17yr old black kid shot and killed for walking in white suburbia?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobvela

Why would the same media that was pushing for the head of Zimmerman back off now? The current narrative from the media will play well into a later narrative of the "racist jury of mostly whites that acquitted Zimmerman" while removing blame from the state which never should have brought murder-2 charges in this case.

---

What an insult to all the victims of racist violence in this country whose attackers have been acquitted in pernicious exercises of jury nullification. It is not a media narrative that individuals who have killed African-Americans have been acquitted by all white juries. It is a part of American history. In fact, one cannot read about jury nullification without encountering cases where juries acquitted men involved in the lynching of African-Americans despite numerous eyewitness accounts of the murders.

Good God it is amazing how ignorant some people are. Since the media does not act as a monolith it would only require one editorial saying what you have in quotes for your point to be proven by your standards.

TRAYVON MARTIN is an inocent youth who was going to his father house after purchasing some candy and an ice tea when an embolded man who has had MMA training and was armed and was over zealous


tried to detain him and probably pushed him and attempted to take him to the ground with his MMA training.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

For Bobvela, it is a failure of the system that someone is being tried for shooting an unarmed black teenager. The political pressure is based on the fact that so frequently prosecutors allow such events to happen without taking the necessary steps to determine whether they should pursue the case. The only people who should apologize are those who failed to investigate the circumstances of Martin's death and immediately released Zimmerman from custody.

I said months ago that I thought pursuing 2nd degree murder may be a bad idea because it would be tough to demonstrate Zimmerman had formulated the requisite intent to get a conviction. I think it is possible that Zimmerman is guilty of second degree murder but showing purpose or knowledge intent is difficult. "Depraved heart murder" usually requires that someone act so recklessly that an innocent's death is an obvious result. For instance, firing a gun into a playground for kicks and finding out that you unintentionally killed a child.

Here, since it is difficult to establish exactly what happened, it might be easier to show that Zimmerman did not have a legal privilege to take someone's life. That his self-defense was "imperfect", and that he committed reckless or negligent homicide.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natina

The case is about negligent homicide and not homicide. There is a difference and this is the reason zimmerson should not be found not guilty.


Zimmerman's actions willfully created a situation


http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012...rvers-say?lite

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...oAT_story.html




the charge is not 2nd degree homicide .

the charge is Zimmerman recklessly endangered Trayvon's life (Criminally Negligent Homicide ).



He WILLFULLY CREATED the circumstances where the gun was used.



911 call records george Zimmermans's desire to DETAIN Travyon martin.


ZIMMMERMAN STATED "they always get away" argument for racial profiling



http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012...rvers-say?lite





Criminally Negligent Homicide







(or "depraved indifference") in the language of the indictment for second degree murder.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...oAT_story.html



What this means is that the state is not attempting to prove that Zimmerman willfully murdered Trayvon Martin.



Instead they will set out to prove that zimmerman by going after Trayvon with a loaded gun:



-- even after he had been reminded not to by the 911 operator



-- despite the proper protocals for any neighborhood watch program



-- despite zimmerman's own training in law enforcement





Zimmerman recklessly endangered Trayvon's life.



He WILLFULLY CREATED the circumstances where the gun was used.







In the absence of any eyewitness who had a clear view of the start of the fight,



or the firing of the gun.



Florida authorities wisely avoided the pitfalls of attempting to prove that Zimmerman willfully shot Trayvon in a situation where he had other options.



If the Jury believes that Zimmerman's actions willfully created a situation where he might well use his gun...







then he's guilty under the law.

---

The Orlando Sentinel has published this resume of the week's proceedings -I assume it is a reasonably fair report. Link at the bottom.

George Zimmerman trial: The week in review

• http://1.2.3.10/bmi/www.trbimg.com/i...01/600/600x298

Defense attorney Mark O'Mara, right, holds a photo of… (Joe Burbank/Orlando Sentinel )

June 29, 2013
Monday
In opening statements, attorneys took vastly different paths.
Assistant State Attorney John Guy was passionate, profane and loud. He dropped the f-bomb several times, using the words Zimmerman had said to a police dispatcher moments before the shooting.
"'[Expletive] punks. These assholes, they always get away.' Those were the words," Guy said, pointing at Zimmerman, "in that grown man's mouth."


http://1.2.3.10/bmi/articles.orlando...ages/pixel.gif
http://1.2.3.10/bmi/articles.orlando...ages/pixel.gif
Defense attorney Don West's opening was slow and methodical — and at nearly three hours, five times longer than Guy's.
"I think the evidence will show that this is a sad case, that the are no monsters," West said. "George Zimmerman is not guilty of murder. He shot Trayvon Martin in self-defense after being viciously attacked."
Neither attorney mentioned race in his opening statement, but the issue came up late in the day when Assistant State Attorney Richard Mantei began playing for jurors a call Zimmerman had made to police, reporting a suspicious black man in the neighborhood. But the subject was not Trayvon Martin. It was someone else.
Zimmerman had made many similar calls to police in the months before Trayvon's death. Defense attorney Mark O'Mara objected, asking that the audio playback be halted. The judge told attorneys to research case law and return Tuesday to hash it out.
Tuesday
Sanford police Sgt. Anthony Raimondo was first to testify and told jurors that when he arrived at the scene of the shooting, Trayvon Martin was face-down in the grass, a bullet in his chest, his hands beneath him.
Tuesday was also the day that jurors saw a slew of crime-scene and evidence photos. About a dozen photos of Trayvon's body were shown in court. Also Tuesday, prosecutors placed several important items into evidence, including Trayvon's now near-iconic hoodie and Zimmerman's gun.
The court session ended with the issue of whether jurors should listen to five phone calls Zimmerman made to police still unresolved.
The Neighborhood Watch coordinator for Sanford police, Wendy Dorival, also testified. She said Zimmerman was instructed — as are all Neighborhood Watch coordinators in Sanford — to call police if they see something suspicious and not to "engage" a suspect.
Wednesday
The state's star witness, Rachel "Diamond" Jeantel, gave a dramatic account of Trayvon Martin's last seconds. While on the phone with Trayvon, he told her a man was following him, someone he described as a "creepy-ass cracker," Jeantel said.
She said she could hear the man say, "What are you doing around here?" Jeantel then heard a "bump," followed by Trayvon saying "Get off. Get off," then the phone went dead, she testified.

http://1.2.3.10/bmi/articles.orlando...ages/pixel.gif
Jeantel's account, though, was nearly lost amid the problems and spectacle she created. In her 2 1/2 hours on the stand, she used street slang, was sometimes defiant and talked so fast and so softly that it was often impossible to make out her words.
It was a rocky day for prosecutors. Early in the day, they called two neighbors who heard and saw part of the confrontation between Trayvon and Zimmerman the night of the shooting, both of whom were damaged on cross-examination.
Also Wednesday, jurors listened as prosecutors played recordings of five calls Zimmerman made to police dispatchers in the months before the shooting. In four he was reporting suspicious people — in each of those cases, the subject was black.
Thursday
Rachel Jeantel got back on the stand for a second day and told jurors she's convinced that she heard Zimmerman hit then climb on top of Trayvon. Defense attorney Don West challenged her, a tactic he kept up for 5 1/2 grueling hours over two days.
On Wednesday, Jeantel responded badly. On Thursday, she was more cooperative, ending nearly every answer with "sir" — even if the "sir" became more pointed as the day wore on.
At a news conference, defense attorney Mark O'Mara was asked who had won the battle of wills between Jeantel and West.
"The only battle in this court is for justice and truth," O'Mara answered. During the testimony, West led Jeantel through several of her earlier statements, trying to discredit her and show that she had changed her account.
Jeantel was one of four witnesses prosecutors called Thursday. Two others were neighbors.
Friday
At the end of the trial's first full week, jurors had heard from police, first responders, medical professionals and neighbors. And on Friday, they heard a lot about mixed martial arts, the full-contact boxing-like sport.
The state called the man expected to be the defense's star witness: John Good, a Zimmerman neighbor who told Sanford police after the shooting he'd seen a black man on top of a lighter-skinned man "just throwing down blows on the guy, MMA-style."
Good said he saw two people on the ground. The one on top was wearing dark clothes, he said, and the one of the bottom had lighter skin and was wearing white or red.
However, Good said he couldn't say for sure who called out for help — though he thought it was Zimmerman — and also said he didn't see the punches connect, just "arm movement going downward."
The last witness of the day was Lindzee Folgate, a physician assistant who treated Zimmerman the day after the shooting. She testified that during earlier visits, she'd noted that Zimmerman had "started to exercise intensely with" mixed martial arts, three times a week. His body mass rated him obese, she said: 5 feet 7.5 inches and weighing 204 pounds.


http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/...in-mark-o-mara

Stavros, my concern with the reporting of this case is that there is too much supposed 'analysis' by 'experts' and not enough reporting on what the witnesses actually said.

I worry this will lead to a misinterpretation of why the witnesses, especially Rachel Jeantel, Trayvon's friend who was on the phone with him shortly before the shooting happened, were found not credible.

People will argue that she was found not credible because of her race, attractiveness or lack of attractiveness, use of slang, etc. and not because of what she said. That will lead many to think she was a victim of racism, or some other kind of discrimination. It will bolster the anger that underlies this case, and may even lead to violence. Violence that wouldn't happen, in my opinion, if the reporting referred more often to the testimony given in court.

The following is a portion of her testimony which I referred to in a previous post, which caused my jaw to drop when she gave it. It is why I question her credibility. And why I find the media derelict in their duty to report accurately, or with intelligent analysis of this case. It comes from CNN's website at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...itroom.01.html
The 'Unidentified Male' is Don West, a defense attorney. Crump is Benjamin Crump, the Martin family attorney, who Jeantel should have considered friendly to her.

JEANTEL: I had told you what happened to me in the Crump interview. I had a rush on it.

Are you listening?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: One more time.

I'm sorry. I was distracted.

You told me what?

JEANTEL: I had told you, during the interview between me and Crump, I had a rush on it. And before that interview, I had told my mom that have any -- if the officer wanted to talk to me, they could talk to me to know exactly what happened. And I had told you that on the depo. And I had told you -- and they sent it right down rush. I had told you I had a rush on me.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When you say you rushed on it, you mean you hadn't thought it through carefully to be sure that you spoke --

JEANTEL: I just told him the --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That you (INAUDIBLE) -- that you told the truth?

JEANTEL: -- the Trayvon part (INAUDIBLE) told the Trayvon part.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you saying that you rushed through it and you didn't think about it carefully enough to be sure that you told it accurately?

JEANTEL: Yes.

Thanks for the link, Queens Guy. What it shows is how messy reality is, people are looking for neat questions and answers from witnesses with perfect recall of an event that transpired in a short space of time in the dark even when they weren't physically there. The slang that young people use, and the apparent indifference to the authority of proceedings they show (she seems to show) can be used against a witness, yet the key points which people are looking for, those absolute truths which confirm Zimmerman verbally abused Martin and attacked him, or Martin used verbal insults and attacked Zimmerman, cannot yet be verified, and may never be. I don't think she is an unreliable witness, she sounds to me like a teenage girl who is not in her comfort zone and wants to be somewhere else. And yes, the newspaper must select what it writes to compress a week's proceedings into one digestible report.
But presumably, if the prosecutor is struggling to prove that Trayvon was abused and attacked -and then unlawfully murdered- by Zimmerman, the team for the latter must prove that he was acting in self-defence as well as explain why Zimmerman appeared to ignore police instructions not to get involved in the first place.
A long way to go in this trial.

Stavros, we will have to agree to disagree about the credibility of Ms. Jeantel. I can understand her disrespect or hostility toward the defense attorneys. I could understand her indifference to the whole system if the tables had been turned and Trayvon killed Zimmerman that night and was accused of murder. However, what I find reprehensible is the disrespect and indifference her conduct shows to the Martin family. She is not a child. She is an adult. She was an adult on the day Trayvon was killed. The Martin family deserves her to 'put on her helmet and get in the game'. To care enough to tell his story accurately.

Moving on to some of the other things you've said, which I think are either incorrectly reported, or at least have a counter-argument. In addition to the State of Florida having the overall burden of proof in the case in general, the State of Florida also has the burden of proof when it comes to self-defense. They must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did NOT act in self-defense. Even if the jury only thinks it was 50/50, then the State failed to reach their burden. With the testimony of the physicians assistant that treated Zimmerman the next day, she stated that his injuries are consistent with his claims that, using the defense lawyer's language, his head was smashed into the concrete walkway.

Again, I'm not rooting for one side or the other. I'm rooting for an accurate report of the days testimony. If the State 'had a good day', then say so. But, if the Defense 'had a good day', then say it.

Do we at least agree that the portion of the transcript in my previous post was important testimony, newsworthy, and worth printing and 'analyzing' by the 'experts'?

I don't see that as being the most damning admission I've ever heard. That she was careless when she spoke to the family attorney.

She doesn't sound like a great historian and so I would have some doubts about exactly how things were phrased (and some precise details) but not about whether she is trying to accurately report something that happened.

It's easy to impeach someone's testimony if they are poorly organized or not a good speaker, but it doesn't mean what they say doesn't have any veracity.

I remember being deposed after a traffic accident. I was asked questions like how far away I was from the light when I saw it as green, how far away was I when I saw the car I collided with, how much time elapsed between those two distances. I thought they were trying to extrapolate my speed. Every answer I gave was, "ummm, I think I was 40 feet, or so ummm".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Queens Guy

Do we at least agree that the portion of the transcript in my previous post was important testimony, newsworthy, and worth printing and 'analyzing' by the 'experts'?

---

I also disagree with you. The prosecution has the burden of proof but establishing that he did not act in self-defense is only difficult because it's tough to precisely reconstruct the events. There's almost no conceivable way that he should have been legally privileged to take a life. Of course one can't make that argument to a jury who has a man's life in their hands. They want to know exactly what happened. If I remember correctly, to use deadly force one must not only believe it is NECESSARY to save their life, but also be justified in believing that.

Ultimately, Zimmerman pursued someone who was unarmed, initiated a confrontation with him when told not to, was losing a fistfight and perhaps getting somewhat hurt in the process, and killed that person. The problem is that they are attempting to convict him of second degree murder.

The fact that you are sort of adamant that the media is biased against Zimmerman and forewarning of racial violence does make it seem like you would like Zimmerman to succeed at trial. That's not a bad thing. I am after all, hoping he gets convicted.

What the transcript shows is a lawyer putting words in a witness's mouth. What does "accurate" mean to to Jeantel? What does it means to the lawyer? What does it mean to the jury? If an account isn't accurate does it mean it's false? Does it mean it leaves out details? Significant details? Significant to whom? Does it mean the account is incomplete? I don't personally see this short segment of testimony as being all that telling of Jeantel's overall credibility. I would've gone on to ask her to clarify, "In what way not accurate?" But such clarification might not have dovetailed into the interrogator's narrative.

I haven't been paying all that much attention. I'll take your word for it the media coverage is wanting. As I've said before, I'm simply glad there finally was an investigation and that Zimmerman is now guaranteed due process. The tragedy is that Martin wasn't (for even if Zimmerman is not guilty and was rightfully standing his ground, had the police gotten to Martin before the vigilante no one would be dead).

"Jeantel later explained she is of Haitian descent and grew up speaking Creole and Spanish."

Jeantel is apparently not a native English speaker. It is already very easy to trip up a witness on cross, even more so if English is not their native language.

Trish says, "But such clarification might not have dovetailed into the interrogator's narrative."

Exactly. First rule of cross is never ask an open ended question.