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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yodajazz

The prosecution does need to prove a "depraved state of mind" in its case.

---

Exactly... and the way this case is going, they have zero shot of that.

to quote me last year:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobvela

Zimmerman will walk... mark my words... he was over charged and will walk for the same reason that Casey Anthony did... the prosecution will not be able to prove their case to the degree charged.

---

Now at trial we see it's not just a matter of having over charged him... but because they have a very weak case in general.

Witness after witness for the state have done more to support the defenses claim of lawful self-defense than even hint at a "depraved state of mind".

Even the state's star witness has admitted on the stand to giving false statements to investigators (in addition to many other false statements related to the case).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yodajazz

Lastly, I have never seen any maps showing where Zimmerman's vehicle was. I think that the prosecution will able to establish that he was pursuing Martin. I still believe that it was reasonable that Martin felt fear in being followed at night, especially by someone of a different race.

---

You can find some aerial shots of there area here & here... as well as some analysis that suggests that Zimmerman could not have 'chased down' Martin... and that in all likelihood, Martin doubled back.

I wonder when Zimmerman is acquitted... if those who were calling for his head will acknowledge they were wrong... and take responsibility for the violence that will almost certainly happen.

At trial's end I will refrain from second guessing the conclusions of the jury. My main complaint is that Zimmerman would never had gone to trial had there not been a public outcry. Both Martin and Zimmerman deserve due process. That process is now ongoing, no thanks to the Florida enforcement community.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobvela

Exactly... and the way this case is going, they have zero shot of that.

to quote me last year:


Now at trial we see it's not just a matter of having over charged him... but because they have a very weak case in general.

Witness after witness for the state have done more to support the defenses claim of lawful self-defense than even hint at a "depraved state of mind".

Even the state's star witness has admitted on the stand to giving false statements to investigators (in addition to many other false statements related to the case).



You can find some aerial shots of there area here & here... as well as some analysis that suggests that Zimmerman could not have 'chased down' Martin... and that in all likelihood, Martin doubled back.

I wonder when Zimmerman is acquitted... if those who were calling for his head will acknowledge they were wrong... and take responsibility for the violence that will almost certainly happen.

---

The media and the 'analysts' have been doing a terrible job of reporting some significant things that have been happening in the court room, and their 'opinions' contrast dramatically with what the people watching the trial think. Many people, around half of them, think that Trayvon's female friend's testimony was damaging to the prosecution and helpful to the defense. However, the 'analysts' all seemed to think she was wonderful.

It's not accurate reporting. They seem to be raising the expectations of those who may expect a conviction. When the prosecution has a bad day, the media should let the public know that the prosecution had a bad day. As simple as that. They shouldn't pretend the prosecution had a good day.

They all ignored the exchange where Trayvon's lady friend admitted that she didn't care enough to make sure that what she said during the interview with Benjamin Crump, the Martin family attorney was accurate or not.

My jaw dropped when I heard her say that. Trayvon's family deserved better from her. But I didn't see that clip on the news.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

My main complaint is that Zimmerman would never had gone to trial had there not been a public outcry.

---

And yet the lead investigator was pushing for negligent homicide charges (a far easier bar to meet given the evidence)... and yet the public outcry gave prosecutor Angela Corey and excuse to get involved, bump up the charges and try to raise her political capitol.

How does it feel to be used?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Both Martin and Zimmerman deserve due process. That process is now ongoing, no thanks to the Florida enforcement community.

---

Due process requires a trial? You must not believe in prosecutorial discretion.

This is not due process... this is poor attempt at a legal lynching. Due process was prevented by the public outcry and a politician who saw a way they could gain. Instead false hope has been created and the violence and outrage that happens upon acquittal will be on the heads of those who demanded this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Queens Guy

It's not accurate reporting. They seem to be raising the expectations of those who may expect a conviction. When the prosecution has a bad day, the media should let the public know that the prosecution had a bad day. As simple as that. They shouldn't pretend the prosecution had a good day.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobvela

And yet the lead investigator was pushing for negligent homicide charges (a far easier bar to meet given the evidence)... and yet the public outcry gave prosecutor Angela Corey and excuse to get involved, bump up the charges and try to raise her political capitol.

How does it feel to be used?



Due process requires a trial? You must not believe in prosecutorial discretion.

This is not due process... this is poor attempt at a legal lynching. Due process was prevented by the public outcry and a politician who saw a way they could gain. Instead false hope has been created and the violence and outrage that happens upon acquittal will be on the heads of those who demanded this.

---

There was national outcry over the fact that there was not a trial, when there were in fact many questions involving this case. This trial is the due process, many people were asking for. Due process is not being prevented. Having a public trial is a form of due process, the last time I looked.

Seems to me like you are seeking a return to earlier times, when Whites would kill Black with impunity; lynchings, tar and feathers, bombs, and death by dragging. Whites have burned down Black people's entire towns, without there being prosecutions. We are human beings just like you are, in case it is not obvious to you. HA mods took down my post with a picture from an actual lynching. It was a picture of a large group of White men standing over a charred Black body. A few of the men even managed a smile. I think they also removed my picture of separate White and Black water fountains.
Apparently reality is too deep for some people to see.

So I'm going to post another picture. Its the church window where four Black girls, age 11-14 were killed by a bomb, planted by White separatists. Yeah, due process. It took 38 years for someone to be convicted of this crime.

Quote:

---

And yet the lead investigator was pushing for negligent homicide charges...

---

The fact that there was an investigation at all is due to the public demanding there be one. Zimmerman was taken to the station, cursorily questioned and released. Many witnesses (including some who made the 911 calls, and others who lived nearby) weren't questioned until it became evident that there would have to be a real investigation. One early witness was interviewed in the presence of Trevon's mother. I'm not sure, is that considered good police procedure these days.

Quote:

---

How does it feel to be used?

---

Your asking a transgender, African/Asian American how it feels to be used? So a prosecutor has taken political advantage of the public relations mess created by the police. What's new? Good for her. It time the Florida police clean up their act. But not good for justice, I agree. The charge should be commensurate with what the prosecutor feels she can prove given the evidence of the investigation. Not being a prosecutor or privy to the facts of the much belated investigation I won't pass judgement on whether murder-2 charges were justified. I leave it to (what were your words...oh yes) prosecutorial discretion.

Quote:

---

Due process requires a trial?

---

Your words, not mine. I said both Martin and Zimmerman deserve due process. Martin was invited into the neighborhood. He had no weapon other than a box of skittles. Zimmerman was not invited. He was a self-proclaimed vigilante with a concealed weapon stalking the neighborhood for criminals. In fact the police kinda unvited him. Zimmerman pursues and confronts Martin for being "suspicious." A tussle ensues and Martin dies by Zimmerman's weapon. That all we or the police knew. So what did they do? They picked up Zimmerman, questioned him briefly and released him. The public thought the case deserved more scrutiny than it seemed the police were willing to give it. It seemed to the public that the police were hoping the outcry would quickly die away and the case would just go away. Is they any evidence to the contrary? Zimmerman was being tried and fried in the media. Due process is conducting a proper investigation and if the results warrant it, giving him a trial. Something, unfortunately, that wasn't going to happen without the media noise forcing Florida's hand. Due process is something Martin never got.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobvela

to quote me last year:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobvela

Originally Posted by bobvela View Post
Zimmerman will walk... mark my words... he was over charged and will walk for the same reason that Casey Anthony did... the prosecution will not be able to prove their case to the degree charged.

---

---

bobvela quoting bobvela... how novel. I'm guessing bobvela has masturbated over that stunt a couple of times. Move along dimestore prosecutor, move along.

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 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Queens Guy

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 agree and disagree. I think both you and I know that a teenager in law can be classed as an adult but lack maturity; to me she sounds immature however old she is. And was Trayvon the love of her life or just one cute guy among many she was dating who had a rough deal? Its like a film in which 'we' want the teenage girl to be absolute in her love and convictions, aware of the gravity of the situation, concerned above all for the victim, etc -the reality is that life is not like a film, it has incoherence, is shapeless, punctuated by mumblings, obscure words and phrases like 'I had a rush on it' which I could not and perhaps still do not properly understand.

In addition I am reminded of the fate of Desiree Washington, who was not only raped by Mike Tyson, but subsequently treated like a rag doll of no importance, even by Maya Angelou who spent more time defending Mike Tyson against 'a hostile media' than defending the right of Desiree Washington not to be abused -perhaps teenage black girls in the USA are close to the bottom of the pile when it comes to a hierarchy of respect?

So yes, it is worth paying attention to the details in this case and I was to some extent worried that the resume I posted would gloss over some important words and phrases, and your link filled in that gap, but there is a limit to what people will read.

I think also, the core issue is not just the 'stand your ground' element of Florida law, but a personal dynamic -was there a point at which both Zimmerman and Martin could have just stood up, as I am sure guys have done in parking lots and those basketball courts in the Projects lit at night, and said 'Fuck you!' and walked off? At what point does the shooting dead of Martin become a reasonable response, and not just a legal one?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

There's almost no conceivable way that he should have been legally privileged to take a life.

---

But is it not the whole point of the law in Florida that the 'stand your ground' element of its law does in fact give someone the legal privilege to take a life?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

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.

---

Please allow me to clarify something. I intend my statements to be a strong criticism of the media, and their performance. Not as support for George Zimmerman in any way. The media have an important duty to perform, and I think they are failing miserably.

I am not sure if the media is biased or not. They may just only care about selling newspapers or gaining viewers, which allows them to sell more advertising. In the case of Ms. Jeantel, what she looks like, how she speaks, her use of slang, the fact she can't read cursive (Which isn't her fault since schools have stopped teaching it.) and the response of social media doesn't really matter. What she said on the stand is what matters.

Also, I am not rooting for either side. If Zimmerman is guilty of what he's charged with, then throw him in jail. But, if he isn't, he shouldn't be found guilty regardless of the evidence. It wasn't right when it was done to African-Americans in the past, and it's not right if it is done today.

Quote:

---

What she said on the stand is what matters.

---

True enough in a rational discourse by dispassionate participants about a topic that carries no social, political, religious, ethnic, sexual etc. baggage. However, the lawyers are adversaries, arguing for money, promotion and prestige; the jury is no doubt far from dispassionate, and the issue is entangled with most of the baggage mentioned above. How things are said is factored into how they are judged. How a witness is perceived will be factored into his or her credibility. The lawyers know that and play to it.

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.

---

Really? I cannot find that cited on any specific legal documents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natina

the charge is not 2nd degree homicide .

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

---

I don't think anyone is claiming that it is... the charge is murder in the second degree: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/im...an.charges.pdf

One is forced to wonder how much of what you spew... errr copy & paste you actually understand.

Zimmerman will walk and you are part of the reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yodajazz

There was national outcry over the fact that there was not a trial, when there were in fact many questions involving this case. This trial is the due process, many people were asking for. Due process is not being prevented. Having a public trial is a form of due process, the last time I looked.

---

You are correct... a public trial is one form of due process... however it is not the only one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yodajazz

Seems to me like you are seeking a return to earlier times, when Whites would kill Black with impunity; lynchings, tar and feathers, bombs, and death by dragging....

---

You got me... that's just what I want. *shaking head*

Comments such as yours reveal more about your motivations than mine I would suspect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

The fact that there was an investigation at all is due to the public demanding there be one.

---

Revisionist history that you actually contradict yourself in the very next sentence:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Zimmerman was taken to the station, cursorily questioned and released.

---

And yet the very next day he was back at the scene of the incident walking through it with them again. This is part of what we call an 'investigation'... something that was ongoing well before this story made national news.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Many witnesses (including some who made the 911 calls, and others who lived nearby) weren't questioned until it became evident that there would have to be a real investigation.

---

Because the evidence at the time didn't call for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

One early witness was interviewed in the presence of Trevon's mother. I'm not sure, is that considered good police procedure these days.

---

You mean Rachel Jeantel? The woman who gave false statements to police when in this high pressure situation then was admit to lying while on the stand this week?

While we all understand why she said what she did... it was that kind of investigation that caused this (&^#-storm to continue and grow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Your asking a transgender, African/Asian American how it feels to be used?

---

You assume that is relevant at all to this conversation... nice try to divert though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

So a prosecutor has taken political advantage of the public relations mess created by the police. What's new? Good for her.

---

You seem to be forgetting the fact that you helped enabled that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

The charge should be commensurate with what the prosecutor feels she can prove given the evidence of the investigation. Not being a prosecutor or privy to the facts of the much belated investigation I won't pass judgement on whether murder-2 charges were justified. I leave it to (what were your words...oh yes) prosecutorial discretion.

---

I'm sorry your willingness or ability to read and comprehend the actual facts of the case (which have been available for quite some time) limit you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Your words, not mine. I said both Martin and Zimmerman deserve due process.

---

Rather than try to hide, come out and define exactly what kind of 'due process' Martin & Zimmerman deserve.

From what I see... we've got a miscarriage of justice on one side... and another person who is dead.

Martin was invited into the neighborhood. He had no weapon other than a box of skittles. Zimmerman was not invited. He was a self-proclaimed vigilante with a concealed weapon stalking the neighborhood for criminals. In fact the police kinda unvited him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Zimmerman pursues and confronts Martin for being "suspicious." A tussle ensues and Martin dies by Zimmerman's weapon. That all we or the police knew.

---

If you honestly believe that then you clearly have memory issues or have refused to pay attention to the facts in this case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

So what did they do? They picked up Zimmerman, questioned him briefly and released him.

---

Then talked to him several more times over the following days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Due process is conducting a proper investigation and if the results warrant it, giving him a trial. Something, unfortunately, that wasn't going to happen without the media noise forcing Florida's hand. Due process is something Martin never got.

---

No... the investigation had already occurred... you forced the state to charge him with trumped up charges and will now not see any kind of justice other than your success at turning George Zimmerman into a pariah.

Again... when the violence comes... every single broken limb and lost life... is on your head.

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.

---

Liar.

Based on what I know... negligent homicide would be a charge that would be in line with the facts of the case. The very charge the police wanted to bring but that the prosecutor ignored and bumped up several levels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

The only people who should apologize are those who failed to investigate the circumstances of Martin's death and immediately released Zimmerman from custody.

---

Yes... there was zero investigation after the fact and before the public outcry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

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.

---

Bingo... which is why the blame goes back to those who demanded Zimmerman's head, this over charging, and now will force an even worse outcome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

True enough in a rational discourse by dispassionate participants about a topic that carries no social, political, religious, ethnic, sexual etc. baggage. However, the lawyers are adversaries, arguing for money, promotion and prestige; the jury is no doubt far from dispassionate, and the issue is entangled with most of the baggage mentioned above. How things are said is factored into how they are judged. How a witness is perceived will be factored into his or her credibility. The lawyers know that and play to it.

---

Trish, my criticism is not directed toward the lawyers.

It's directed toward the press, who are supposed to engage in a rational discourse, and report the facts. We can't be in the courtroom listening to all the testimony. (Even if I've found myself to be a bit of a trial junkie the past few days.) They are supposed to be professionals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

"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.

---

She was born and raised in Miami, which she testified to the previous day.

Here is the video from youtube. She starts her testimony at the 1:00:00 mark. George Zimmerman Trial - Day 3 - Part 3 - YouTube

I was born and raised and live in an ethnically diverse part of New York City. In my experience, I've gone to school with and met many families where the parents were foreign born and the children were born in the U.S.
I've never considered the U.S. born children to be 'non-native speakers', and never noticed them having any problem to speak English just as well as I did, when I was their age.

It's like the media reported half of the truth, and didn't report the other half of the truth, leading you to form the wrong impression. They didn't have to go digging to get that information, like going to her neighborhood and knock on doors and such. They just had to pay attention to her testimony.

Quote:

---

You mean ...

---

I mean the witness was examined in front of the victim's mother. This is not investigative procedure. There was no real investigation until the public demanded it.

Quote:

---

You seem to be forgetting the fact that you helped enabled that.

---

Yeah, 'cause all of Florida follows my posts here on HungAngels. :roll:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

But is it not the whole point of the law in Florida that the 'stand your ground' element of its law does in fact give someone the legal privilege to take a life?

---

I understand the stand your ground portion as saying that you do not have to retreat before defending yourself.

But it doesn't obviate the need for the force you use to be proportional to the force used by your attacker. So you can use deadly force but only if it is necessary to subdue your attacker.

If someone is attacking you with deadly force, then you do not have to run away before responding in kind. But if someone is attacking you with something less than that, can you immediately escalate the degree of violence to avoid having to retreat?

I didn't think so but I am not sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobvela

.

---

We are on the same page mostly, but you just seem saturated with glee over the mistakes of the prosecution.

The prosecution should have responded to the initial mistakes and outrage with diligence and not made a charge that is difficult to sustain.

I am not familiar with Florida homicide statutes. For instance, some states have different degrees of manslaughter, with negligent homicide being a less culpable form. Voluntary manslaughter may also have been a winnable charge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobvela

Bingo... which is why the blame goes back to those who demanded Zimmerman's head, this over charging, and now will force an even worse outcome.

---

This is the part I disagree with. I don't see that following really. The prosecutor is responsible for the decisions she makes, though she doesn't make them in a vacuum.

Just looking at the overall trajectory of events is enough to make me want to see him locked up. I was outraged, and there was a lot of collective outrage. But the prosecutors legal mistakes are her own, however zealous she thinks she should be and however she misinterprets the public's will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobvela

Liar.

Based on what I know... negligent homicide would be a charge that would be in line with the facts of the case. The very charge the police wanted to bring but that the prosecutor ignored and bumped up several levels.




Yes... there was zero investigation after the fact and before the public outcry.



Bingo... which is why the blame goes back to those who demanded Zimmerman's head, this over charging, and now will force an even worse outcome.

---

I wouldn't be so quick to write off the case. I don't see any people talking about the physical evidence of the case. Seems to me, one can draw some conclusions from the spot of the death. Zimmerman claims he was returning to his car. It doesn't seem that hard to prove that he followed TM. From the photos I saw of the crime scene, it looked like it was a considerable distance from his vehicle. He was armed. He had history of making false allegations. People made a big deal of Martin's girlfriend, lying about why she didn't go to the funeral, but Zimmerman has already lied to the court under oath, saying he had no money, when he had collected over $100,000. I think the prosecution is just setting the stage, to directly address Zimmerman's actions and history, to end their turn. From my understanding Zimmerman's story details have changed. So I expect those to be bought to the forefront. and on last thing; I dont know Florida law, but in many states, people can be re-charged, with lower degree codes, for the same crime. If this is the case, the state would be able to use the same evidence for the lower charge.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/68...u-need-to-know

I found this and a couple of other articles. I am not knowledgeable about criminal procedure but apparently juries can be instructed on lesser included charges. As a result, Zimmerman could be convicted of manslaughter even though he is being charged with second degree murder.

But if he is acquitted of the charges brought against him the prosecution cannot bring lesser included charges such as manslaughter in a second trial without violating double jeopardy.

If this article is reliable, then our speculation about overcharging is moot, because the jury can convict of manslaughter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yodajazz

; I dont know Florida law, but in many states, people can be re-charged, with lower degree codes, for the same crime. If this is the case, the state would be able to use the same evidence for the lower charge.

---

I'm not sure what you mean by that.
Usually before deliberations the judge will have a charge conference,in which it will be discussed what lesser included, if any, charges the jury will be instructed and allowed to deliberate on. I'm not sure on Florida's law on this ...but that is the general procedure.
...but
if a defendant is found "Not Guilty" after trial...you can't retry an individual on a lesser count.

..oops..sorry Bronco...didn't see your post.

The only way I can think of for a person to be retried on a lesser included would be if the jury found him "Not Guilty" of the top count..but were unable to come to a decision on a lesser included after lengthy deliberations and receiving the "Allen Charge".....but I'm not a lawyer.

sorry to post so much in a row. I was unsure about whether or not a judge has to charge the lesser included in the state of florida..especially if neither party want this.
This article by an attorney clears up a lot of questions...:
http://www.jlellis.net/blog/zimmerma...uded-offenses/