now politely call "neighborhood watch"). It did not permit them to delve into the racial profiling that Zimmerman may have engaged in or into the misconduct and mischief that Martin may have engaged in long before he took that fatal trip to the store for candy. These factors, these elements, part of the more complete picture of this tragedy, were off-limits to the ultimate decision-makers.

What the verdict says, to the astonishment of tens of millions of us, is that you can go looking for trouble in Florida, with a gun and a great deal of racial bias, and you can find that trouble, and you can act upon that trouble in a way that leaves a young man dead, and none of it guarantees that you will be convicted of a crime. But this curious result says as much about Florida's judicial and legislative sensibilities as it does about Zimmerman's conduct that night. This verdict would not have occurred in every state. It might not even have occurred in any other state. But it occurred here, a tragic confluence that leaves a young man's untimely death unrequited under state law. Don't like it? Lobby to change Florida's laws.

If we understand and accept these legal limitations -- and perhaps only if we do -- the result here makes sense. Purely as a matter of law, you could say, it makes perfect sense. Florida's material, admissible, relevant proof against Zimmerman was not strong enough to overcome the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The eye-witnesses (and ear-witnesses) did not present a uniformly compelling case against the defendant. The police witnesses, normally chalk for prosecutors, did not help as much as they typically do. Nor was there compelling physical evidence establishing that Zimmerman had murderous intent and was not acting in self-defense.

The case was "not about standing your ground; it was about staying in your car," the prosecutor cogently said during closing argument. But in the end, under state law favorable to men like the defendant -- that is, favorable to zealots willing to take the law into their own hands -- Zimmerman's series of deplorable choices that night did not amount to murderous intent or even the much more timid manslaughter. The defense here wisely understood that and was able consistently, methodically, to remind jurors that prosecutors had not adequately explained (or proved) how exactly the altercation started and how precisely it progressed.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/07/law-and-justice-and-george-zimmerman/277772/

That's always to me been the core of the problem in discussing this case. There's a set of people that are only interested in that they "know" happened, and a host of things like blacks in society and how they are treated and etc, but most if not all of that stuff never made it through the front of the courthouse door. It didn't belong there, and had nothing to do with how a criminal prosecution is conducted. At the end of the day you have a situation in which there was a poorly understood series of events, that none of the physical evidence or witness testimony materially helped to resolve. That left jurors in a situation of deciding on what to do with a muddled set of facts and an unsure event. In our criminal justice system cases like that are supposed to be acquittals, the prosecution doesn't get the benefit of the doubt, the defendant does.

[Capetan Mihali]

I look forward to the delicious irony of many new "Trayvon's laws" resulting in increased incarceration of young black males for self-defense shootings.

Are there a lot of young black male shooters who avoid incarceration due to claims of self-defence presently?

A fair amount, I'd guess -- although the sensational stories (like that guy in Texas who shot the fleeing burglars in the back) tend to involve shooters with means, if you have any situation that started as a fight and ended in serious injury or death (or a trial, more accurately), a self-defense claim is going to be a major part of your strategy.  Because it's a total defense against the charge (unlike, say, provocation which might mitigate the offense, from e.g. murder to voluntary manslaughter): if a jury gets the self-defense instruction and finds enough certainty, they are supposed to go straight to acquittal.

If you remember back to the time of the original events, there was a white guy/"white" Native American guy duo who were shooting at black people in Tulsa, IIRC.  Ironically, the basis for guy #2's racist hate was that his father had been killed when he caught a black man trying to break into his parked car; the black guy prudently gave up and left, but the father followed him and started attacking him, whereupon the black guy stabbed him fatally.  And was subsequently acquitted under Oklahoma's own "stand your ground" law.

[The Minsky Moment]

I don't profess to have heard every minute of testimony, but sometimes I get the feeling that you and Raz are stating what you wish were true as fact.

For what it's worth, my guess is that Z told M he was neighborhood watch, asked him what he was doing around there, and M flipped out.

Hmm . . .

[Rasputin]

Oddly enough, I think statistics will demonstrate that more YBMs die north of Mason-Dixon, where the North has set the niggers free, to quote Randy Newman.

qft

the "racial" angle to this story is amazing...it is a confabulation

this case is and always has been simple

there is a narrative that has corroborrating objective evidence that reads as follows:

zimmermans neighborhood has a string of robberies

zimmerman followed martin

the police say "you dont have to do that"

he follows anyway

at some point he decides to stop and head back to his car

martin jumps zimmerman

zimmer gets scared and shoots martin while zimmerman is in fear of his life

While i recognize that there are many other narratives that also have evidentiary support, this is a criminal case and so long as there is evidentiary support for the foregoing narrative, the state cannot establish murder or its lesser included defenses beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Rasputin]

The way I look at is, if you took away the gun and the death, who would have been in the wrong?  Who would have been the lawbreaker?   If I follow someone around my neighborhood does that give the guy the right to pound my head on the sidewalk?  What hypothetical statements or actions by Zimmerman would it have taken to justify a sidewalk pounding?

that ignores the fact that martin was black and zimmerman a white hispanic which of course makes this all about civil rights regardless of the facts

did you miss all of the nineties when we lost reason?

[garbon]

Oddly enough, I think statistics will demonstrate that more YBMs die north of Mason-Dixon, where the North has set the niggers free, to quote Randy Newman.

qft

the "racial" angle to this story is amazing...it is a confabulation

this case is and always has been simple

there is a narrative that has corroborrating objective evidence that reads as follows:

zimmermans neighborhood has a string of robberies

zimmerman followed martin

the police say "you dont have to do that"

he follows anyway

at some point he decides to stop and head back to his car

martin jumps zimmerman

zimmer gets scared and shoots martin while zimmerman is in fear of his life

While i recognize that there are many other narratives that also have evidentiary support, this is a criminal case and so long as there is evidentiary support for the foregoing narrative, the state cannot establish murder or its lesser included defenses beyond a reasonable doubt.

[mongers]

Oddly enough, I think statistics will demonstrate that more YBMs die north of Mason-Dixon, where the North has set the niggers free, to quote Randy Newman.

qft

the "racial" angle to this story is amazing...it is a confabulation

this case is and always has been simple

there is a narrative that has corroborrating objective evidence that reads as follows:

zimmermans neighborhood has a string of robberies

zimmerman followed martin

the police say "you dont have to do that"

he follows anyway

at some point he decides to stop and head back to his car

martin jumps zimmerman

zimmer gets scared and shoots martin while zimmerman is in fear of his life

While i recognize that there are many other narratives that also have evidentiary support, this is a criminal case and so long as there is evidentiary support for the foregoing narrative, the state cannot establish murder or its lesser included defenses beyond a reasonable doubt.

But that's just your selective version of the 'facts', some of which need to be massaged to fit the story you're telling.

Dispatcher: Are you following him?

Zimmerman: Yeah

Dispatcher: OK, we don't need you to do that

Zimmerman: OK

[Rasputin]

Martin initiated the violence on the view of the facts that he was witnessed pummeling Zimmerman on the ground before Zimmerman shot Martin, and that Zimmerman was not witnessed initiating any violence prior to the pummeling nor uttering any provocative statements that a reasonable person would believe justifies violence as a response.  Also on the view of the facts that if Zimmerman had initiated violence prior to the pumelling it would have left physical evidence that the ME would have brought up in testimony.

Another way of saying the same thing is "none". As in the evidence that Martin initiated is none.

As in no witness testified about what happened at beginning of the confrontation, either way.  Zimmerman himself didn't testify and the only other eyewitness who could is conveniently dead.

What we do know is the Zimmerman initiated the confrontation while armed, in a state of agitation, and with thei apparent intent to detain Martin.

It is hard to detain another person nonviolently.

You still haven't answered my question.

Just did

incorrect -- the state offered zimmerman's version of events into evidence during its case in chief in the form of his statements to police following the incident

then the state offered corroborating evidence through a witness who saw martin on top beating zimmerman

then zimmerman and/or the state offered the pictures of zimmermans head injuries and the evidence that martin only had the fatal gun shot wound

[Rasputin]

He ran, didn't he?

Did he?

I don't profess to have heard every minute of testimony, but sometimes I get the feeling that you and Raz are stating what you wish were true as fact.

when you invent the facts or only cherry pick your evidence its easy to ignore the evidence before the jury which could have created reasonable doubt.

it's fine to infer what one wants to infer from the facts but if the evidence also supports an alternative version in which the defendant is not guilty then not guilty is the proper verdict

our system is not one where the defendant wins the ties; our system is one where the defendant wins all but the slam dunks

[Rasputin]

Oddly enough, I think statistics will demonstrate that more YBMs die north of Mason-Dixon, where the North has set the niggers free, to quote Randy Newman.

qft

the "racial" angle to this story is amazing...it is a confabulation

this case is and always has been simple

there is a narrative that has corroborrating objective evidence that reads as follows:

zimmermans neighborhood has a string of robberies

zimmerman followed martin

the police say "you dont have to do that"

he follows anyway

at some point he decides to stop and head back to his car

martin jumps zimmerman

zimmer gets scared and shoots martin while zimmerman is in fear of his life

While i recognize that there are many other narratives that also have evidentiary support, this is a criminal case and so long as there is evidentiary support for the foregoing narrative, the state cannot establish murder or its lesser included defenses beyond a reasonable doubt.

But that's just your selective version of the 'facts', some of which need to be massaged to fit the story you're telling.

Dispatcher: Are you following him?

Zimmerman: Yeah

Dispatcher: OK, we don't need you to do that

Zimmerman: OK

massage it all you want; its the same result

[Berkut]

Actually there's no evidence sufficient for the purposes of determining a criminal trial that Zimmerman tried to detain Martin or initiated a fight with Martin. Zimmerman's claim is that while he did initially follow Martin against the advice of a dispatcher, the physical altercation began when Martin attacked him from cover and started beating him up. I don't actually think it's knowable how the confrontation started given the lack of any living witnesses other than Zimmerman to the beginning of the fight, so I don't see how a jury could convict Zimmerman of manslaughter on the basis that Zimmerman started the confrontation. All we have evidence of is Zimmerman put himself in position for a confrontation to occur, against the advice of a police dispatcher. That's not actual evidence of initiating a physical confrontation, though, nor is it intrinsically illegal in Florida to follow someone through a neighborhood.

Based on my "common sense" view of things, I don't think either of these scenarios make sense:

A: Martin being near his home and aware of weirdo Zimmerman following him, goes back in the opposite direction of his home and hides in wait for Zimmerman then jumps him.

B: Zimmerman losing control of Martin after trying to "detain" him.

What I imagine probably actually happened is at some point Zimmerman and Martin directly cross paths, most likely Zimmerman yells something at Martin and asks him to explain what he's doing. I think from there it quickly turns into a shouting/anger fest and someone throws a first punch. I honestly have no idea who, and doubt we'll ever know. Martin wins the fist fight, so Z decides to shoot him.

Pretty much my take on it as well.

Sucks that Zimmerman is going to get away with killing someone, but barring a justice system MUCH more tolerant of risking putting innocent men in jail, there is no way to avoid outcomes like this at times.

[The Brain]

I have heard about kids being tried as adults. Couldn't you try non-blacks as blacks? To get some convictions I mean.