Trayvon vs. Zimmerman - The trial

[Spider-Dan]

Well, based on the previous thread, it seems like (for this forum at least) liberal vs. conservative more accurately captures the sides.

[Buddhagirl]

Spider ... Outside of media I have always thought the overwhelming majority of people was pro Zimmerman and that included a whole lot of liberals.

Do you even know any liberals? Oh wait...this is like those elusive "black friends" that prove a racist isn't a racist. All righty then. I'll continue to judge away on this thread in silence.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I think it's actually a pretty straightforward liberal vs. conservative case:

I don't think so.  I am a white liberal.   And by the standard of reasonable doubt, I say  Zimmerman is "not guilty".  But if this was a civil suit, who is liable in tort would be very very close call.

[Phishfan]

I think Spider is way off with this liberal/conservative position. I know people on both sides of that aisle and I see no correlation between their stances in this case. I see a much bigger correlation based on race as CF noted.

[el diablo]

Personally I feel Spider's "perceived" points were spot on. The reason why is when the discussion of Trayvon's possible self defense claim. Only he's not alive to state it. The belief that Trayvon should've run home if he was so scared. Yet, legally he didn't have to. The belief that George was well within his rights to travel in the same direction as someone he described as suspicious. The belief that Trayvon should've done more to escape the perceived danger. The belief that a stranger who had been following you, is now in front of you reaching for something in the dark. Hoodie is actually a good example here. His "God" wears a hoodie on Sundays in the daytime. No one has ever claimed him to be suspicious. Yet a black teenager does at night, and you have a national talking head claiming that may have led to his death.

Is there a higher percentage of blacks that support Trayvon? Maybe. Is there a higher percentage of liberals that support Trayvon? Maybe. But then again, you don't hear a high percentage of conservatives speaking up for Trayvon's right to "stand his ground". Why is that?

[pondwater]

Personally I feel Spider's "perceived" points were spot on. The reason why is when the discussion of Trayvon's possible self defense claim. Only he's not alive to state it. The belief that Trayvon should've run home if he was so scared. Yet, legally he didn't have to. The belief that George was well within his rights to travel in the same direction as someone he described as suspicious. The belief that Trayvon should've done more to escape the perceived danger. The belief that a stranger who had been following you, is now in front of you reaching for something in the dark. Hoodie is actually a good example here. His "God" wears a hoodie on Sundays in the daytime. No one has ever claimed him to be suspicious. Yet a black teenager does at night, and you have a national talking head claiming that may have led to his death.

Is there a higher percentage of blacks that support Trayvon? Maybe. Is there a higher percentage of liberals that support Trayvon? Maybe. But then again, you don't hear a high percentage of conservatives speaking up for Trayvon's right to "stand his ground". Why is that?

This has never been a "stand your ground" case, that was media bullshit. This has been a self defense case from the start. Who gets to "self defend" depends on who physically initiated the fight. The evidence up to now leans toward Martin initiating contact, therefore Zimmerman gets to defend himself. If you and your neighbors houses have been broken into a few times in the past year and you notice an unfamiliar person lurking around in the dark and the rain you would probably investigate also.

[CF DolFan]

Do you even know any liberals? Oh wait...this is like those elusive "black friends" that prove a racist isn't a racist. All righty then. I'll continue to judge away on this thread in silence.

I don't even know how to address this. That's just stupid, baiting, antagonistic and completely untrue but you already know that.

[CF DolFan]

Personally I feel Spider's "perceived" points were spot on. The reason why is when the discussion of Trayvon's possible self defense claim. Only he's not alive to state it. The belief that Trayvon should've run home if he was so scared. Yet, legally he didn't have to. The belief that George was well within his rights to travel in the same direction as someone he described as suspicious. The belief that Trayvon should've done more to escape the perceived danger. The belief that a stranger who had been following you, is now in front of you reaching for something in the dark. Hoodie is actually a good example here. His "God" wears a hoodie on Sundays in the daytime. No one has ever claimed him to be suspicious. Yet a black teenager does at night, and you have a national talking head claiming that may have led to his death.

Is there a higher percentage of blacks that support Trayvon? Maybe. Is there a higher percentage of liberals that support Trayvon? Maybe. But then again, you don't hear a high percentage of conservatives speaking up for Trayvon's right to "stand his ground". Why is that?

You can find talking heads supporting every theory there is but that doesn't mean they are relevant.

Had Treyvon got off of George when witness Goode was screaming for them to stop and warning he was calling 911 then no one would have heard of this story. Had George stayed in his car none of this would have happened. Regardless of all the other stupid "hoodie" points which one of these acts actually break the law?

The neighborhood had been broken into numerous times by young black men. Trayvon was profiled as being a young black man who was appearing to be suspicious. In 1985 I was called into the Sanford police station and questioned about break-ins in the Kaywood subdivsion because of being a young guy on a motorcycle. That's not 1/2 mile from this same neighborhood. Imagine that. A white guy being profiled?

[el diablo]

This has never been a "stand your ground" case, that was media bullshit. This has been a self defense case from the start. Who gets to "self defend" depends on who physically initiated the fight. The evidence up to now leans toward Martin initiating contact, therefore Zimmerman gets to defend himself. If you and your neighbors houses have been broken into a few times in the past year and you notice an unfamiliar person lurking around in the dark and the rain you would probably investigate also.

Thank you for proving my point. You never mentioned Trayvon's right to stand his ground. There's a part of that law that people overlook. That part is "perceived threat". Who's to say what a perceived threat is? Trayvon ran, and the "threat" reappears. The threat doesn't go away when he stops running. Its not whether or not George feels he was a threat. When asked if George felt he could've been a threat to Trayvon (by Officer Serrano), he replied, "No." Its about how someone perceives you. That's the problem I have with the law in the way its written. And now there's a bill going through the Florida Legislature addressing that point.

George had the opportunity to claim "Stand Your Ground". But decided against it. I can understand why. That decision is given by one person ( a judge), as opposed to a jury. If he would've lost that decision, it could've been used against him in this trial. Granted, if he would've won, then there would be no trial today.

The media jumped all over the "Stand Your Ground" angle on both sides. I'll give you that. But, conservatives looked at any attack on the law as an attack on their right to defend themselves. Liberals looked at as a chance to tighten gun restrictions. I'm in the middle. I believe you should have a right to defend yourself, your family, and others who can't. But I don't believe the threshold should be a "perceived threat". Because that term is not a universally understood term.

To answer your last question. I would say, "It depends". Just because there had been  a "rash of robberies" in the area, doesn't mean every "suspicious" person is guilty by appearance. If they are doing something suspicious, that's one thing. Perceiving them to be suspicious is another. 

[el diablo]

You can find talking heads supporting every theory there is but that doesn't mean they are relevant.

Had Treyvon got off of George when witness Goode was screaming for them to stop and warning he was calling 911 then no one would have heard of this story. Had George stayed in his car none of this would have happened. Regardless of all the other stupid "hoodie" points which one of these acts actually break the law?

The neighborhood had been broken into numerous times by young black men. Trayvon was profiled as being a young black man who was appearing to be suspicious. In 1985 I was called into the Sanford police station and questioned about break-ins in the Kaywood subdivsion because of being a young guy on a motorcycle. That's not 1/2 mile from this same neighborhood. Imagine that. A white guy being profiled?

I just want to ask you  "How did it feel to be treated like a criminal, when you knew that you weren't?" Because I can tell you from my experiences, that it sickens me. At least in your case, you knew of the situation. Or maybe you were told of the situation at the police station
 Either way, I still feel that was wrong. To me, appearance alone is not probable cause.

[pondwater]

Another terrible day for the prosecution. It seems the majority of the witnesses they call wind up looking like witnesses for the defense. Even with the way it's going, I wouldn't be surprised if the "fix was in" and a guilty decision was returned to keep the "watchdogs of the oppressed" from looting, raping, and pillaging all over the country.

Thank you for proving my point. You never mentioned Trayvon's right to stand his ground. There's a part of that law that people overlook. That part is "perceived threat". Who's to say what a perceived threat is? Trayvon ran, and the "threat" reappears. The threat doesn't go away when he stops running. Its not whether or not George feels he was a threat. When asked if George felt he could've been a threat to Trayvon (by Officer Serrano), he replied, "No." Its about how someone perceives you. That's the problem I have with the law in the way its written. And now there's a bill going through the Florida Legislature addressing that point.

George had the opportunity to claim "Stand Your Ground". But decided against it. I can understand why. That decision is given by one person ( a judge), as opposed to a jury. If he would've lost that decision, it could've been used against him in this trial. Granted, if he would've won, then there would be no trial today.

The media jumped all over the "Stand Your Ground" angle on both sides. I'll give you that. But, conservatives looked at any attack on the law as an attack on their right to defend themselves. Liberals looked at as a chance to tighten gun restrictions. I'm in the middle. I believe you should have a right to defend yourself, your family, and others who can't. But I don't believe the threshold should be a "perceived threat". Because that term is not a universally understood term.

To answer your last question. I would say, "It depends". Just because there had been  a "rash of robberies" in the area, doesn't mean every "suspicious" person is guilty by appearance. If they are doing something suspicious, that's one thing. Perceiving them to be suspicious is another. 

The point that I think you are missing is that even if TM was standing his ground, he had no legitimate right to initiate contact with Zimmerman. You are assuming that Zimmerman initiated contact, which the evidence contradicts.

[Spider-Dan]

Which "evidence" contradicts that?  Zimmerman's account of the event?

[CF DolFan]

I just want to ask you  "How did it feel to be treated like a criminal, when you knew that you weren't?" Because I can tell you from my experiences, that it sickens me. At least in your case, you knew of the situation. Or maybe you were told of the situation at the police station
 Either way, I still feel that was wrong. To me, appearance alone is not probable cause.

Honestly ... it was no big deal. I wasn't guilty and in fact had no idea what i was being questioned on. They showed up at my grandparents house and asked to see me. They allowed them to see me.

I had gotten into quite a bit of trouble ... especially during my 10th grade year. In fact I wasn't able to play football in what would have been my Junior year of high school. To play my senior year I had to get permission from my head coach (that was a whole other story of a mental beat down). After winning his confidence back we became friends and he shared with me the volleyball coach's opinion of me which included the break-ins. It was then that I realized who threw me under the bus the year before as she lived on that street.  I can honestly say looking back I didn't blame her.  I walked like a hoodlum, hung out with other hoodlums so why wouldn't someone mistake me for a hoodlum? I'm sure I even recognized that then although I wouldn't have admitted it.

[CF DolFan]

Which "evidence" contradicts that?  Zimmerman's account of the event?

The fact the state's witness today said even if you initiate conflict you can still use deadly force to defend yourself. that wipes out any "what-ifs" of who started it.

10:22 a.m. ET: "It’s fluid, the law as it applies isn’t static. Any change in a certain fact can weigh differently in terms of whether someone acted reasonably," said Carter. He says he would show his class videos and pause it to look at how things were changing in the situation.

10:24 a.m. ET: Injuries support a person's fear of great bodily harm, according to Carter, but a  person can still have a fear of harm without having injuries.

"You don't have to wait until you're almost dead to defense yourself?" asked West.

"No, I would advise you probably not do that," said Carter.

[Spider-Dan]

The fact the state's witness today said even if you initiate conflict you can still use deadly force to defend yourself. that wipes out any "what-ifs" of who started it.

The statement was, "You are assuming that Zimmerman initiated contact, which the evidence contradicts."

Which evidence contradicts the assumption that Zimmerman initiated contact, besides his own personal account?

Furthermore: if Zimmerman did initiate the conflict (and is lying about it), that impacts his credibility, in much the same way as claiming that you ceased following someone but then just happened to keep traveling behind them would also impact your credibility.

I've said this before, but it's one thing to say that Zimmerman was legally entitled to follow Martin or that he was within his legal rights to kill Martin even if he (Zimmerman) started the fight.  But that's not what Zimmerman is saying.  He's saying that he WASN'T following him and that he DIDN'T start the fight.  So if the jury believes he did do those things, that's a hammerblow to Zimmerman's credibility as to whether his actions (in toto) were reasonably justified.

Personally, I find Zimmerman's account of the situation to be rather damaging to his credibility; in particular, the part where Zimmerman claims Martin said "You are going to die tonight" draws strong parallels to the recent Texas conviction of a man who repeatedly said on tape "I fear for my safety" and "I'm standing my ground" before shooting an unarmed schoolteacher.  It smacks of legal manipulation.