37 total posts
(Page 1 of 2)
It would have been
but I'm fearful now that one of two things might happen......the jury will convict on manslaughter charges since at the last minute the judge agreed to give the instruction for that.....or the jury will come back with 'not guilty' and the biased judge will overturn it and give a judicial conviction of manslaughter. She's been pretty hateful toward the defense, so I'm not trusting her. If she doesn't have that ability, I'm not sure if she can throw out the jury verdict and call a mistrial and force the prosecution into a corner of trying him again. If it's a manslaughter verdict, it will immediately go to appeal based on judicial bias, I believe.
A bit different opinion
I don't see as much room for judicial bias as you. I did with the previous judge. I think the defense could have made more objections at certain points. For one I'd have asked the term "profiled" not be allowed use in the courtroom since it has taken on the only slightly veiled connotation of "racist". I would also have asked for a judicial ruling on the term "child" as opposed to use of "young man" or "teenager" since Trayvon was near or at legal majority age. We know that 17 and even younger have been charged and convicted in courts as "adults" at times. The term "child" did not apply to him at all, and was prejudicially used by the prosecution to a fault. The emotionalism allowed in the court seemed beyond the pale too. Too the good for Zimmerman, I think the prosecution undid themselves in closing arguments by brow beating the jury, as if trying to "whip them into line". Of course the jury is supposed to ignore that, but if I was a juror it would be a signal to me the prosecution felt they were losing or felt their position was weak. Many have commented on the sarcasm used over and over again by the prosecution, especially near the trial's end, which is a tactic many losers use when the facts are not on their side, sort of a coverup tactic. There's only one juror I worry might decide to go stubborn in spite of the facts, the one recently moved there from Chicago with 8 or 9 children. She may have moved from Chicago because she was tired of the violence and constant fear there in that city, so it's possible she will understand the situation Zimmerman was facing, but I think she's the wild card in the jury.
I'm glad someone else saw what I saw in the judge
Perhaps it's her duty to make sure the state gets every possible advantage but her bias was so blatantly obvious that, if I was on the jury panel, I'd probably complain about being denied important details that could aid in decision making. It seemed that the prosecution was given a pass in presenting any small event in GZs past that could paint him as being capable of becoming violent but TM was was protected from allowing the defense to do the same. Personally, I don't see much relevance in either case.
I found myself to be very interested in the forensic evidence, however. That was educational. I think that the lack of blood on TM's hands from GZ's nose could be easily explained though I don't know if anyone brought this up. If he's on the ground and the blow to the nose was very recent, the blood may not have been heavily flowing in the first seconds and would only exit the nostrils upon his standing up. That should be obvious. Another piece of evidence I didn't hear explained was the lack of bruising on TM's knuckles and possibly the same from any blows landed by ZM. Since bruising is really a part of the healing process that doesn't appear right away...sometimes hours...this is a no brainer. If TM's blood flow stopped within a couple of minutes, no bruise would have become visible. They'd need to remove skin and do a microscopic examination for damaged capillaries I'd think. As well, any body bruises would need to be found the same way. His darker skin wasn't a help either. If I was the lawyer for either side, I'd want to press that issue to see if the medical examiner missed anything.
They have done all they can since it began
with the arrest to stack the deck against Zimmerman, with much of the media backing it. Just an example of what today a high tech lynching looks like.
If the jury sincerely believes GZ is guilty,
they should find him guilty without hesitation. Conversely, if they feel there has been no absolute proof of guilt, they should not hesitate to say so. Our design has been to let a criminal go free rather than put an innocent person in prison. My concern with this case needs to be that this jury probably saw the reaction to GZ not being immediately incarcerated and will act with fear for their own safety and the safety of others should they not find him guilty and might offer GZ as a sacrifice to prevent further carnage. Knowing that an appeal would be likely, it would be an easy way to wash one's hands of any blood and kick the can out of their own way. I hate being that cynical but I've certainly seen enough evidence to express a loss of faith in our justice system.
Hopefully they'll have more guts
than Pontius Pilate did. Too many people throughout history have been sacrificed on the altar of the mob.
Something else that
wasn't brought up very effectively, I don't think, regarding the lack of blood was that it was raining.....rain would have washed away blood on TM's hands pretty quickly. Something the defense did bring up was two pictures showing blood on TM's shirt in one and no blood on the other......probably because of the rain, too....but it wasn't brought up as effectively as it could have been. I can only hope that most, if not all, of the jurors caught that information. I do like the fact that they almost immediately requested a complete list of all of the evidence/inventory so they could get everything in a semblance of order which makes them pretty savvy about wanting to be as organized as possible during deliberations and any debating that is probably going on. I think that speaks extremely well of this particular jury compared to some we've seen during a televised trial.
Something else that Z's attorney brought out during closing statements, but didn't refer back to TM's girlfriend's statement that would have hammered it home..........TM told her he was being 'followed'; she told him to run; but instead of taking that long four minutes to actually follow that advice and run back to the home he was originally headed to (which would have taken under 30 seconds to do and in the dark where Z wouldn't have been able to know where he went), he hung around and eventually met up with Z. So.......if Z was 'stalking' and targeting him as the prosecution has upheld over and over and accusing Z of being the one who manipulated the whole situation, TM could have easily diffused it all by disappearing into the night and no confrontation would have taken place at all.
I doubt anything but a gully washer
would have removed all detectable blood from Martin's hands had he any on them. However, I'm fairly certain that water will cause osmolysis of red cells thus destroying them. Of course red cells have no nucleus so there's no DNA evidence available from them. The white cells would have DNA but are relatively few in number. They did find traces of blood in various locations on clothing and it seemed to all be Zimmerman's.
What I think is more reasonable is that GZ didn't have blood coming from his nose until he was able to get up. If he was on his back and screaming, he'd be breathing in through both nose and mouth but exhaling through the mouth with his screaming. Ones pharyngeal flap tends to block air from exiting the nostrils at that time. Any blood was probably just capillary seepage and would be drawn backward while inhaling. It would run down by gravity after he stood up.
Of course that's just my explanation as to why Martin's hands were not bloody but I don't know if any of the lawyers or expert witnesses brought this up. I was available for consult but neither called to ask my thoughts.
they didn't bag Trayvon's hands
I wish the hoodie evidence hadn't been corrupted due to putting in a biohazard bag instead of a paper bag, and then not properly taken and dried out in time to avoid the inevitable decay that happens to wet evidence at room temperature in a plastic bag. Was there gunpower residue on the hoodie sleeves and Trayvon's hands which would have proven they were near the gun during the discharge, backing up Zimmerman's statement there was a struggle over the gun. I do remember the claim of "stipling" indicating powder burn on the hoodie, which means a very close shot.
Zimmerman didn't get out of his SUV till he didn't see the person. That, above all, indicates Zimmerman was not trying to confront anyone, that he was actually avoiding personal confrontation, and therefore was surprised when Trayvon hid and doubled back on him. Zimmerman had ample opportunity previously to jump out of his vehicle and chase Trayvon if a confrontation is what he wanted.
The gun was said to have been against the clothing
so TM would not have had powder on his hands. The stippling or tattooing refers to skin having powder embedded in it. The tattooing was about 2" in diameter. The forensic expert said this makes the gun about 2-4" from the skin. This means the sweatshirt and hooding were sagging downward and that places Martin on top. If a gun is pressed against the skin, the full discharge of gases is released into the body cavity and that creates a massive amount of damage. When someone commits suicide by placing a gun to their own head, not much is left of what's inside. It's the not the bullet that kills them but the huge amount of expanding gas from the burning gunpowder which turn the brain into cerebral puree.
As for this case in Fl., I don't see Zimmerman as guilty but neither were his actions one of a hero. How he handled his suspicions about TM are probably just more evidence that he's not good law enforcement officer material. What I think is important to learn from this is that law enforcement is not adequate to meet the needs of the honest citizens who are concerned for their own safety as well as those of their friends and neighbors. GZ seems to be that type of citizen. This may have been the only time he was wrong in his suspicions about a person wandering about in his neighborhood and a darn shame it ended as it did. I'm sure the media will make sure this becomes a very large black mark on the concept of neighborhood watch groups.
Compare gated neighborhoods to condominiums
A condominium has controlled entry and anyone going into such a complex who doesn't live there should be expecting to possibly be challenged as to their right to be there, either by a resident or a hired security person. Why is not a gated community given the same approach? Why not one that advertises and has on duty a neighborhood watch program? Should only condominiums have rights about controlled entry?
About the only thing the prosecution
didn't try to challenge GZ on was why he continued to live where he did. After all, had he just moved to somewhere in N.D. or Montana where break-ins are fewer, none of this would have happened.
As someone here thinks I should move to.
"TM told her he was being 'followed'; she told him to run; but instead of taking that long four minutes to actually follow that advice and run back to the home he was originally headed to (which would have taken under 30 seconds to do and in the dark where Z wouldn't have been able to know where he went), he hung around and eventually met up with Z."
The reason is because Trayvon was profiling Zimmerman. He was lying in wait for Zimmerman. Trayvon, as we have discovered, was a wannabe gangsta. When Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and was on foot, and soon as Trayvon realized Zimmerman was no longer on phone with someone, realized Zimmeran was shorter than him, THAT'S when Trayvon decided it was time to attack. Trayvon wasn't trying to get away at that point, he'd become enraged that someone was following him.
It's a big relief
I just heard the president of the NAACP said he was outraged over the verdict. Maybe later something on the web quoting him. Zimmerman is free from prosecution now and can't face double jeopardy later on it, which is even better now than just having charges dropped which could have been brought again, years later. He's still not completely free since he's a target for a lot of hate filled wackos now. Hopefully, eventually, he will be forgotten by most of those currently enraged over the "not guilty" and can enjoy his freedom more, again.
Here it is
"Today, justice failed Trayvon Martin and his family," said Roslyn M. Brock, Chairman of the NAACP in a statement. "We call immediately for the Justice Department to conduct an investigation into the civil rights violations committed against Trayvon Martin. This case has re-energized the movement to end racial profiling in the United States."
"We are outraged and heartbroken over today's verdict," said Benjamin Todd Jealous, President and CEO of the NAACP, in another statement. "We stand with Trayvon's family and we are called to act. We will pursue civil rights charges with the Department of Justice, we will continue to fight for the removal of Stand Your Ground laws in every state, and we will not rest until racial profiling in all its forms is outlawed."
Why is it ?
when O.J. was found not guilty they rejoiced, What about justice for Nicole. And Ron? That was truly justice denied, I just wish people would get over these rulings and quit threatening to get justice on their own.
That was also a travesty
Both verdicts were travesties.
If Zimmerman was black and his victim was white, he'd be on his way to prison right now.
Kind of strange
that you would say that in response to a post regarding OJ being black, both victims were white, and he was set free (rightly or wrongly) which contradicts your statement right off the bat.
And for the umpteenth time (heheheh re: other post), Zimmerman isn't white......or don't you see it that way?
You have to look within the context of their communities
OJ was acquitted by a largely minority jury in the immediate wake of the Rodney King riots, when there was a lot of animosity towards white cops.
Zimmerman was acquitted by a mostly white jury in a very pro-NRA community.
No contradiction at all.
so why didn't the state's attorney's insist on blacks being on the jury? Now that Z was has been aquitted the black community say's the decision was racist and there's gonna be a lot of hoopla about that now.
If you're going to look at context
then you also have to look at who didn't run to the house, Josh, when he had lots of time to do that under cover of darkness and the rain. Someone landed the first blow, and it wasn't Z who had his gun out already and was hunting down M. Someone made the decision to have a confrontation....and if Z was armed, and he was the hunter, you would think that gun would have been drawn at the ready. M was already gone and had disappeared......why would he have doubled back if he hadn't made the decision that he was bigger and stronger and thought Z was 'wimpy' enough that M could intimidate him. If Z was actually 'assuming' as the prosecution contends that M was a criminal, you would think that Z, with a gun handy, would have been prepared to protect himself early in the game by drawing that weapon since he had no way of knowing if M was also armed.
You are still attempting to make this a race issue, when there is nothing in Z's past history to indicate he is anything even close to being a racist......he mentored black kids, he took a black girl to his prom, etc. All of that was looked at by the FBI during their initial investigation to see if M's civil rights were violated, and they walked away knowing that isn't what happened. The NAACP requests now are as bogus as they were before, and if this DOJ doesn't want another scandal, they will refuse to be pressured.......but then again, we have that jerk Holder heading that up, so who knows how far he'll be willing to take this since the M family now has over a million dollars to fight with.
Yeah but he's Hispanic
I still don't understand how this has been turned into a black/white thing
He's 1/2 Hispanic
and a person with one black and one white parent is still black. I don't get it either.
I don't hear anyone calling the POTUS black/white
The POTUS doesn't even share the same
heritage as those we term as African-Americans. There are even articles out there (easy to find) that Obama's Kenyan ancestors may have been slave traders. We know that tribal wars meant lots of captured people whose fate was either to be killed, enslaved or sold. Arabs were said to have possibly initiated the African export of slaves to other parts of the world while they were advancing the religion of Islam by the sword.
I haven't done much searching for
the actual history of slavery, but I recall from a few years ago (possibly even here in SE) that the authorities in power in Africa were the ones who took money and other goods from 'pirates'/traders of other countries, including America and England, and actually began the procedure/practice of selling off their own people. Supply and demand and greed prevailed above everything else, including fellow human beings.
I seem to recall
Portugal and Spain having a lot to do with slave trading too
There are some gruesome facts about the rules of
war and what the outcome was for the losers. In some cases, either the ruler surrendered or the entire town was automatically subject to slaughter. A better outcome would be surrender in which the king was killed but the townspeople subject to becoming slaves. Slave labor was important to the powerful. Who was it that manned the oars of the warships but slaves. Tribal wars in Africa were brutal affairs and selling the conquered into slavery to both get rid of them as well as turn a profit made better economic sense than just killing them. I'm sure you've read or hear stories suggesting that slaves brought to this country were often the lucky ones as they'd otherwise have been killed. That's not going to play well so I'd not pass it off as fact.
Back to Speakeasy forum
(Page 1 of 2)