The future George Zimmerman Acquittal Trial Megathread!

[derspiess]

Well then explain to me why this case was so much more significant than every other shooting of a black dude in our recent history if that is the only determining factor.

Let me walk that back slightly.  I still think it was mostly race, but also throw in the  Stand Your Ground law as a reason it got so much coverage. 

The initial narrative (which the media did its best to uphold) of a creepy older white guy chasing down & shooting a small black child in cold blood attracts viewers.  It's an outrage.  Hell, I was initially outraged before all the facts came to light. 

[Caliga]

And it's never a dull day in Florida:

LOL STAGED

[Admiral Yi]

The initial narrative (which the media did its best to uphold) of a creepy older white guy chasing down & shooting a small black child in cold blood attracts viewers.  It's an outrage.  Hell, I was initially outraged before all the facts came to light.

Plus the creepy ass cracker cops letting the stone cold killer walk after giving him a donut and a cup of coffee.

[garbon]

And it's never a dull day in Florida:

LOL STAGED

Right?

[DGuller]

I guess he still is a wannabe cop.

[derspiess]

Would truck have overturned if Zimmerman had not been following it?

[lustindarkness]

Would truck have overturned if Zimmerman had not been following it?

Was it a skittles truck?

[grumbler]

One doesn't have to suppose racist motivation to take note of the fact that race was a relevant factor in the incident.

I agree that the racial angle distracts from the aspect that IMO is most concerning: that a self-appointed vigilante can disobey a clear direction from law enforcement, precipitate a confrontation that he was told to avoid, and use deadly force without suffering any legal sanction as a result.   

The best part of this case is all the alternate realities that I get to read about.  In this particular one I picture Spock with a full beard.  In Seedy's I just see Spock with the goatee.

[Admiral Yi]

"Precipitate a confrontation" is carefully chosen language.  I can't think of any better way to express Zimmerman's degree of culpability in starting the altercation.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Legally speaking the problem with Minsky's point is there is no evidence as to how the confrontation even began at all.

A lot of convoluted issues keep going into this, but it should be noted the dispatcher told Zimmerman "we don't need you to do that." Very few people seem to know when he actually uttered those words, I'm guessing because this has become a cause celebre, the liberals are content to read about it from their usual sources and not question them. However in this case one can easily get the phone call transcript or even the audio online.

The order of events:

-Zimmerman sees Martin, at this point Zimmerman is in his car. He calls the non-emergency line of the police department. As he is on the phone he is driving down the street slowly, following the direction Martin is going. Note that Martin is described as walking "behind the townhouses" so he's not actually on the sidewalk or street where Zimmerman is driving.
-During the phone call, suddenly Zimmerman exclaims "he's running" and you hear a car door open and some jumbling sounds that sound like a guy running.
-The dispatcher asks several questions, like "He's running?" "What direction is he going on?" "What entrance is that near?" After asking several questions (during this whole time Zimmerman is running) the dispatcher says, "are you following him?" At this point, assuming Zimmerman is even moderately capable of running at normal human speeds he's a good distance away from his vehicle and has been for a time. When Zimmerman answers "yeah" to the dispatchers question the dispatcher then says "we don't need you to do that."

I find it funny people are so convinced Zimmerman had done all this stuff long after being told not to do so, when in fact he had already done most of his "following" prior to being told that.

Now from there, Zimmerman arranges with the dispatcher a place to meet the police officers who are on his way. After that we're now basing the narrative on Zimmerman's story. Is that the true narrative? No one knows, but there is no alternative narrative in evidence, and there was not one in evidence at trial. Because no other witnesses know what happen in between that point and the shooting. The closest is the black girl, but unfortunately her testimony was vague, and left one without any real idea what the words she says she heard Trayvon say actually mean.

But anyway, as Zimmerman's narrative continues, he had ran to the last spot he had seen Martin, and lost him (actually he mentions he's lost him to the dispatcher.) And now that he has arranged with the dispatcher a place to meet the en route police, Zimmerman is returning to his vehicle. His story is that as he's walking back to his vehicle (and thus no longer engaged with Martin), Martin "jumps out" at him, and asks Zimmerman "what's your problem?" Zimmerman says he responds that he doesn't have a problem, and he is immediately punched, beaten on the ground, and then Martin sees his gun. Martin goes for the gun, they struggle for it, and Zimmerman gets control of the gun and shoots and kills Martin.

Now that's just Zimmerman's story, I'm not presenting that as what happened. But interestingly at trial how many different accounts are there of what happened after Zimmerman hung up the phone with dispatch? Exactly zero. Because no witnesses can testify to those events and while not a lawyer, I don't think the prosecutor can ask a jury to build inference upon inference such that they create a narrative out of thin air. For all we know Zimmerman stalked the neighborhood and cornered Martin, and because he's a gay rapist pulled his gun out and ordered Martin to suck his dick, when Martin refused Zimmerman shot him then beat his face in with Martin's fists and slammed his own head int he concrete. Or maybe a T-1000 Terminator showed up and killed Zimmerman, destroyed his body, and assumed his form--and then killed Trayvon for no reason. Since he can remold his appearance he faked the injuries. He went through with the trial for fun, and is obviously just waiting to cause trouble.

[Razgovory]

Well then explain to me why this case was so much more significant than every other shooting of a black dude in our recent history if that is the only determining factor.

Let me walk that back slightly.  I still think it was mostly race, but also throw in the  Stand Your Ground law as a reason it got so much coverage. 

The initial narrative (which the media did its best to uphold) of a creepy older white guy chasing down & shooting a small black child in cold blood attracts viewers.  It's an outrage.  Hell, I was initially outraged before all the facts came to light.

Thank God for the Conservative blogosphere, you could have gone off the reservation.

[Razgovory]

This case has never had anything to do with race . . . This case was about an armed and frustrated cop wannabbe  . . . on the hunt for those involved in a string of robberies in his neighborhood.

And how did wannabe cop match up Trayvon Martin as a suspect for "those involved."?
One doesn't have to suppose racist motivation to take note of the fact that race was a relevant factor in the incident.

I agree that the racial angle distracts from the aspect that IMO is most concerning: that a self-appointed vigilante can disobey a clear direction from law enforcement, precipitate a confrontation that he was told to avoid, and use deadly force without suffering any legal sanction as a result.    But at the same time if my melanin count were higher and my latitude lower, I'd be getting on line on my local Sunshine State gun shop as well.

zimmerman took a black girl to his high school prom; he is far from the stereotypical southern redneck

That's okay, Strom Thurmond did something like that as well when he was that age.

[OttoVonBismarck]

One doesn't have to suppose racist motivation to take note of the fact that race was a relevant factor in the incident.

I agree that the racial angle distracts from the aspect that IMO is most concerning: that a self-appointed vigilante can disobey a clear direction from law enforcement, precipitate a confrontation that he was told to avoid, and use deadly force without suffering any legal sanction as a result.   

The best part of this case is all the alternate realities that I get to read about.  In this particular one I picture Spock with a full beard.  In Seedy's I just see Spock with the goatee.

And to be honest, Joan's description of events may be entirely accurate. The problem is, the only evidence we have is some scant physical evidence and a few ear witnesses that don't clarify much. Other than that, we have Zimmerman's story. Zimmerman's story paints a substantially different picture from what Joan is saying, and there was no real alternative story put forward.

[Admiral Yi]

Joan's description is entirely consistent with Zimmerman's own testimony.  "Precipitating a confrontation" doesn't have to be taking the first swing.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Joan's description is entirely consistent with Zimmerman's own testimony.  "Precipitating a confrontation" doesn't have to be taking the first swing.

You were bedazzled by his use of the word "precipitating." My beef is primarily with his narrative assertion that he precipitated a confrontation that he was told to avoid. If Zimmerman's narrative is true, by the time he was given the instruction by the police he was already far away from his vehicle and Martin was already planning to confront him. So after given instructions by law enforcement there was little Zimmerman could have done to have avoided the confrontation, in which case it is not accurate to say he "hastened the occurrence of; brought about prematurely, hastily, or suddenly" the confrontation. If you want to be extremely semantic linguistically, you could argue that by returning to his vehicle he was "hastening the occurrence of the confrontation", but even that is speculative. Perhaps by walking towards his vehicle he was actually (unknowingly) putting distance between himself and Martin, and Martin had to speed up to catch up with him. Without knowing what Martin was doing or his position prior to the confrontation, we don't actually know in what way Zimmerman's movements after being told "we don't need you to do that" affected the impending confrontation. From the point when he is told "we don't need you to do that" there was no logical way in Zimmerman's story to avoid the confrontation since he did not know where Martin was, and he was already far removed from his vehicle--so the non-semantic point makes it hard to find fault with Zimmerman after he was told "we don't need you to do that", under the narrative presented by Zimmerman.