Trayvon Martin

[seemslikeadream]

Strangely, he still became involved in a fatal altercation with the person he was most definitely not following.

Three streets in the neighborhood and Zimmerman the liar... the child killer didn't know the name of the street he was on

[Freitag]

the police told him NOT to follow him

At which point he stopped.

At which point he says he stopped.

At which point the audio from the 911 call indicates he stopped running.

[Rory]

Rather than do the multi quote bonanza thing

He was running, like on foot? Or did the engine of his car stopped running?

[Freitag]

Rather than do the multi quote bonanza thing

He was running, like on foot? Or did the engine of his car stopped running?

On foot. TM ran, GZ followed. 911 told him to stop, he did. He was looking around for an address or cross street to give police when he was attacked by TM.

[seemslikeadream]

oh please who are you getting that from the lying child killer Zimmerman?

There was an address right behind him and he KNEW what street he was on...there's only 3 streets in the whole neighborhood

[Rory]

I have to say I was under the impression he was following by car, and when he lost sight of the kid, he was told to stop and at this point he left the vehicle to check street signs.

But he was running after Treyvon? Fucking hell - no wonder the kid was freaked out to the extent of violence whoever committed the initial attack (though in my book it is the generally the pursuer who is initiating hostile intentions).

I just can't see this any other way. George pre-empted all of this - the evidence might not have been enough to convince of murder in a jury trial (and the stuff about the State's Attorney being a bit loose with ethics may go some way to explain why so).

But, honestly, all of the anecdotal/circumstantial stuff crucifies George. He started it, when warned to let it go he still mysteriously managed to end up in an altercation that cost a child their life.

Carrying a piece in the first place - one that he shouldn't have been legally allowed to carry had those felony assault and battery charges been fortuitously dropped (thanks, daddy). His attitude and demeanor stink - that isn't to say is evidence per se, but the whole thing about him screams troublemaker. I don't know if is troubled or over privileged upbringing at the home of a Virgina federal Judge make him petulant to the point of impulsive violence towards his ex-girlfriend or the uniformed Police, but there is something not quite right with this guy.

I can't see this being Treyvon's fault, in any way shape or form.

[Freitag]

But he was running after Treyvon?

I spoke too soon, this point is in dispute. Zimmerman never said he ran after him, but one interpretation of his heavy breathing on the 911 audio is that he is running. But not necessarily. I wasn't certain and I should have looked deeper before I answered.

[Rory]

He (then) seemed to be in pretty good shape - not the soft skinned fatty we saw in trial.

Anyhoo - I'd need some mighty convincing narrative to change my gut instinct that he initiated all of this, yet is not being held to fair account.

It would be a strange twist if his girlfriend is convicted for perjury. Between her, and his brother and father's PR job of late have made me uneasy. Sumptin just ain't right about those folk..

[MinM]

Look who’s talking: Was there a mole on the Zimmerman jury?

For a bunch who established during voir dire that they all but loathe the media, some of the Zimmerman jurors may have been quite eager to reach out to the communications industry – and early enough to violate the rules of sequestration.

The first troubling sign was the announcement Monday that Juror B37 had signed a deal (later rescinded) with literary agent Sharlene Martin to market her story. The timeline proffered was that the juror had reached out to Martin on Sunday; if true, that would mean that, on a day when scores of Americans were in church struggling to make sense of the verdict, B37 was already working furiously to turn the death of Trayvon Martin into a personal profit center. Such a bent would be in keeping with the personality profile offered by Gail Brashers-Krug, a federal prosecutor and law professor turned criminal defense attorney, who after viewing B37’s voir dire told Slate:

“She really wants to be a juror. She seems to be going out of her way to minimize the disruptive effect of a multiweek trial on her life. Jurors rarely do that. … Both sides tend to be very skeptical of jurors who are particularly eager to serve on high-profile cases. Often they have their own agendas, or are attention-seekers.”

But it isn’t B37’s mere desire to cash in on the trial that raises eyebrows: It’s how soon she may have started. According to mediabistro, Martin, the literary agent, claimed that B37 had been referred to her “by a high ranking producer at one of the morning shows.” That means the juror would have to have established a relationship with a national morning-TV producer, asked said producer to recommend an agent, contacted Martin, and agreed to a deal with her – all within a single Sunday.

That timeline doesn’t appear to make very much sense. Instead, it’s all but certain that B37 or someone acting on her behalf had started testing the waters earlier – i.e., while the jury was still hammering out its verdict, or even before. Martin’s initial announcement of the deal stated that B37 would be co-authoring the book with her husband, an attorney. What role did he play in the negotiations, and why didn’t Anderson Cooper think to ask about any of this when he interviewed the juror for the Monday edition of his CNN program, Anderson Cooper 360?

Adding to the concern over potential juror misconduct, Zimmerman neighbor and friend Frank Taaffe had appeared on both the FOX News Channel and HLN on Saturday a few hours before the verdict was read, and had claimed to possess inside knowledge that the jury was at that moment polling 5 to 1 in favor of acquitting the defendant, with one juror holding out for manslaughter. At 2:48 PM on HLN, Taaffe at first merely claimed he was “very comfortable” in this assessment and “firmly believe[d]” it was the case; prodded by host Nancy Grace to explain how he had arrived at his belief, he went even further, stating, “I know it’s 5 to 1.” Grace appeared to dismiss that allegation as ludicrous speculation, opining that Taaffe must have “a Ouija board down [his] pants.”

Later, at 7:44 PM, Taaffe declared to FOX’s Harris Faulkner that he had “some insight into the fact that it’s 5 to 1 in favor of acquittal, and the one holdout is now looking at the manslaughter charge.” The comment whizzed right by Faulkner, who didn’t even deign to ask Taaffe how he could know this.

Perhaps Taaffe was just blowing hot air. Yet three days later, when CNN’s Cooper aired the second part of his interview with B37, she confirmed that the penultimate jury poll had indeed been 5 to 1, with one juror holding out for manslaughter. In other words, Taaffe’s “insight” into their deliberations had been entirely correct.

Could it have been mere coincidence that Taaffe happened to put the vote at 5 to 1 at the exact moment this was accurate? It’s possible. It’s also possible that he did indeed have inside access to the deliberations. Was it via juror B37 and/or her husband, who, as we’ve established, were likely in contact with that “national morning-TV producer” by the time Taaffe made his brazen claim? Does the producer in question work for FOX or HLN? Or is s/he at CNN, where the juror chose to tell her story mere hours after her literary deal fell through?

And what if Taaffe’s source wasn’t connected to B37 at all? That would mean that two out of six jurors, or a full third of the jury, had violated the rules of sequestration. While the nation focuses on B37’s troubling comments to Cooper, and the pro-defense bias they arguably revealed, we should be looking deeper into the possibility that the verdict was compromised by simple and repeated misconduct –all on the part of jurors who, either on their own or through proxies, couldn’t wait to make contact with the media they purportedly deplore.

http://blogs.orlandoweekly.com/index.ph ... rman-jury/

[justdrew]

so if there was jury tampering or juror misconduct, can the trial be thrown out and re-run?

[barracuda]

so if there was jury tampering or juror misconduct, can the trial be thrown out and re-run?

I would say "no" in this case. You'd have to trace the jury misconduct pretty directly to the defendant, in which case it might be argued that there was no jeopardy in the first place. Otherwise, double jeopardy attaches to the State of Florida v. Zimmerman for the death of Trayvon Martin. Once a verdict is entered there can be no mistrial.

At least I think that's how it goes.

[compared2what?]

so if there was jury tampering or juror misconduct, can the trial be thrown out and re-run?

I would say "no" in this case. You'd have to trace the jury misconduct pretty directly to the defendant, in which case it might be argued that there was no jeopardy in the first place. Otherwise, double jeopardy attaches to the State of Florida v. Zimmerman for the death of Trayvon Martin. Once a verdict is entered there can be no mistrial.

At least I think that's how it goes.

Once it goes to appeals, I believe it's a remand, not a mistrial. But at that level, it has much more to do with whether the right motion is timely filed with the all the right people than anything else. Very technical.

A little juror misconduct by itself usually isn't enough for reversal or remand. It has to be something that would have changed the outcome of the trial and/or a very major mistake in the law by the trial court..

[8bitagent]

Rather than do the multi quote bonanza thing

He was running, like on foot? Or did the engine of his car stopped running?

On foot. TM ran, GZ followed. 911 told him to stop, he did. He was looking around for an address or cross street to give police when he was attacked by TM.

Whoah, hold on. Is that true? How do we know Trayvon ran blocks toward a stationary Zimmerman?

I will admit, weaponless attackers in an instant can cause severe brain injury or death. Im reminded of this dad at an LA dodgers game wearing a Giants game, who was attacked by a couple of crazy LA fans and within seconds was left with a catastrophic brain injury. There has been cases where a person who happened to not be black killed an individual who was in the process of attacking/raping/etc them who happened to be black, and I believe it's truly self defense.

I feel like Zimmerman initiated and created the situation, but it makes no sense why Trayvon would run several blocks back toward a *stationary* Zimmerman and pummel him on the ground. I think Zimmerman had not yet been severely beaten yet, hence the lack of bad wounds...but maybe thought he would be severely injured. I know I would do anything to stop permanent injury. But I also would never in a thousand years follow someone. Hell Im a runner. I run from the slightest hint of trouble

I have no problem with people using deadly force if theyre being viciously attacked, regardless what the race of the person is. Btw isnt Zimmerman a Jewish name? Zimmerman clearly being Hispanic, however playing into a suburban white role. Class wise he's white, even if racially he's not.

And while this was a tragic spontaneous event, you can damn well bet the powers that be are looking at the case fallout as a trial balloon for the future to really stir up racist sentiments.

[compared2what?]

you don't know that there is no evidence to that fact...only two eye witnesses and one is dead...the other is a proven liar

There is evidence. GZ's story never changed, from the very first moments after the shooting. He willingly talked to the police, despite knowing that he didn't have to.

You understand that the word of the person who did it isn't really evidence you can take to the bank, right?

The consistency of his story and willingness to tell it to the police, counts for something in my opinion. As opposed to, say, Jodi Arias, who had to change her lies multiple times to fit the forensic evidence.

Right. Well, that's your opinion, though. Not evidence that there was an attack.

Try to bear in mind that you're assessing the word of someone who was so freaked out by the sight of an unarmed black teenager walking home from the store that he called 911 about it.

"Freaked out" is your characterization.

Yes. it is.

His actions could also be viewed as simply doing his job on Neighborhood Watch, observing someone who fit the profile of recent crimes in the area. (Or maybe he's a racist asshole, I really don't know. Just saying there are different interpretations.)

The kid was unarmed, on his way home from the store, and causing no trouble to the neighborhood whatsoever.

So what about him was it, do you think, that made it Zimmerman's job on Neighborhood Watch to follow him and call 911?

The evidence presented at trial all supported his version of events.

No. There was quite a bit of evidence that didn't support his claims of having been brutally attacked. For example, he was barely injured; Martin didn't have any of his DNA under his nails; and his gun grip didn't have any of Martin's; and Martin had neither any reason to attack him nor any history of that kind of assault.

How much injury does someone have to inflict upon you, before you know they intend to harm you?

That someone intends to harm you is not an adequate justification for the use of deadly force in self-defense. And anyway, he said he was in fear for his life. So. Assuming the question had been:

How much injury does someone have to inflict upon you, before you fear for your life enough to kill him or her in self-defense?

In view of the someone being an unarmed seventeen-year-old whom Zimmerman outweighed by 25 pounds, as well as his being in a residential neighborhood with people around and within earshot at 7:30 or so in the evening, I'd say:

More than an insignificant amount such as one might sustain in a scuffle, by a reasonable person standard..

Does GZ have to wait until he's beaten half-unconscious before he can defend himself?

There's defending yourself. And then there's fatally shooting someone.

If TM was punching him with closed fists, there wouldn't necessarily be DNA under his fingernails. TM wouldn't necessarily have had a lot of contact with the gun, and it was raining, which could have washed off any DNA.

Dude, I said it was inconclusive.

You were the one who was maintaining that he was attacked and that all the evidence supported it. Not that you thought he was attacked because you found some evidence persuasive and other evidence unconvincing.

Remember?

Zimmerman neighbor John Good, described by the AP as having "perhaps the best view of the struggle," said he heard noise while watching TV on the night Trayvon Martin was killed and stepped outside to investigate. He described seeing a MMA-style scene unfold. In his telling, the two men were "tussling" on the ground, with the person on top in a straddle position and throwing punches "ground and pound" style. He described the person on top as darkly-clad, with the one on the bottom in either red or white, and having lighter skin. Per the evidence, Trayvon was in a dark-colored sweatshirt and Zimmerman was dressed in red that night. When asked if he believed Trayvon was on top, Good replied, "Correct ... that's what it looked like."

That hardly proves he was attacked. They were fighting. Nobody disputes that.

Well, it supports his story of being attacked. (Yes I realize he could have started the fight and ended up on the bottom. But as it happens the witness didn't see Zimmerman being aggressive towards Martin, it was the other way around, consistent with Zimmerman's claims.)

Zimmerman claims that he was in fear for his life and had to use deadly force to defend himself. Also:

Trayvon Martin attacked Zimmerman, that's why it was self-defense, and why Zimmerman was acquitted.

^^That's what I was disputing. There's no evidence that Trayvon Martin attacked Zimmerman. Self-defense was not only not proven, no very obvious cause for it was indicated by anything.. And he was acquitted because there was reasonable doubt.

Neighbor Jonathon Manalo, who was the first one to step outside and took cellphone photos that night that were shown to the jury today, described "blood running down [Zimmerman's] nose from both nostrils and over his lips." He said Zimmerman's demeanor was calm, and said Zimmerman asked him to call his wife. "Just tell her I shot someone," Manalo recounts Zimmerman as saying. He said Zimmerman told him at the time that the shooting was in self-defense. When asked if that "seemed completely true," Manalo replied, "yes."

Unless you think that whenever someone says something that seems to be completely true, it must be, that's really not proof either.

I didn't offer it as proof, just refuting SLAD's claim that there was no evidence.

THAT TRAYVON MARTIN ATTACKED ZIMMERMAN.

She was replying to you. And there isn't.

A nationally renowned gunshot wound expert testified Tuesday that Trayvon Martin's gunshot wound was consistent with accused murderer George Zimmerman's story that the teen was on top of him and leaning over when he was shot.

Link

Again: They were fighting. That says nothing about who attacked whom. And anyway, his injuries were not severe enough to support his claim that he was being brutally assaulted. If you don't find that conclusive, fine. But it is evidence.

Well, again, I don't know how assaulted one must be before one can defend oneself.

Before you kill someone in self-defense, you have to believe your life is in danger. Supposedly.

And he did have injuries.

He had a bloody nose and some scratches.

And I can also understand that, even having acted, in his own opinion, reasonably, he might exaggerate the severity of the assault. I mean, he just shot somebody, and shit gets real all of a sudden, he realizes he could be in trouble.

Wait, wait, wait. I thought your position was that all the evidence supported his version of events.

[compared2what?]

Rather than do the multi quote bonanza thing

He was running, like on foot? Or did the engine of his car stopped running?

On foot. TM ran, GZ followed. 911 told him to stop, he did. He was looking around for an address or cross street to give police when he was attacked by TM.

When he says he was attacked by TM.

There's no evidence that he was.