Zimmerman Trial About To Commence

[Bocefish]

Carol Costello on CNN was just reporting that jurist B37, in the interview, said the jury came to a decision of ''not guilty" because the jury instructions were too confusing. How in the hell did she come to that conclusion from the interview?!?! More media drama being created instead of being accurately reported.

 

[mynameisbob84]

I'm with The Daily Show...

 

[SweepTheLeg]

Carol Costello on CNN was just reporting that jurist B37, in the interview, said the jury came to a decision of ''not guilty" because the jury instructions were too confusing. How in the hell did she come to that conclusion from the interview?!?! More media drama being created instead of being accurately reported.

In the interview video Bawsky posted, around the 23 1/2-24 minute mark. "We started looking at the law and it became very confusing." And later went on to say that the jury instructions were "SO confusing." at the 26 1/2 minute mark. Maybe she was the only one that was confused but it sounds like it was a general concensus that they were confusing instructions.

 

[SweepTheLeg]

To go back to that interview, the big thing that sticks out to me is how the big thing for me has been Zimmerman following Trayvon, and getting out of his truck putting himself in the situation and should bare the responsibility, but none of that mattered and was ignored and the only thing that mattered was the last bit of Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman when Zimmerman shot him.

If the only news of the story was "black kid beat up a white guy, white guy shoots in self defense." that sounds cut n dry but there's so many things that lead up to it that caused both people to react that are thrown out of the window.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

Carol Costello on CNN was just reporting that jurist B37, in the interview, said the jury came to a decision of ''not guilty" because the jury instructions were too confusing. How in the hell did she come to that conclusion from the interview?!?! More media drama being created instead of being accurately reported.

In the interview video Bawsky posted, around the 23 1/2-24 minute mark. "We started looking at the law and it became very confusing." And later went on to say that the jury instructions were "SO confusing." at the 26 1/2 minute mark. Maybe she was the only one that was confused but it sounds like it was a general concensus that they were confusing instructions.

I think they were confusing also. In another forum in a discussion among 3 attorneys, including one Florida attorney, two of the attorney's found them very confusing also.

 

[SweepTheLeg]

Anderson Cooper concurs

 

[Nordling]

I'm still wondering how the defense were able to block the judge answering the jury's question concerning "what is manslaughter?"

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

To go back to that interview, the big thing that sticks out to me is how the big thing for me has been Zimmerman following Trayvon, and getting out of his truck putting himself in the situation and should bare the responsibility, but none of that mattered and was ignored and the only thing that mattered was the last bit of Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman when Zimmerman shot him.

If the only news of the story was "black kid beat up a white guy, white guy shoots in self defense." that sounds cut n dry but there's so many things that lead up to it that caused both people to react that are thrown out of the window.

Well there is a big difference between things that seem foolish and things that matter legally. There is nothing illegal about getting out of the car to talk to somebody who you think is suspicious. Especially when you consider it your "job" to keep a watch on suspicious people. Much has been made that cops told Zimmerman to stay in the car. Which isn't true, a 911 dispatcher told him that and 911 dispatchers aren't cops. Most don't even work for the police department. You have zero legal obligation to do what a dispatcher ask you to do, which isn't the case with cops in many circumstances.

The only stuff that matters legally is what happened when Zimmerman meet Trayvon, and potentially what their state of mind was for both people.

Now Zimmermans actions with following Trayvon will almost certainly matter in the context of civil trial, but in a criminal case not really.

 

[Bocefish]

Carol Costello on CNN was just reporting that jurist B37, in the interview, said the jury came to a decision of ''not guilty" because the jury instructions were too confusing. How in the hell did she come to that conclusion from the interview?!?! More media drama being created instead of being accurately reported.

In the interview video Bawsky posted, around the 23 1/2-24 minute mark. "We started looking at the law and it became very confusing." And later went on to say that the jury instructions were "SO confusing." at the 26 1/2 minute mark. Maybe she was the only one that was confused but it sounds like it was a general concensus that they were confusing instructions.

Yes, but she also said they poured over the law for hours and hours and it was the ONLY right decision under the law, despite some of them wanting to find him guilty for "something." She also said that she not only had reasonable doubt Z feared for his life but she was CERTAIN of it.

My point was the media is ONCE AGAIN creating stories that aren't true for ratings which also incite more drama, rage... whatever you want to call it to wring every last ounce they can out of the tragedy. It's disgusting. I also think if MLK Jr. was alive today he'd be embarassed by the crap Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, Eric Holder and even Obama have done to fuel the fires. His neice said she could just about promise everyone that MLK Jr. would never have worn a hoodie like the viral image of going around portrays.

 

[Nordling]

But Z wasn't charged with disobeying a dispatcher or any of the "legal" miscalculations he made, specifically. He was responsible for someone's death BECAUSE of actions that though legal by themselves, led to a loss of life. It's called personal responsibility, ya know? Something right wingers and gun enthusiasts are constantly preaching to left wingers.

The husband of a woman my wife worked with was found guilty of manslaughter because a passenger in his car died as a result of an accident... all because of a "traffic miscalculation."

 

[Bocefish]

But Z wasn't charged with disobeying a dispatcher or any of the "legal" miscalculations he made, specifically. He was responsible for someone's death BECAUSE of actions that though legal by themselves, led to a loss of life. It's called personal responsibility, ya know? Something right wingers and gun enthusiasts are constantly preaching to left wingers.

Yes Z is responsible, he pulled the trigger but soley because he felt his life was in danger.

All the other crap leading up to it doesn't matter, especially the right winger bovine excrement. If Trayvon would have minded his own business and went home like everyone says he was doing, it also never would have happened.

 

[SweepTheLeg]

And if Trayvon turned to keep walking home Zimmerman would have....kept following him instead of "minding his own business"

Has the NRA come out and said Trayvon would still be alive if he was carrying a gun, yet?

 

[Nordling]

But Z wasn't charged with disobeying a dispatcher or any of the "legal" miscalculations he made, specifically. He was responsible for someone's death BECAUSE of actions that though legal by themselves, led to a loss of life. It's called personal responsibility, ya know? Something right wingers and gun enthusiasts are constantly preaching to left wingers.

Yes Z is responsible, he pulled the trigger but soley because he felt his life was in danger.

All the other crap leading up to it doesn't matter, especially the right winger bovine excrement. If Trayvon would have minded his own business and went home like everyone says he was doing, it also never would have happened.

Ha ha! That's the most ass backwards statement I've heard. "minded HIS own business?" Zimmerman was stalking Trayvon, not the other way around. Trayvon was simply escorting some Skittles safely home. Any other scenario is fantasy.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

But Z wasn't charged with disobeying a dispatcher or any of the "legal" miscalculations he made, specifically. He was responsible for someone's death BECAUSE of actions that though legal by themselves, led to a loss of life. It's called personal responsibility, ya know? Something right wingers and gun enthusiasts are constantly preaching to left wingers.

The husband of a woman my wife worked with was found guilty of manslaughter because a passenger in his car died as a result of an accident... all because of a "traffic miscalculation."

But presumably passenger had zero responsibility for their death, assuming they were buckled up and didn't try and grab the steering wheel. The driver was completely or at least mostly responsible for the death. All Trayvon had to do was walk away instead of starting a fight with Zimmerman. So both parties bear responsibility, a jury when asked had a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was primarily responsible for the Trayvon's death, in order to be considered manslaughter.

 

[Nordling]

But Z wasn't charged with disobeying a dispatcher or any of the "legal" miscalculations he made, specifically. He was responsible for someone's death BECAUSE of actions that though legal by themselves, led to a loss of life. It's called personal responsibility, ya know? Something right wingers and gun enthusiasts are constantly preaching to left wingers.

The husband of a woman my wife worked with was found guilty of manslaughter because a passenger in his car died as a result of an accident... all because of a "traffic miscalculation."

But presumably passenger had zero responsibility for their death, assuming they were buckled up and didn't try and grab the steering wheel. The driver was completely or at least mostly responsible for the death. All Trayvon had to do was walk away instead of starting a fight with Zimmerman. So both parties bear responsibility, a jury when asked had a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was primarily responsible for the Trayvon's death, in order to be considered manslaughter.

It was never proven that Trayvon started the fight. In fact, considering their respective positions... watcher vs walker home--I tend to believe Zimmerman started the fight, then when he started to lose, he escalated to lethal.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

And if Trayvon turned to keep walking home Zimmerman would have....kept following him instead of "minding his own business"

Has the NRA come out and said Trayvon would still be alive if he was carrying a gun, yet?

Considering that cops arrived a few minutes after the fight started, it is pretty hard to argue that Trayvon would not have been alive if he walked away. Carrying a gun or not.

 

[Bocefish]

And if Trayvon turned to keep walking home Zimmerman would have....kept following him instead of "minding his own business"

It was Zimmerman's business to WATCH him, that's what the "Neighborhood WATCH" does when they see somebody they deem suspicious. They also try to keep a visual, if possible, and sometimes that also means following their movement.

Has the NRA come out and said Trayvon would still be alive if he was carrying a gun, yet?

I don't know, have they?

Trayvon was allegedly trying to illegally buy a gun though, or so say people that saw his phone pics and texts.

 

[Nordling]

And if Trayvon turned to keep walking home Zimmerman would have....kept following him instead of "minding his own business"

Has the NRA come out and said Trayvon would still be alive if he was carrying a gun, yet?

Considering that cops arrived a few minutes after the fight started, it is pretty hard to argue that Trayvon would not have been alive if he walked away. Carrying a gun or not.

If Z had stayed in his vehicle....etc. Fact remains, we don't really know that Trayvon WASN'T trying to walk away. We only have Zimmerman's assertions, and those are so conflicting with themselves, I tend to believe the dead kid.

 

[Bocefish]

It was never proven that Trayvon started the fight. In fact, considering their respective positions... watcher vs walker home--I tend to believe Zimmerman started the fight, then when he started to lose, he escalated to lethal.

The jurors thought otherwise and they had every piece of evidence and diagram at their disposal to scour over. If he was indeed just walking home, he could have made it there several times over in the time lines.

 

[JerryBoBerry]

And if Trayvon turned to keep walking home Zimmerman would have....kept following him instead of "minding his own business"

Has the NRA come out and said Trayvon would still be alive if he was carrying a gun, yet?

Considering that cops arrived a few minutes after the fight started, it is pretty hard to argue that Trayvon would not have been alive if he walked away. Carrying a gun or not.

If Z had stayed in his vehicle....etc. Fact remains, we don't really know that Trayvon WASN'T trying to walk away. We only have Zimmerman's assertions, and those are so conflicting with themselves, I tend to believe the dead kid.

During the Conceal Carry classes here in Missouri one of the films we had to watch suggested the sage advice from a legal view point. IF you have to fire a weapon to stop a threat make sure you do a double tap or better yet just empty the magazine. If it goes to court dead people make much better witnesses for your side than live ones.

 

[Nordling]

It was never proven that Trayvon started the fight. In fact, considering their respective positions... watcher vs walker home--I tend to believe Zimmerman started the fight, then when he started to lose, he escalated to lethal.

The jurors thought otherwise and they had every piece of evidence and diagram at their disposal to scour over. If he was indeed just walking home, he could have made it there several times over in the time lines.

Not if he was stopped by the "neighborhood watch captain." Who, by the way, apparently never identified himself, so Trayvon had every reason to "stand his ground."

And the jurors were not allowed to have the judge explain what manslaughter means...the defense blocked her. So, just maybe the jury doesn't agree with you.

 

[Bocefish]

It was never proven that Trayvon started the fight. In fact, considering their respective positions... watcher vs walker home--I tend to believe Zimmerman started the fight, then when he started to lose, he escalated to lethal.

The jurors thought otherwise and they had every piece of evidence and diagram at their disposal to scour over. If he was indeed just walking home, he could have made it there several times over in the time lines.

Not if he was stopped by the "neighborhood watch captain." Who, by the way, apparently never identified himself, so Trayvon had every reason to "stand his ground."

And the jurors were not allowed to have the judge explain what manslaughter means...the defense blocked her. So, just maybe the jury doesn't agree with you.

And if Zimmerman was the head of a Mars invasion it never would have happened either. Ifs and buts...

The jurors weren't blocked from knowing anything. The judge wanted them to reword their questions to avoid leading them in one direction or another. She just basically wanted a question she could answer yes or no to.

 

[Nordling]

I see. So asking what the fuck the crime the defendant was charged with means would have BIASED the jury unfairly?

As far as your Martian comment, that's just moronic. Your side keeps saying "if Trayvon had just..." when it's not at all clear he had that as an option.

 

[Bocefish]

I see. So asking what the fuck the crime the defendant was charged with means would have BIASED the jury unfairly?

They knew exactly what he was charged with in the jury instructions. Where did you hear they asked that?

As far as your Martian comment, that's just moronic. Your side keeps saying "if Trayvon had just..." when it's not at all clear he had that as an option.

lol, My side? I just say that when other people say if this or if that... The mere questions of if this or if that happened... ALL lead to reasonable doubt and acquittal.

 

[Nordling]

I see. So asking what the fuck the crime the defendant was charged with means would have BIASED the jury unfairly?

They knew exactly what he was charged with in the jury instructions. Where did you hear they asked that?

As far as your Martian comment, that's just moronic. Your side keeps saying "if Trayvon had just..." when it's not at all clear he had that as an option.

lol, My side? I just say that when other people say if this or if that... The mere questions of if this or if that happened... ALL lead to reasonable doubt and acquittal.

They knew he was charged with murder 2 and manslaughter. They asked for clarification on the specific meaning of "manslaughter." The defense blocked the judge from giving them a simple answer.

Yes, your side. You've tended to defend Zimmerman going back to last year...in the first thread. Thus..."your side."

 

[Bocefish]

The bolded portion may help answer your question. The Defense didn't block anything.

Their question was, "May we please have clarification on the instructions regarding manslaughter?"
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162- ... er-charge/
(Watch a report from CBS News correspondent Mark Strassmann at left)

As jurors awaited an answer, Judge Debra Nelson talked to lawyers at the bench and then said court would recess for a half-hour.

When attorneys returned, prosecutor Richard Mantei said that after conducting research, he would suggest asking the jurors to elaborate. Defense attorney Mark O'Mara agreed.

"Let's get clarification on their confusion," O'Mara said.

The judge then sent a note back to the jury that read: "The court can't engage in general discussion but may be able to address a specific question regarding clarification of the instructions regarding manslaughter. If you have a specific question, please submit it."

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

It was never proven that Trayvon started the fight. In fact, considering their respective positions... watcher vs walker home--I tend to believe Zimmerman started the fight, then when he started to lose, he escalated to lethal.

The burden was on the prosecution to prove that Zimmerman did start the fight beyond a reasonable doubt. The juror, that was interviewed, was convinced that based on the physical evidence, that Trayvon started the fight. I am honestly confused why you think it was Zimmerman?

 

[bawksy]

The bolded portion may help answer your question. The Defense didn't block anything.

The information you posted is common knowledge to anyone who had been following the case. Nordling's repeated completely false statements about the Defense blocking this were starting to make him look extremely foolish. It's absolutely amazing how many people have very strong opinions about this case, but can't even be bothered to learn the details. Silly comments like how Zimmerman would have still chased down Trayvon even if Trayvon had bee-lined it home show complete ignorance of the timelines proved at trial.

All of these opinions of "could have, would have, should have" are quite silly. What's the saying? Hindsight is 20/20? It's easy to sit back and say what people could and should have done. But people don't always make the smartest decisions in the heat of the moment. You can't judge them as if they had months to make the decisions they made. Juror #B37 put it extremely well when she said that GZ and TM were both responsible for their own actions. Nobody was completely innocent in this case, but those mistakes must be judged in the context of the law. And the law says that none of GM's mistakes were illegal.

It's important to note again that Trayvon Martin was not on trial. Nobody had to prove that he started the fight. Maybe TM started the fight, maybe GZ started the fight. In my opinion (and Juror #B37's opinon), TM started the fight, but we don't really know for sure. And that's EXACTLY why the correct verdict in this trial was "not guilty". There was no proof beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ provoked the fight and/or did not truly fear for his life.

 

[JerryBoBerry]

This thread gets responses faster than the Word Game thread.

 

[Just Me]

Only one side of the story.

This re-enactment of George Zimmerman shooting Trayvon Martin was videotaped by Sanford Police the day after he killed Trayvon. It was presented to the jury by the prosecution, not the defense. Some believe it was a mistake by the prosecution to show it because it essentially let George Zimmerman testify without actually having to be on the stand and face cross-examination.