Trayvon vs. Zimmerman - The trial

[Phishfan]

Maybe my eyes were just tricked with the smaller photo. Yes that does look consistent.

[CF DolFan]

We don't live in a CSI world, where you cannot convict people without videotape evidence and DNA proof.  If Zimmerman claims that he didn't follow or instigate but nearly all the available evidence indicates otherwise, the jury is supposed to use their judgement.
Can't you apply that same standard toward Martin's exasperation at being racially profiled?

Judgement based on EVIDENCE. Not judgement based on whatever the jury can fabricate in their mind because the prosecution didn't have any.

"Fu**ing punks."  and "these a**holes always get away" doesn't equate to "crazy-a** cracker". One is clearly speaking about the person and one is clearly speaking of a situation.

Why do you keep saying racially profiling? He profiled and i don't think anyone has argued differently. If the break-ins had happened by middle aged white guys you might begin a conversation. The fact was young black men have been seen and arrested for breaking in to those homes. Trayvon fits that profile. Is that George's fault?

[masterfins]

Spider, how many people do you know who call the police before starting a fight? How do you explain Zimmerman not stepping out of his vehicle to confront Martin, at the stage where Martin was approaching him, if his goal was a confrontation? How do you explain he caught up to a fleeing Martin if Martin had a head start on him in an effort to get home, unless Martin doubled back?

Every piece of this tells me Martin showed the more agressive behavior. None of this leads me to believe Zimmerman started the physical confrontation.

Now, I give you that maybe the use of a gun may have been overkill based on the visible injuries. That is what I would really have to focus on if I was sitting on the jury.

.

Excellent points.  I was thinking the same thing.

[Landshark]

Defense rested today without Zimmerman taking the stand.

[Spider-Dan]

"Fu**ing punks."  and "these a**holes always get away" doesn't equate to "crazy-a** cracker". One is clearly speaking about the person and one is clearly speaking of a situation.

How can it be that when Martin said he was being followed by a "creepy ass cracker" as he was being followed at night by this strange person when he had done nothing wrong, he is attacking Zimmerman personally, yet when Zimmerman says "these assholes always get away," "asshole" does not refer to the person he called about and is following, but is instead some generalized commentary on society or something?  Zimmerman is obviously and clearly referring to Martin directly.

If Martin had said "creepy ass crackers" then would he have also been talking in generalities?  The whole idea is silly.

[CF DolFan]

How can it be that when Martin said he was being followed by a "creepy ass cracker" as he was being followed at night by this strange person when he had done nothing wrong, he is attacking Zimmerman personally, yet when Zimmerman says "these assholes always get away," "asshole" does not refer to the person he called about and is following, but is instead some generalized commentary on society or something?  Zimmerman is obviously and clearly referring to Martin directly.

If Martin had said "creepy ass crackers" then would he have also been talking in generalities?  The whole idea is silly.

Would you at least agree that one is racially motivated while the other is not?  Yea .. I didn't think so.

People in Sanford are obviously getting nervous. They just want it to be over and to move on. In some ways it reminds me of the mindset when there is an approaching hurricane. As of yesterday there still doesn't appear to be people from the outside here and that's what most everyone is worried about. With the trial coming to a close and the NAACP convention starting many expect that to change quickly.

[pondwater]

What was this all about? is this normal protocol for the judge to make such a big deal over whether the defendant testifies?

http://youtu.be/UgDuu6i8MtE


I like the quote in the comments section of that youtube video.

I especially enjoyed the irony of the fact that the judge tells Zimmerman that he has the right not to say anything and speak thru his attorney and then a few seconds later tells the attorney to be quite because she's speaking to his client.

All she had to do was tell him that he had a right to testify or to remain silent. How does such a doofus become a judge. If they riot, hopefully they will start with her courtroom. This judge obviously looked biased throughout most of the trial.

[Dave Gray]

^ I also thought that was weird.  There was some odd tension between the attorney and the judge.  But I've also heard other legal experts say that the attorney didn't really have to explain himself, because until the last witness, he can change his mind.     Still...weird.

[CF DolFan]

For whomever cares... they have evacuated the old courthouse which sits beside City Hall. We are crawling with police but no one will talk.

[Spider-Dan]

Would you at least agree that one is racially motivated while the other is not?  Yea .. I didn't think so.

I know a lot of people out there would love to jump on "cracker" and insist that it's just the same as using the n-word, but no, I don't particularly think that indicates racism.  Or at least, it does to approximately the same extent that it would if Zimmerman had called Martin "colored" or "boy," which is not particularly that much at all.  Do you see any news source anywhere in the country making any sort of effort to censor "cr*cker" or say "the other c-word"?

In any case, that's not really the point.  If you want to argue that Martin displayed racial malice towards Zimmerman, fine; there are grounds to make that claim.  But it's clear that Zimmerman also displayed plain old everyday malice towards Martin when he referred to him as an "asshole" and a "fucking punk."  So at best, we are left with two people who have displayed animosity towards each other... one who was trying to evade, and one who was trying to pursue.

And I think it's silly to say that an adult Zimmerman's statements and history are completely innocent/irrelevant, while the statements and history of a minor Martin are damning.

[Phishfan]

I imagine Zimmerman didn't think he was "starting a fight;"

You know this just hit me as they were discussing jury instructions this morning. Based on your own statement right here, you discoutned the ill will necessary for 2nd degree murder. If you were to follow the law rather than emotions, right here is how you see and could only convict on manslaughter.

[Spider-Dan]

You know this just hit me as they were discussing jury instructions this morning. Based on your own statement right here, you discoutned the ill will necessary for 2nd degree murder.

Please explain.

If the jury believes that Zimmerman intentionally committed battery (specifically: by attempting to forcibly detain Martin against his will) and that the escalation of that crime led to Zimmerman killing Martin, how does that disqualify murder 2?

If I only intended to snatch your purse but I end up shooting you in the ensuing scuffle, is that manslaughter?

[Phishfan]

^^^ It isn't Murder 2 under definition. You seem to not be interested in the technical aspects of the charge at all. Your purse snatching incident would likely be Murder 3 which is a murder that happens as a comission of another felony.

As an FYI, the prosecution tried to add Murder 3 as a lesser charge but the judge ruled there wasn't evidence of another felony (they used child abuse as the cherge) so she did not allow it to be added.

Also, calling it a lesser charge is actually just technical as well. Murder 3 carries the same penalties and I believe Manslaughter does as well.

[Spider-Dan]

^^^ It isn't Murder 2 under definition. You seem to not be interested in the technical aspects of the charge at all. Your purse snatching incident would likely be Murder 3 which is a murder that happens as a comission of another felony.

That doesn't really make sense, as degrees of murder go up in severity from 3rd->2nd->1st.

I didn't think purse snatching was a felony (but it looks like it frequently is) so I guess I should have said pickpocketing instead.  In any case, do you have the Florida law as to the actual requirement for murder 2?  According to The Ultimate Arbiter of All That is Fact, generally murder 1 is either premeditated or in the commission of a felony, while murder 2 is simply neither of those things, and mitigating circumstances can bring it down from murder 2 to either voluntary manslaughter (aka murder 3) or involuntary manslaughter.

But ultimately: if murder 2 and voluntary manslaughter carry the same penalties in Florida, this entire line of discussion is basically a waste of time.

[Phishfan]

You can look it up as easily as I can. I've already given you part of it in this thread and even showed you how your own statement negates the ill-will section which defines what murder 2 is.

Also, let's think about your statement for a minute. Murder 1,2,3 are organized by severity? How is a murder any less severe than another murder? It is still murder. The classifications have to do with how it was comitted.