Juror: Zimmerman Got Away With Murder

[Shiranu]

From day 1 the results were...

3 innocent
2 manslaughter
1 second degree murder

That's not 6/6.

And of the ones that have come out, 1 said she was completely right in voting innocent (thanks to "un-presented evidence") and the other thinks she got it wrong. Thats 2/6, not 1/6. Still a terrible ratio, though to declare someone innocent or guilty.

I'm glad that criminal cases aren't decided by ratios or majority vote like American Idol.

A. A pro-Zimmerman brought the ratio's up, not me.

B. It IS suppose to be unanimous, which makes the fact he was found innocent on a 3/2/1 vote a little weird. Of course, so is the 6 man jury. And the fact they weren't properly sequestered. And the fact that one of the innocent votes outright admits that she came to this conclusion out "outside of court" evidence and her husband's opinion (who were going to get a nice book deal off of it). And the fact that the law wasn't applied evenly to both parties involved. And that the court had been lied to multiple times by the only eye witness and yet he was taken as a credible source. And said eye witness had a bit of a conflict of interest, since he was the one who was being tried and had motivation to make himself appear innocent. And...

But to address your ratio part again... um... wut?

A. You argue we should respect the jury's decision, because they had "all the evidence".
B. You then argue that it's a good thing the jury doesn't vote by ratios because "it would be like American Idol", which therefor implies the jury is incompetent and it's just a popularity contest.

My god, the contradictions that have been used (A. "He should have ran if he was scared!" B. "If he wasn't a criminal, he shouldn't have ran! Therefor he is a criminal!", A. "Zimmerman had a right to defend himself because he felt threatened!" B. "Treyvon didn't have a right to defend himself because we don't know if he felt threatened!", A. "Believe everything the jury says!", B. "The jury is just a popularity contest!".).

[LikelyToBreak]

I spent the better part of two days watching part of the trial on YouTube.  I don't see how the jurors could have found Zimmerman guilty.  The press found Zimmerman guilty, from day one.   And presented their case in a very biased matter.

The press didn't like that, 1. Zimmerman killed a black youth.  2. Zimmerman carried a gun.  3. Zimmerman was part of a neighborhood watch program.  4. Zimmerman fought back.

The prosecutors were probably guilty of misconduct.  Which should have gotten the case thrown out of court.  And something prosecutors all over the country seem to be guilty of more and more.

The jurors are now having public remorse, because they fear for their lives.  Which nobody wants to admit to.  Otherwise, they too would be risking harm and appearing to be racist.  Which shows where the real racism is coming from.  That is. from those people who feel they have to side with minorities or if they are a minority, their own minority.  

This is part of the reason I am a misanthropist.  People will not even try to disregard their own biases  and prejudices against or for others before coming to conclusions, which they keep regardless of the evidence presented.

[Nonsensei]

From day 1 the results were...

3 innocent
2 manslaughter
1 second degree murder

That's not 6/6.

And of the ones that have come out, 1 said she was completely right in voting innocent (thanks to "un-presented evidence") and the other thinks she got it wrong. Thats 2/6, not 1/6. Still a terrible ratio, though to declare someone innocent or guilty.

My point was they all voted for an acquittal, and then as soon as they get out most of them see the current of public opinion and are like "oh woe is me I was forced to let that evil man go". I call bullshit on that. What a perfect example of why sequestration is crucial.

[Johan]

Stand your ground would not have protected Martin at all. He would have been found guilty of attacking and murdering Zimmerman had he won the altercation, and no claims of feeling threatened would have kept him out of jail. All because he attacked first and did it against someone who had yet to actually do anything illegal.

Well first of all there is no way to know if Martin would have killed Zimmerman. So your claim that he would have been charged with murder is a little premature to say the least.  But according to the the Florida statute, there is no requirement for the other person to attack you first. There is only a requirement for you to believe that you're about to be attacked.

776.012?Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force.

Use of the word imminent is key here. It doesn't say that its ok to defend yourself after the attack has started. It says its ok to defend yourself when the attack is imminent i.e. before it actually starts. If a stranger is following you and then approaches you, it would seem reasonable for an average person to assume that person intends to do you harm would it not?

[Nonsensei]

Stand your ground would not have protected Martin at all. He would have been found guilty of attacking and murdering Zimmerman had he won the altercation, and no claims of feeling threatened would have kept him out of jail. All because he attacked first and did it against someone who had yet to actually do anything illegal.

Well first of all there is no way to know if Martin would have killed Zimmerman. So your claim that he would have been charged with murder is a little premature to say the least.  But according to the the Florida statute, there is no requirement for the other person to attack you first. There is only a requirement for you to believe that you're about to be attacked.

776.012?Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force.

Use of the word imminent is key here. It doesn't say that its ok to defend yourself after the attack has started. It says its ok to defend yourself when the attack is imminent i.e. before it actually starts. If a stranger is following you and then approaches you, it would seem reasonable for an average person to assume that person intends to do you harm would it not?

I dunno. Can you really claim someone "approached" you if you were lying in wait for him? I still believe that to be the case, because the man with the gun was all fucked up and that doesn't happen unless the man without the gun got him by surprise.

And as I explained before, Martin's belief that Zimmerman was out to get him would have to be legally reasonable. I think it's a tough sell to say that Zimmerman following and approaching Martin is reason enough for martin to assault him because it sets a pretty ridiculous precedent for other situations.

[Johan]

I dunno. Can you really claim someone "approached" you if you were lying in wait for him?

Recorded phone conversations prove that no one took anyone by surprise. They were both in sight of one another and exchanging words before they approached. So your laying in wait business is out the window right there.

I think it's a tough sell to say that Zimmerman following and approaching Martin is reason enough for martin to assault him because it sets a pretty ridiculous precedent for other situations.

Ridiculous laws have a way of setting ridiculous precedents.

[PopeyesPappy]

Recorded phone conversations prove that no one took anyone by surprise. They were both in sight of one another and exchanging words before they approached. So your laying in wait business is out the window right there.

What recorded phone conversation are you alluding to?

[LikelyToBreak]

Johan wrote in part:

If a stranger is following you and then approaches you, it would seem reasonable for an average person to assume that person intends to do you harm would it not?

No.  I have been followed many times before and the people never meant me any harm.  They were usually just looking for directions or other information.  A couple of times they thought I was someone they knew.

Also, the gun was concealed, so that is not a good argument for attacking someone.  And even if it was not concealed completely, it would be a reasonable assumption to think that they were either an off duty or non-uniformed police officer.  Not good to attack them either.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

Recorded phone conversations prove that no one took anyone by surprise. They were both in sight of one another and exchanging words before they approached. So your laying in wait business is out the window right there.

What recorded phone conversation are you alluding to?

[youtube:z0cf3g9p]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8DemEfSHWA[/youtube:z0cf3g9p]

Seriously, how do you follow this case and not know about this?

[PopeyesPappy]

Seriously, how do you follow this case and not know about this?

The only recorded telephone conversation was Zimmerman's call to 911. That call ended shortly after Zimmerman told the dispatcher he had lost Martin.

According to  Rachel Jeantel this was about the time Trayvon told her he had evaded Zimmerman. Later she said Trayvon told her Zimmerman was coming closer. No mention that Zimmerman had found him. No mention that they were exchanging words.

Then according to her

Martin asked, "Why are you following me?"
Zimmerman replied, "What are you doing here?"
Followed by a profanity issued by Martin. Then phone being dropped, and sounds of someone calling for help.

How does the above support in any way the statement? "Recorded phone conversations prove that no one took anyone by surprise. They were both in sight of one another and exchanging words before they approached. So your laying in wait business is out the window right there."

[Nonsensei]

Recorded phone conversations prove that no one took anyone by surprise. They were both in sight of one another and exchanging words before they approached. So your laying in wait business is out the window right there.

What recorded phone conversation are you alluding to?

[youtube:1dutnlx7]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8DemEfSHWA[/youtube:1dutnlx7]

Seriously, how do you follow this case and not know about this?

Really? I was expecting a recording of the conversation that ended with martin being assaulted, not his girlfriend's assertions and TYT's predictable spin. This woman is an admitted liar. I can't find any reference to this conversation on the wikipedia timeline of events. AFAIK Martin was on the phone with her a full 15 minutes before being shot.

[LikelyToBreak]

Someone in the video stated something like, "The police had already decided that this guy was innocent."  But, let's take the press's side on this, other than the evidence presented in court.  

The witnesses said they heard a voice talking, then a couple of minutes later, they heard two voices.  Which backs up Zimmerman's assertion that he was walking over to another street to see if there was a street sign, then walking back towards his truck.  He was not running Martin down, as the press report.  

Rachel Jeantel was the prosecution's star witness.  Unfortunately, she became the defense's star witness.  She said something like, "Trayvon, said there is a crazy ass cracker following me."  Which shows racism on the part of Martin, not Zimmerman.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

Seriously, how do you follow this case and not know about this?

The only recorded telephone conversation was Zimmerman's call to 911. That call ended shortly after Zimmerman told the dispatcher he had lost Martin.

According to  Rachel Jeantel this was about the time Trayvon told her he had evaded Zimmerman. Later she said Trayvon told her Zimmerman was coming closer. No mention that Zimmerman had found him. No mention that they were exchanging words.

Then according to her

Martin asked, "Why are you following me?"
Zimmerman replied, "What are you doing here?"
Followed by a profanity issued by Martin. Then phone being dropped, and sounds of someone calling for help.

How does the above support in any way the statement? "Recorded phone conversations prove that no one took anyone by surprise. They were both in sight of one another and exchanging words before they approached. So your laying in wait business is out the window right there."

I didn't say it was good evidence, I'm just surprised you didn't know about it.

[PopeyesPappy]

I didn't say it was good evidence, I'm just surprised you didn't know about it.

The problem is I did know about it. Trayvon and Dee Dee's telephone conversation was not recorded. What we know about it comes from her testimony. Other than the exact words exchanged between Trayvon and Zimmerman her account does not differ significantly from Zimmerman's. There is nothing in her account that suggests Zimmerman was lying when he reported that Martin came out of hiding and confronted him as he was returning to his truck.

[Johan]

Recorded phone conversations prove that no one took anyone by surprise. They were both in sight of one another and exchanging words before they approached. So your laying in wait business is out the window right there.

What recorded phone conversation are you alluding to?

I was mistaken. I was thinking of the conversation between Martin and his friend. I seemed to recall there was a recording of that conversation but looking now I see I was mistaken. My bad.